108 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
108 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
# Article Architecture
|
|
|
|
Use this reference when writing or rebuilding manuscript sections. The patterns
|
|
come from curated Nature and Nature Communications examples across materials,
|
|
energy, construction decarbonization and machine learning. They are structural
|
|
patterns, not wording templates.
|
|
|
|
## Full-paper argument
|
|
|
|
A strong paper can usually be reduced to:
|
|
|
|
`field-scale need -> unresolved bottleneck -> proposed move -> decisive evidence
|
|
-> broader implication -> boundary`
|
|
|
|
Before drafting, force the user's material into this chain. If one link is
|
|
missing, mark it as missing rather than writing around it.
|
|
|
|
## Abstract
|
|
|
|
Recommended paragraph movement:
|
|
|
|
1. Field-scale context or problem.
|
|
2. Why current routes do not fully solve it.
|
|
3. What this paper introduces or demonstrates.
|
|
4. The strongest result, preferably with quantitative or comparative support.
|
|
5. The mechanism, workflow or practical consequence.
|
|
6. Bounded implication.
|
|
|
|
Useful diagnostics:
|
|
|
|
- If the abstract begins with `Here, we`, it may be missing context.
|
|
- If it ends with a broad promise, it may need scope control.
|
|
- If it contains no number, comparison or concrete test, it may feel ungrounded.
|
|
|
|
## Introduction
|
|
|
|
Use a controlled funnel:
|
|
|
|
1. Establish the field stake.
|
|
2. Explain the bottleneck in existing practice.
|
|
3. Treat prior work fairly and specifically.
|
|
4. Identify the remaining capability gap.
|
|
5. State the present study as a direct response to that gap.
|
|
|
|
Avoid:
|
|
|
|
- a literature list without a narrowing logic
|
|
- claiming novelty by dismissing prior work
|
|
- announcing results before the reader understands the question
|
|
|
|
## Results
|
|
|
|
Arrange Results as an evidence ladder:
|
|
|
|
1. system, workflow or design space overview
|
|
2. validation that the platform or assay is credible
|
|
3. primary performance or discovery result
|
|
4. fair comparison with baseline, standard practice or prior method
|
|
5. mechanism, diagnostic analysis or interpretability
|
|
6. scale-up, application, generalization or stress test
|
|
|
|
Subsection opening rule:
|
|
|
|
`To test [question], we [action].`
|
|
|
|
Then report the result and evidence. Keep interpretation short unless the
|
|
paragraph explicitly transitions toward Discussion.
|
|
|
|
## Discussion
|
|
|
|
Discussion should widen from finding to meaning:
|
|
|
|
1. central advance
|
|
2. why the evidence supports it
|
|
3. how it changes a workflow, design rule or conceptual boundary
|
|
4. how it relates to previous studies
|
|
5. what limits or dependencies remain
|
|
6. what future work is now plausible
|
|
|
|
Do not restate every figure. Select the evidence that changes interpretation.
|
|
|
|
## Conclusion
|
|
|
|
Use a compact four-part close:
|
|
|
|
1. This work demonstrates or establishes the main contribution.
|
|
2. The decisive evidence is named.
|
|
3. The broader implication is stated.
|
|
4. The boundary condition is clear.
|
|
|
|
Conclusions should not introduce new data, new citations or new mechanisms.
|
|
|
|
## Title
|
|
|
|
Good titles are concrete and searchable:
|
|
|
|
`system/object + capability/action + application/consequence`
|
|
|
|
Examples of title logic:
|
|
|
|
- material plus function
|
|
- method plus task
|
|
- process plus scale
|
|
- model plus data regime
|
|
|
|
Avoid vague prestige words such as `novel`, `advanced`, `powerful`, `green`,
|
|
`efficient` unless they are made concrete by the rest of the title.
|