149 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
149 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
# Writing Strategy
|
|
|
|
Use this file when the user is not just asking for cleaner English, but for better scientific writing logic. This is the layer that should govern all paragraph- and section-level rewriting.
|
|
|
|
## Core stance
|
|
|
|
Academic polishing is not only about style. It is also about making the reasoning legible. A polished paragraph that still performs the wrong rhetorical job is a failed edit.
|
|
|
|
## Hourglass structure
|
|
|
|
Most strong research writing follows a `broad -> narrow -> broad` pattern:
|
|
|
|
- `Introduction`: open the territory, narrow to the gap, then state the study
|
|
- `Discussion/Conclusion`: start from the specific findings, then widen to implications and limits
|
|
|
|
Use this pattern when deciding paragraph order and section scope. If a draft jumps between background, results, and implications without control, rebuild the progression first.
|
|
|
|
## Writing order is not reading order
|
|
|
|
The author may draft in one order and the reader may consume in another. A useful planning sequence is:
|
|
|
|
1. results
|
|
2. introduction and conclusion
|
|
3. title
|
|
4. discussion
|
|
5. methods
|
|
6. abstract
|
|
|
|
The practical rule for this skill is simple: organize around evidence and argumentative function, not around the chronology of the raw draft.
|
|
|
|
## Claim, evidence, boundary
|
|
|
|
Every important scientific statement should have three parts:
|
|
|
|
1. `claim`: what is being said
|
|
2. `evidence`: what supports it
|
|
3. `boundary`: where the claim stops, or what uncertainty remains
|
|
|
|
Typical failures:
|
|
|
|
- claim without evidence
|
|
- data without an explicit point
|
|
- implication without a scope condition
|
|
- correlation rewritten as mechanism
|
|
|
|
When polishing, repair these failures before polishing rhythm.
|
|
|
|
## Section responsibilities
|
|
|
|
### Introduction
|
|
|
|
The Introduction should answer four questions:
|
|
|
|
1. What is already known?
|
|
2. What remains unresolved?
|
|
3. What exact question does this study ask?
|
|
4. How does the study address it?
|
|
|
|
Do not summarize results or conclusions here.
|
|
|
|
### Results
|
|
|
|
Results state what was observed. They should provide:
|
|
|
|
- object or system
|
|
- condition
|
|
- quantitative support
|
|
- direct result
|
|
|
|
Do not turn Results into a Discussion section by adding long mechanistic interpretation.
|
|
|
|
### Discussion
|
|
|
|
Discussion explains what the findings mean. It should address:
|
|
|
|
- how the work fits the broader field
|
|
- what has been added to understanding
|
|
- which earlier work is being supported, revised, or complicated
|
|
- which explanations are plausible
|
|
- which limitations constrain the interpretation
|
|
|
|
Discussion is the natural home for hedging.
|
|
|
|
### Methods
|
|
|
|
Methods should pass a reproducibility test: could another group repeat the work from this description, or from this description plus a clearly cited prior protocol?
|
|
|
|
Reject vague writing such as:
|
|
|
|
- `under standard conditions`
|
|
- `using routine methods`
|
|
- `data were analysed statistically`
|
|
|
|
### Conclusion
|
|
|
|
Conclusion is not a mini-discussion. A strong closing usually does three things:
|
|
|
|
1. restates the central contribution
|
|
2. identifies the decisive evidence
|
|
3. states the implication with a boundary
|
|
|
|
Do not introduce new data here.
|
|
|
|
### Abstract
|
|
|
|
The abstract is a mini-paper:
|
|
|
|
1. context or problem
|
|
2. gap
|
|
3. approach
|
|
4. key result
|
|
5. implication
|
|
|
|
It should help the reader decide whether the paper is relevant, credible, and potentially important.
|
|
|
|
## Citation as positioning
|
|
|
|
Citation is not just a formatting issue. It tells the reader how the current work stands relative to earlier work.
|
|
|
|
Useful categories:
|
|
|
|
- `support`: prior work supports the premise
|
|
- `borrow`: current work adopts a method, framework, or protocol
|
|
- `contrast`: current work differs in result, setting, or interpretation
|
|
- `reuse/adaptation`: material, data, code, or images come from elsewhere
|
|
|
|
Always cite the source actually read and verified. Do not cite a paper as direct support if you only know it through another paper's summary.
|
|
|
|
## Fairness to earlier work
|
|
|
|
Do not manufacture novelty by flattening previous studies into a weak baseline. Prefer language like:
|
|
|
|
- `Although previous studies showed ..., their performance in ... remains unclear.`
|
|
- `Earlier work established ..., but did not address ...`
|
|
|
|
This preserves intellectual honesty while still making the gap explicit.
|
|
|
|
## Overclaim control
|
|
|
|
Watch for:
|
|
|
|
- `prove`
|
|
- `conclusively`
|
|
- `unprecedented`
|
|
- `best`
|
|
- unqualified `first`
|
|
|
|
Replace or qualify them unless the evidence is unusually strong and the scope is tightly defined.
|