Scientific writing and publishing for early-career researchers from the perspective of young chemists

---

Abstract

Writing and publishing present an integrated part of the scientific enterprise. This process often poses challenges, particularly for students without prior scientific writing experience, while regular study programs often overlook the importance of the subject. In this article, we outline some of the critical aspects of scientific writing and provide suggestions from the perspective of early-career chemists. This reflects an effort to facilitate the writing process and provide relevant resources for early-career researchers that are either in the process of preparing their first manuscripts or are guiding a new generation of students on their scientific writing journey.

---

Being able to independently write a research article is a common expectation for PhD students and early-career researchers. For the first endeavour, the prospect of encompassing all research into a single paper may seem daunting; however, it is an important part of the scientific enterprise. Publishing is vital; it is a way to share work with other researchers, to possibly advance careers and to secure funding for the next research stage. Furthermore, it represents the best way to concretize the hours passed within the lab carrying out experiments.¹ While a number of guidelines provide helpful suggestions for advancing scientific writing,^2,3 comprehensive guidelines on the first steps of scientific writing for undergraduate and graduate students are scarce.^2,4 Following a series of workshops on this topic at the European Young Chemists’ Network (EYCN),⁵ we are compelled to summarize some of the critical steps of scientific writing, while providing suggestions that might guide the process.

In this article, we aim to outline some of the first steps of the process and provide tips to ease the transition into writing the first article as an early-career researcher. We recognize that these guidelines and suggestions might be more directly applied to research in chemistry and related fields, yet we believe that they could serve as support to other early-career researchers in the writing process, while formulating their own publishing practices.

When is the best time to start writing?

The opinions on what might be the best time to start writing a scientific article are subject to internal group policies and individual practices. The nature of the scientific process involves continuous assessment and the evolution of hypotheses, concepts and ideas, which often poses a challenge to identifying the right moment to communicate these findings in an article. One approach often adopted is that writing is part of the process. In this case, the researcher starts with an article in mind before any of the milestones are reached and gradually prepares the outline as the research progresses, while critically assessing the hypotheses and objectives (Fig. 1). By following this approach, all of the results and findings are gathered in a written form, which in itself can often spark new ideas and avenues to expand further on the hypothesis, aiding the overall research process. It is important to note that milestones might evolve to become objectives that are worth reporting independently. This may also involve entirely changing the structure of the prospective article in the course of the project, yet leading with a goal in mind facilitates the process. The writer must also keep in mind that upon article submission additional experiments may be requested by reviewers as a condition of publication.

Fig. 1 Schematic answer to the question when to start writing: writing is part of the research process and it is advisable to start writing as early as possible. Image adapted from © http://microvector/123rf.com.

A typical misconception that often delays the writing process is to attempt to free large blocks of time dedicated solely to writing. As most early career scientists are concomitantly expected to carry out experimental work, identifying such large time slots may appear to be an impossible task. Therefore, one of the most efficient approaches for productive academic writing is dedicating small blocks of time weekly or daily to writing, especially while assigning clear objectives for each of these sessions and being strict not to use these time slots for activities other than writing.⁶

How to proceed with writing?

What often seems to be critical to the writing process is how to start. In particular, students that are facing the challenge for the first time often struggle to move beyond the blank page. An important point in the effort to “fight the blank page” is to start writing early without the constraints of considering the writing style and formatting in the first versions of the text. It is much easier to later modify the style and language once the backbone of the text has been assembled. While there are no general guidelines on how to most appropriately proceed, which is often defined by personal preferences, we provide a recommendation that might be helpful. Once the decision about writing has been made, it is important to answer the following questions: (1) What is the main message of this work?; (2) Why does it matter – why should the reader care?; (3) How do the main findings (data) support the message? The answers to these questions define the article and it is thus good practice to focus on these points. To facilitate this, the following 10-step roadmap could be helpful (Table 1, Fig. 2).

Table 1 Summary of the core steps in scientific writing

Step 1	Define the key message of the article and convert it into a tentative title that will evolve
Step 2	Draft an outline of key bullet points with the tentative title and the authors
Step 3	Select an appropriate journal for the article and adjust all of the sections accordingly. *Note: this may also be addressed at a later stage
Step 4	Write the experimental section of the article (summary of methods, materials and main analysis)
Step 5	Illustrate the main outline points by figures that involve schematics and data obtained
Step 6	Write the discussion that presents the main findings and the figures of the article and refer to the appropriate references
Step 7	Write the conclusion of the discussion that summarizes the findings
Step 8	Write an introduction providing background information about this research with appropriate references
Step 9	Write an abstract that captures the background, methods and main findings
Step 10	Revise the article with respect to the language, format, consistency and overall coherence

---

Fig. 2 A schematic of the guidelines on the writing process: it is critical to define an outline that can be adapted. Image adapted from © http://microvector/123rf.com.

The most critical component is defining the key message of the article (step 1) and converting this into an outline (step 2) that will guide the writing process. To proceed effectively, it is necessary to answer the previous questions of what the main message is, why should the reader care and how do the findings support this message to formulate a storyline. Once these steps are completed, it is often advisable to proceed by writing the experimental details. However, it is worth noting that defining the journal (step 3) impacts the format of the experimental part (step 4). A journal will often outline specifications that must be met for this section and these can often differ depending on the journal of choice. Explanations may also be required depending on the journal audience, with a broader scope journal having more detailed experimental sections. However, the journal choice might change, which may require adjustments to meet the format requirements. Through these steps, the article should gradually adopt its form, while evolving around the main questions outlined previously.

Another often daunting challenge in the early writing stage is to find the right way to describe experimental data or their interpretation (step 4). General advice when facing such issues is not to invent original ways of describing experimental findings. One of the most practical ways in such a situation is to gather a series of important articles in the field and analyse how similar data are presented and interpreted. In the final phase (step 10), the style of writing, overall structure and formatting are adapted to the journal of choice, which is why the choice of a journal (step 3) may be addressed at a later stage. This step requires some time since the submitted publication must be complete and well formatted, otherwise the referees and editors could misinterpret the quality of the work. Before reaching this point, however, there are several other steps (steps 5–9), which need to take the overall article structure into consideration.

In general, an article can be broken down into its subsequent sections, mainly: (1) title, (2) abstract, (3) introduction, (4) experimental section (materials and methods), (5) results and discussion, (6) conclusion and (7) references. Other additional sections, such as (8) supplementary information, (9) acknowledgments and author contributions, (10) abbreviations, data availability statements and conflicts of interest, or others, can also be included. As these are specific to each journal and to the type of article (i.e. communication, full article, letter, opinion, etc.), an important step prior to writing is to consult the journal “guidelines for authors” (step 3 or later), which contain all of the necessary details regarding the structure expected for the article, as well as formatting details. These instructions are often accompanied by templates for the formatting of the document. It is usually very helpful to use these templates as soon as possible in the manuscript writing to ensure that the proposed outline and figures are readable once converted into the journal format.

Even though every article starts with an abstract and the introduction, writing the introduction is often more effective in the later stage of article writing (step 8). This is particularly considering the vast collection of literature one would need to process and refer to in the context of the article may be overwhelming and the most relevant references often come to light while analysing the data. Moreover, the abstract should capture the most important elements of the article, which can be summarized more effectively once the rest of the article is complete (step 9). As the core of a scientific paper is the discovery itself, the key content of an article is the results (Fig. 3). Therefore, working first on the experimental and the results and discussion sections (steps 5–7) makes the article more focused, giving the reader a more coherent story, which will help direct the introduction to more specific and relevant areas.^7,8 With regards to the results and discussion section, a good practice is to start using figures (Step 5) produced for internal reports, arranging them in a proper order and drafting textual paragraphs (step 6), which will effectively guide the process of writing the paper towards the conclusion (step 7). A study into the difficulties experienced by novice researchers found that articles which adopted this ‘backwards design’ method were better structured and overall of a higher quality, as it enabled them to visualize the article as a whole in the writing process.⁹

Fig. 3 A schematic of the guidelines on the writing process: discussion comes before introduction. Image adapted from © http://microvector/123rf.com.

In the following sections, each article component is discussed individually, with advice to help guide early career researchers on their journey to publishing.

What are the structural elements of an article?

The title is the first impression made on any potential reader of the article and so it should be designed to grab their attention. It should be specific, concise and convey any key information related to the article.¹⁰ It is essential not to include overcomplicated or over-technical terms which may confuse non-experts. Including keywords and principle terms relating to the research area within the title can make the article more easily identifiable when searching in online databases.³ Some journals have specific requests regarding the length, use of abbreviations and specific terms such as “new” and “first” in the title of the paper. In particular, using “novel” or “first” in the title is highly discouraged, since the intention should be to publish something that is new at the time of publishing. Another common mistake is to write the title in capital letters, as no journal adopts this format and evidently the use of capital letters for chemists should be used with care.

Authorship should be decided on early in the research process, with only direct contributors, i.e. those who have made a significant contribution to the work, being accredited (Fig. 4).¹¹ There are a number of recommendations that the publishing houses¹² and research institutions^13,14 have issued as basic requirements for authorship. These mostly imply that all of the co-authors have made at least one of the following three critical contributions to the work and the writing process: (1) conceptualization/design/planning or carrying out/conducting experiments/collecting data or evaluation/analysis/discussion, (2) writing the manuscript (or substantially revising it) and (3) approving the final manuscript version (note: points 1–2 are sometimes interrelated with an “or”). Otherwise, contributions are ‘acknowledged’ (as part of the Acknowledgements section), which is also often reserved for researchers conducting routine technical work or procuring funding etc. Honorary authorships are discouraged and regarded as inappropriate.^10,11 Once authorship has been established, the authors involved should be informed of the decision and the manuscript sent to them for review before an official submission for publication. Moreover, it is worth complementing the article with an Author contribution statement whenever possible to clarify and acknowledge the roles. The corresponding author is the person handling the submission process and editorial correspondence, as well as coordinating the requests with the co-authors, and this is mostly defined internally. It is thus strongly recommended that an internal policy is devised and communicated that can continuously evolve to ensure clarity and consistency in the interpretation of the principles for authorship.

Fig. 4 A schematic of the guidelines on authorship: contribution to the work and the writing. Image adapted from © Ewelina http://Kowalska/123rf.com.

The abstract is a short and compact overview of the article as a whole. Some journals employ a set abstract composition based on the background, methods, results and conclusions. Otherwise, the abstract may be unstructured.¹⁵ Importantly, it should not be written in past tense or in the first person. This section is the part of the article that will be visible on search databases and should thus be engaging and well written. Many researchers decide whether to read the entire article based on the contents of the abstract, which should encompass the main points and findings of the article in a clear and concise manner. Also, including relevant research terms in the abstract can make it easier to find the article within search databases. It is often easier to write the abstract once the remainder of the article is complete and it should be coherent as a stand-alone piece.³

The introduction is the section where the reader should gain sufficient background knowledge of the research area, while also addressing the significance of the research. A common mistake is making this section too long. It should not be a mini-review of the entire research area, but instead a precise, well-structured overview that guides the reader through the thought process.¹⁶ It should gradually lead the reader, giving them an understanding of the research area and highlighting a gap within the research which the study will fill.³ Two important questions should be answered within this section are: (1) Why is the research important?; (2) What critical question does the research address? The last paragraph should be focused on the research aims and why the authors have decided to carry this work out.¹⁶ It is also important to tailor the introduction depending on the journal. The amount of detail provided in the introduction depends on the target audience, which can depend on the journal of choice. For a specialized journal, more technical detail can be given without simplification, compared to submission to a more general journal where non-specialists would also read it. The references used should also be picked carefully; it is better to include a limited number of highly relevant references and pioneering work than citing every research paper within a given subject, as it provides a much more thorough understanding of the topic.³

The results and discussion section encompasses the bulk of the article and is composed entirely of research results, which must be effectively presented. For example, the results can be formatted into tables, figures or graphs to make the represented data visually appealing, while also conveying it in an easily comprehensible format. Along with a figure legend, each item should be referenced within the text and accompanied by an explanation, highlighting what may not be obvious to the reader. The results should be interpreted in relation to the wider research area, commenting on previously published literature and continuously relating back to the aims that you have set out.^3,17 It can be useful to have someone else who has no previous knowledge of the study read over the formatted figures (e.g. graphs or tables) to assess whether they understand what the author wishes to portray. Along with this, the most interesting findings, as well as any observed anomalies, should also be discussed within the text. The author should not fear reporting negative results, as these can help advance knowledge, such as by questioning previous findings, which is one of the main drivers of scientific research. Many journals publish articles with the experimental section at the end of the manuscript or in the supporting information. This means that the results and discussion section should start with a brief overview of the most relevant experimental novelty developed in the manuscript (e.g., a new protocol, a characterization setup, etc.). Finally, both the research process and writing must respect scientific integrity with respect to reporting the results, recognizing copyright when using content (e.g. images) from other sources and recognising plagiarism, including self-plagiarism.^18,19

The conclusion is the last section of the article for the reader and it should link together the ideas initially set out in the introduction and comment on the effect of the results on the aim (e.g. confirmed or rejected, etc.). This should then be linked to the wider application of the findings and put into context within the research field. It should leave the reader with an overarching message and a clear picture of what the study has addressed in a broader context. A common mistake found in this section is that it repeats the abstract; conversely, the concluding paragraphs must contain a critical view of the outcome of the proposed research. Comments on the next research steps could guide the reader through the final thought process as to the future of the project. Announced further steps should not be too general, but should be suitably defined to make them credible and to highlight the novel developments that can change the given field and, eventually, related fields. The last sentences of the conclusion often display the difference that the research has made within the given research area.

The experimental section may seem to be the easiest section to write, since it is based on the methods provided directly from a lab book. This section is, however, vital, as a potential reader should be able to reproduce any of the methods used. It is therefore essential that it is easy to follow and read. The author must be clear and should avoid repetition where possible. For example, if there are numerous material derivatives synthesized using the same method, instead of repeating every step, a general procedure of the method can be used along with the characterization data of each compound. The author should ensure that they follow any guidelines that the journal has set out. For example, this applies to the format of the compound characterization. Any result referred to within the article must have a corresponding method or, if a previously reported method was used, it must be referenced.³ It is important to remember that the article is not a laboratory notebook and will be published within an international journal, thus common typos or formatting mistakes should be absent in the published version of the manuscript. For example, one has to double check the ways in which acronyms and measurement units are used to avoid multiple definitions (e.g., the weight percentage is often found in a submitted manuscript in many different ways, such as wt%, wt.%, %wt, %wt., etc.) and to ensure consistency. These details are often specific to the chosen journal, so it is necessary to consult the guidelines for authors early in the process to avoid reformatting everything in the last stage.

References should be carefully chosen for the article as they represent the authors’ knowledge surrounding the field. Editors and referees will also check if recent articles (e.g. from this year) have been mentioned and if the journal where the authors have submitted the article to is cited.³ Each journal will also have a referencing style, which should be followed and altered if deciding to submit to a number of different journals with different referencing styles.¹⁵ It is critical to carefully revise the references to provide the appropriate background in an accurate format. This section can be overlooked by early-career researchers, which can be detrimental for the overall assessment of the work.

Choosing a journal is important to identify a suitable platform. There are generally two types of journals, namely subscription-based and open-access journals. Moreover, they can be electronic-only, which refers to the lack of a physical print-copy of the journal issue when published. Each has a different set of criteria which must be considered for submission. For subscription-based journals, article submission, peer review and publication are free, however a subscription is required for full article access. Submission to open-access articles often requires the payment of an article processing fee (APC), but it involves full article access once published. Electronic-only articles can either be subscription-based or open-access.²⁰ Careful journal selection, including the avoidance of pseudo-journals with soft peer-review processes which often publish most submissions, is advised. Publishing in an irreputable journal can hinder career advancement and negatively affect the research field.²¹ With a vast collection of published journals, finding a suitable journal using online literature databases to search for previously published articles of a similar research area is a good starting point. Deciding on a journal can also affect what can be included in the article. For example, more detailed and technical language can be used when submitting to a more specialized journal where the majority of the readers will be experts.¹⁵ Otherwise, higher impact journals commonly target a more general audience and thereby request more accessible language.

The cover letter is another important component of the publishing process, which provides the first chance to emphasise the merits of the article to the editor.^2,3 This offers the opportunity to inspire the editor by the research and to either make a good impression or leave them underwhelmed. The letter should explain what question the research addresses within the area and how. It is a critical element of the publishing process and it should be carefully considered. Particular features, such as highlighted sentences or relevant outcomes, are helpful to guide the editors who read many submitted letters, as well as to catch their attention with the results present in the manuscript. For this purpose, it would be helpful to structure the letter in such a way that it (1) presents the key idea, (2) puts this into context with respect to the existing literature and (3) highlights the major advancements (Fig. 5). In addition, many journal submission systems offer the chance to suggest potential reviewers and this is typically preferable over including this information in the cover letter, as many editors will include the cover letter in the version of the manuscript sent to reviewers.

Fig. 5 A schematic of the guidelines on writing the cover letter: highlighting interest and impact. Image adapted from © microvector and James http://Weston/123rf.com.

Abbreviations can be helpful when writing a research paper. This allows each statement to be defined once and then the abbreviation is used throughout the remainder of the transcript. The terms used should be consistent throughout the document. Being inconsistent can lead to an assumption of the final report being rushed or a lack of care for the paper. A common mistake is that of defining acronyms in each section of the manuscript; conversely, the definition must appear just once, the first time the term is used.

The table of contents (TOC) figure presents an additional component of the scientific article that is often overlooked. In addition to the figures in the main manuscript, TOC graphics serve the purpose of capturing the reader’s attention and highlighting the important findings of the article in a more artistic manner. This often involves a schematic representation of a concept or a highlight of the results presented in the study, which should serve as an appropriate illustration of the abstract that journals refer to in their table of content.

The language used throughout the article should be very carefully chosen. It is important to think about the readers; the use of over-complex and difficult language should be avoided where possible. An expert in a field should have the ability to interpret complex science in a simple and easily understandable way. It is also advisable to avoid using first person language as it is already assumed that the authors argue from their point of view and, instead, using impersonal phrases (e.g. “data shows”) is often more appropriate. Randomly choosing cumbersome words to make a point may jar out the reader of their thought process. In addition, for many authors, English is not their first language and so there is an added layer of complexity to academic writing. It is sometimes suggested that writing an article in a native language first and then translating it into English could help with this process.¹⁷ In that regard, it is also important to decide on the use of either American or British English consistently throughout the manuscript. In addition to the content, clarity and coherence, it is important to consider consistency throughout the article. This 4C principle in writing refers to every aspect of the manuscript, from the consistent analysis to the format used (e.g., labels of figures and style of references). A critical and careful approach to these elements from the beginning of the writing process can facilitate it for the author, as well as future readers.

Summary

To summarize, although scientific writing can be a challenging process for early-career researchers, there are guidelines that could ease the task of writing an article. By defining and adopting a roadmap, a direct step-by-step guide, a blank page can be developed into a focused article which addresses the three main questions: (1) What is the main message of my work?, (2) Why does it matter and why should the reader care? and (3) How are the main findings (data) supporting the message? This approach, along with the dissection into each of the subsequent components of the article (i.e. title, abstract, introduction, experimental section, results and discussion, conclusion, references, supplementary information, acknowledgments, author contributions and others), can provide a clear path for both the content and expectations of what should be included and what to avoid. Other specific suggestions and tips, in particular the emphasis on clarity, coherence and consistency, could provide useful guidance for early career researchers to help them successfully publish. We believe that utilizing each of the steps outlined in this article could diminish some of the challenges and obstacles faced when a novice to academic writing. We hope that this may also facilitate the process of devising personal writing policies and principles that continuously evolve, making the entire writing process more enjoyable.

Note

The authors of this article are not experts in scientific writing. They share their insights based on their own previous experience with the aim of supporting the community of early-career researchers, while continually learning and evolving in the process.

The views expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the Royal Society of Chemistry.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the European Chemical Society (EuChemS) and the European Young Chemists’ Network (EYCN) for their invaluable help and support, as well as cultivating the EYCN Soft Skills Library, which has made the collaborative effort to prepare this manuscript possible.

References

1. W. Li, T. Aste, F. Caccioli and G. Livan, Nat. Commun., 2019, 10, 5170.
2. G. M. Whitesides, Adv. Mater., 2004, 16, 1375–1377.
3. F. Ecarnot, M. F. Seronde, R. Chopard, F. Schiele and N. Meneveau, Eur. Geriatr. Med., 2015, 6, 573–579.
4. D. J. Lipomi, Chem. Mater., 2021, 33, 3865–3867.
5. EuChemS European Young Chemists’ Network – EuChemS, https://www.euchems.eu/divisions/european-young-chemists-network/, accessed 23 November 2020.
6. P. J. Silvia, How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing, American Psychological Association, Washington DC, 2007.
7. How to write an academic article that gets published – Prolifiko, https://prolifiko.com/how-to-write-an-academic-article-that-gets-published/, accessed 14 October 2020.
8. S. Gao, Inorg. Chem. Front., 2014, 1, 518–520.
9. S. Jatin, S. Anand and P. Ricardo, Acad. Med., 2009, 84, 511–516.
10. H. B. Elserag, Gastroenterology, 2012, 142, 197–200.
11. R. Bioética, M. Luz, G. Albarracín, C. M. Castro and P. E. Chaparro, Rev. Bioét., 2020, 28, 10–16.
12. Royal Society of Chemistry Authorship Policy, https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/journal-authors-reviewers/author-responsibilities/#authorship, accessed July 1, 2021.
13. Directive Concerning Research Integrity LEX 3.3.2 and Good Scientific Practice at EPFL, https://polylex.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/polylex/files/recueil_pdf/ENG/3.3.2_principe_integrite_recherche_an.pdf, accessed 24 November 2020.
14. Author responsibilities, https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/journal-authors-reviewers/author-responsibilities/, accessed 24 November 2020.
15. F. A. Maiorana and H. F. Mayer, Eur. J. Plast. Surg., 2018, 41, 489–494.
16. J. Faber, Dental Press J. Orthod., 2017, 22, 113–120.
17. P. Kukołowicz, Polish J. Med. Phys. Eng., 2017, 23, 1–2.
18. D. Jyotindu, Med. J. Armed Forces India, 2016, 72, 164–167.
19. T. Bretag and S. Mahmud, J. Acad. Ethics, 2009, 7, 193–205.
20. S. Cuschieri and J. Vassallo, Early Hum. Dev., 2019, 129, 90–92.
21. A. M. Suiter and C. C. Sarli, Mo. Med., 2019, 116, 461–465.

---