Usually, scientific papers are structured in the following subsections: (1) title, (2) name of authors and their affiliation(s), (3) keywords, (4) graphical abstract, (5) abstract, (6) introduction, (7) experimental part, (8) results and discussion, (9) conclusions, (10) acknowledgements, (11) references, (12) list of figure captions, (13) figures. Most journals offer publication of ‘supporting information’ (or ‘supplementary material’): these supplements are not part of the main paper, but usually constitute a depository for data, figures, tables, mathematical derivations, etc. which the reader may like to consult for a deeper understanding, which, however, are not vital for a general understanding of the paper. I always prefer to put as much as possible into the main paper, and restrict supplementary information to items which are really of less significance. Many journals provide templates, which you should use. In these templates, the order of items may differ from that given above. You should always adhere strictly to the guidelines of the journal. Some details relating to the subsections of a paper are described below.

The title is the entrance door to your paper. Reading the title, many people make the decision whether to enter the document or walk away. According to Thomson’s Web of Science, about 27% of natural science papers are uncited after 5 years, most likely because they are unread, or undiscovered by search engines. To attract interest, the title of a paper needs to be as short as possible, but as long as necessary. It should also contain some searchable terms for easy computer recognition. Certainly, the title also needs to indicate the very essence of the paper. Prior to the advent of computers, it was customary to use titles like “Studies in phosphorus chemistry. Part XII.”! What on earth does that tell you? Nothing about the specific contents, that’s for sure. Luckily, the time of such absurdities is over.

Phrasing the title of a scientific paper is hard work, and usually the final choice will emerge only after long consideration. It is my personal view that authors should think about the title at the very beginning of writing a manuscript. Since the title reveals the essence, a well-chosen title can set the tone for the entire manuscript. And it goes without saying that the title can still be modified many times as the manuscript mutates into its final form.

Most journals request a list of keywords. These are important for the classification of the paper in information systems. Think about the terms that best characterise the content of your paper. However, try to avoid newly created terms or abbreviations. Although an overlap between title terms and keywords is unavoidable, the latter should provide additional information.

Following the title, the abstract is the most important device for attracting the attention of readers. Personally, I have always advocated writing the first draft of the abstract before writing the remainder of the text. This forces the author to identify the principal achievements at an early stage. Like the title, the abstract needs to be as short as possible and as long as necessary. Its function is to summarize all the main results. I know that many experienced colleagues disagree with my suggestion of writing the first draft of the abstract before writing the main body of the text. However, my suggestion is not meant to be an apodictic rule. You must find out what best suits you.

Drafting the title and abstract at an early stage presupposes that you already have a clear picture of your achievement. If you do not have that clear picture, then a good suggestion is to arrange all your diagrams and tables in a logical sequence, and then write the text around that.

The abstract needs to contain as much quantitative information as possible. If you have new and significant data, give them in the abstract!

The introduction should state the motivation and the aim of the presented research and refer to all relevant literature. If the paper is intended for a specialised journal, avoid rehashing simple textbook knowledge, as you can assume that expert readers will already be acquainted with it. In more general journals, some wider introductory remarks may be necessary.

When you discuss earlier works in your field, do not focus purely on their shortcomings. Make sure that you acknowledge their achievements. Be fair in your presentation. Cite all relevant papers, at least the most important ones. Do not overcite your own papers.

At the end of the introduction, state what you have achieved and what you will present in the paper. Do not repeat the abstract. This is important for the entire paper: avoid repetitions!

This part should contain sufficient experimental details (chemicals, instruments, methods, etc.) for your work to be reproduced in another laboratory. If certain procedures or techniques have previously been published by you, or others, you may refer to those papers without repeating the details. However, the reference has to be accessible. I have seen papers in which the author wrote “the technique is described in Ref. X”. When reading Ref. X, I found the remark “the technique is described in Ref. Y”, and so forth until I gave up searching! This is unacceptable.

In the past, many journals have demanded that the results and discussion be reported separately. Some journals still demand this. Especially in the case of highly multidisciplinary work it is necessary to present first the results of the different disciplines, followed by a joint discussion referring to all the disciplines. However, if possible, I advocate providing the results and discussion simultaneously, since the combined text is easier to understand.

The most important point in writing the results and discussion section is logical consistency. The most frequently seen weakness appears when authors forego logical consistency and instead provide a chronological history of their experiments. This is often copied from laboratory notebooks. One then finds phrases like “first we thought that x may be the reason for y, and we performed the following experiments… then it turned out that y has nothing to do with x, and we supposed that z might cause the observed effect. Then we did this, and later we did that, and in the end…”. Such historical summaries are extremely tedious for the reader, and may even be misleading.

In results and discussion, it is essential to illustrate the results with clear reference to figures and tables, and to arrange the results within a logical framework. Figures, having captions, and tables, having headings, should be understandable without reading the detailed text.

The most frequent fault is the copying of an abstract, or the minor modification of an abstract, without any reference to the context of the results. The abstract does not require justification of the work: the conclusions certainly do. The conclusions have to provide new insight into a field of research, and this must be explained. The best writers will also indulge in some speculations about future work. These should open the readers’ eyes to novel and unexpected applications of the findings.

When you have finished writing a manuscript, leave it for some time untouched, and then read it again after some days or weeks. You will discover that a fresh reading reveals flaws, repetitions, typos, etc., which you missed the first time around. You should also use that time to circulate the document among trusted friends and colleagues who may act as internal reviewers before external submission. You will be surprised what typos your friends find! The blindness of authors to their own typos is legendary. The modern spellcheckers of computer systems do not prevent all typos, but they are helpful. (They may even introduce further errors, if you are not attentive).