2 ms·
> Punchlines: “Organize the paper in 'triangular' or 'newspaper' style, not in 'joke' or 'novel' style. Notice how newspapers start with the most important part
by abdullahkhalids 7y ago
> Punchlines: “Organize the paper in 'triangular' or 'newspaper' style, not in 'joke' or 'novel' style. Notice how newspapers start with the most important part, then fill in background later for the readers who kept going and want more details....put the punchline right up front.”
I have found this the most difficult to achieve in physics papers. Usually, the paper starts with some boilerplate for that field (quantum computers can do xyz), followed by a bunch of background papers that have some relevance to what you have done. Only then are you allowed to broach what you have done - this happens at minimum by the 3rd paragraph, but more common is the 5-6th paragraph.
I would very much prefer to have the central thesis of the paper presented in the first paragraph, followed by proper contextualization for those who are not familiar with the subfield. But journal editors want citations, and that's easier to achieve with the former than by the latter, by helping people from other subfields to low-value cite your paper.
- lonelappde 7y agoIsn't the abstract supposed to be the punchline?
- tokai 7y agoThe use of meta-communication makes it easier in my experience. It feels very cumbersome and artificial. But when laying out the central thesis, before the contextualization, you describe the content and (sub)conclusions of the different parts of the paper. My favourite lecture always said there must be no surprises in a research paper. You have to spoil the surprising bits from the get go, and it is better to repeat yourself than surprising anyone. edit: If I recalled correctly she said that everything of substance in a paper should be touched upon at least four times. One in the abstract, another in the the introductory parts of the paper, again where the actual substance is (results, methods, conclusions, etc.), and finally in concluding remarks.