I Hate Writing Intros for Papers - Here's How I'd Do It

[Iforgot]

I hate writing papers! Especially the intro! Writing intros is like selling hair product or knives. I had to buy the product and now I'm stuck selling it, and no one else wants to buy it. I didn't write the proposal. I don't even think the subject is that exciting. But I got the results they want.

If I had my way, my introduction would go like this. Subject X is important b/c some dude got money to study x, and he's now paying me to study it. Now I have money too. Yay!

If my colleagues writing this with me manage to give non vague advice, it goes something like "insert x". And then next revision the same person says "why did you insert x? It doesn't belong there?" It's driving me bat guano cuckoo!

 

[Timo]

You don't need to be excited about something to introduce it and put it into context.

 

[marcusl]

Find a job that doesn't involve writing.

 

[meanrev]

I hated grant applications more than publishing. But now that I've left physics for finance, I must say I miss publishing (I have about 600 pages of LaTeX'ed work that I think is better than any of my physics publications, but none of it will be published).

 

[cgk]

OP, you are not the only one who dislikes writing papers. But you have to do it, there is no way around it.
However, if the act of writing and publishing is a major obstacle to your research (it certainly is for me), there is a way to reduce it: Write few papers, but make sure that the few you write are very very good, that everyone knows them, and that they get massive amounts of citations. You'll feel better about the selling knives issue if you know that what you write is actually true, and the paper *is* an important contribution to your field that everyone should know.

 

[epenguin]

What is achieved by research that is not published? It might as well never have been done!

Edit: You may have been told there are these two elements on which Science is based: experiment and theory. No! - there are three! - and the third is making the first two available to the rest of the community (by various means but at the end of the day formal publication is essential) for critical assessment and eventual use and to build on. The alchemists had the first two, not the third - that was the difference between them and Science. Publication was in a way the essential discovery of the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century, Royal Society etc. it was the way scientists could release their work and in some sense remain owners and beneficiaries.

Oh and if this is your first experience you can expect worse, the first draft is the nicest and easiest part, a dozen revisions especially if there are collaborators, chasing references, conforming to journals' house rules and style requirements and conventions,... And then when it comes back with referees demands...

Better see the point.

 

[cgk]

What is achieved by research that is not published? It might as well never have been done!

Yes. But imo, a very large percentage of published research could just as well never have been done and the only consequence of this would be that there would be less clutter in the journals such that relevant articles were easier to find. Even research whose's only real result is "we shouldn't have done it like this" is published, and other research which could be valuable material in one article, is actually split into 10.

Presentation is very important. But writing lots of articles is a sure way to arrive at a poor presentation due to missing substance.

 

[ZapperZ]

A practicing scientist hating publishing is like a chef hating using a knife.

Zz.

 

[f95toli]

A practicing scientist hating publishing is like a chef hating using a knife.

Zz.

I don't think that's fair.

It is not the "scientific" part of writing a paper that is the problem, this can be very useful since it forces you to think hard about what you have actually done. And everyone agrees that communicating your results is important.

The boring bit is going over draft after draft incorporating comments from the other co-athors, Then you have to double-check your references, make sure the formatting of figures agrees with guidelines, sorting out the copyright transfer etc. This can take a VERY long time (my student must have spent over a week doing this for our last paper)
Also, don't forget dealing with bad referees that haven't actually read the manuscript (or -as was the case in a paper I just publised - are just wrong).

I don't know of anyone who enjoys this. It is not something you can avoid, but that does not mean that you have to be able to enjoy it.

 

[ZapperZ]

I didn't make the analogy of it having to be enjoyable. I made the analogy of it being a necessary tool or process. One may have some chance to avoid it, but that would be extremely detrimental and highly inconvenient.

Zz.

 

[arildno]

Well..ZapperZ.
Isn't it a better analogy with the chef hating the dish-washing part of his job, rather than using a knife during his actual work?

 

[ZapperZ]

Chefs don't do dish-washing.

Zz.

 

[dipole]

A better analogy would be a chef hating to chop vegetables, which definitely can be a boring and tedious part of cooking.

 

[ZapperZ]

A better analogy would be a chef hating to chop vegetables, which definitely can be a boring and tedious part of cooking.

I was trying to tie the analogy to a "tool" or "methodology". To me, publishing is a means or a tool to establish one's reputation and expertise. Thus, I chose a knife. What that knife is used for is besides the point.

Zz.

 

[AlephZero]

The boring bit is going over draft after draft incorporating comments from the other co-athors, Then you have to double-check your references, make sure the formatting of figures agrees with guidelines, sorting out the copyright transfer etc. This can take a VERY long time (my student must have spent over a week doing this for our last paper)

If you have a smart student, they should be figuring out how to do it quicker next time, rather than whining about how long it takes.

If it really takes somebody a full working week (say 40 hours) to "edit" a 10 page paper, there is something horribly inefficient going on. It might well take a week of elapsed time, but that's not the same thing (unless your student hasn't learned how to multitask yet).

 

[f95toli]

If you have a smart student, they should be figuring out how to do it quicker next time, rather than whining about how long it takes.

If it really takes somebody a full working week (say 40 hours) to "edit" a 10 page paper, there is something horribly inefficient going on. It might well take a week of elapsed time, but that's not the same thing (unless your student hasn't learned how to multitask yet).

He is not whining...I am...I'd preferred it if he'd spent most of that time in the lab.
But no, I did not mean 40 hours, so perhaps I exaggerated a bit. And it is a 4 page paper.

However, it did take quite a lot of time. This time it was a bit worse than usual, partly because of some Latex issues (the editor was asking us to re-number the references so that the numbers in the main article and the supplemental information agreed, it is NOT obvious how to do that with Bibtex).
I also ended up spending a fair amount of time trying to figure out how to handle the updated APS rules for copyright transfer, which involved dealing with our legal team (where I work we retain Crown copyright).

That said, I don't think spending 40 hours in total edititing a paper would be strange. The paper that is actually published is usually something like version 20 or so, and will include all the comments from all co-authors, referees (3 of them this time) and the editor.
My guess is that writing the first draft usually only accounts for something like 20-25% of the total time spent writing a manuscript. The most difficult parts of a paper (abstract and introduction) tend to be re-written four or five times.

Note that this only applies to "proper" papers, I can write a 4-page conference contribution in a day and a half; partly because I then usually have a clear idea of what I want to say (and I can't be bothered to go over every sentence ten times).

I've also found that writing long papers often takes less time than writing letters, I've written a couple of long (10 pages+) PRB articles and that wasn't too bad.

 

[carlgrace]

I hate writing papers! Especially the intro! Writing intros is like selling hair product or knives. I had to buy the product and now I'm stuck selling it, and no one else wants to buy it. I didn't write the proposal. I don't even think the subject is that exciting. But I got the results they want.

If I had my way, my introduction would go like this. Subject X is important b/c some dude got money to study x, and he's now paying me to study it. Now I have money too. Yay!

If my colleagues writing this with me manage to give non vague advice, it goes something like "insert x". And then next revision the same person says "why did you insert x? It doesn't belong there?" It's driving me bat guano cuckoo!

Sounds like science may not be for you. You do understand that writing papers *is* the product of a scientist, right? You may as well be a car salesman saying "I hate selling cars!". If you like technical work but hate writing papers maybe applied work or engineering would be better for you. Keep in mind you will still have to write documents to communicate technical information.

As for the revision merry-go-round that is just human nature. You'll find that in *any* job, as most professional jobs require writing documents as a key job function.

 

[cgk]

Sounds like science may not be for you. You do understand that writing papers *is* the product of a scientist, right?

One would guess that the primary goal of science is the production and communication of valuable knowledge. While writing papers certainly is a way of communicating knowledge (valuable or not), there clearly are other ways of doing that... for example, talking to people.

Also, there are fields where even the primary outcome or research is not communicated in the form of papers, but by some other means. For example, in my field the primary outcome is computer programs. We still have to write papers (because that's what we are measured by and programs cannot be cited!), but compared to the progams themselves, they only have a minor impact on other researchers. I would guess that 95% of my citations result from people who have never read the papers they are citing (the other 5% are people building other programs). And I doubt that this situation is that rare in science.

While I agree that writing papers is important in practical terms, I doubt that it is really *the* core qualification of a scientist as you describe, and disliking it is perfectly legitimate.

 

[carlgrace]

One would guess that the primary goal of science is the production and communication of valuable knowledge. While writing papers certainly is a way of communicating knowledge (valuable or not), there clearly are other ways of doing that... for example, talking to people.

Well it sounds like you aren't working in an organization based on the tenure system. If you were you would know what I'm talking about. In virtually all tenure-based organizations if you didn't publish it, it didn't happen.

I would guess that 95% of my citations result from people who have never read the papers they are citing (the other 5% are people building other programs). And I doubt that this situation is that rare in science.

Are you serious? That borders on malpractice. You seriously think that people in your field don't actually read the papers they're citing? Really? If you're talking about people using your code in their projects that is engineering reuse, a very good thing, but not science. Otherwise, wow. I'm speechless.

While I agree that writing papers is important in practical terms, I doubt that it is really *the* core qualification of a scientist as you describe, and disliking it is perfectly legitimate.

Of course disliking paper writing is legitimate. I never said publishing is the core qualification of a scientist. It isn't. It is, however, the main way in which scientists are evaluated. Unfairly or not, a scientist is judged by the quality of his or her papers.

Regarding the OP's flip attitude (particularly regarding funding) I'm hoping it's just hubris because otherwise he or she won't go far.

 

[Dale]

I hate writing papers!

You probably should not be looking for a job in research then.

 

[Choppy]

I'm just taking the original post as more of a rant than anything.

I can't say I enjoy changing diapers, but I love being a father and diapers are part of the package.

What I could say in response is that there are ways to make writing and the subsequent group revision and peer-review process less of a pain.

One suggestion I have would be: learn to write well. If you plan on having an academic career it's well worth it to invest some time in learning how to write. Unfortunately I think a lot of students in the STEM fields are more-or-less thrown into the writing process with little-to-no guidance. They learn by a kind of trial and error often from others who themselves are no experts in writing and sometimes get feedback that makes the next iteration more confusing than the previous one.

Universities will often host technical writing workshops or short courses that are optional for graduate students. It's worth the time to attend one of these. Another option might be to get someone without a technical background to have a look at some of your work and critique the writing.

Hand-in-hand with writing well is organizing your ideas well. Sometimes you can get so involved in a problem that it's difficult to step back and present it fresh to someone who hasn't spent the last two years of his or her life on it. But when you read enough papers, it's easy to spot the ones that are organized well.

Another tip is organization of the group dynamic. Sometimes this can be about as productive as hearding cats, but sometimes it really pays off. Identify who is responsible for what. Establish timelines and expectations. Try to get things done well-before deadlines. Cut the dead weight if possible.

Of course, you can do all of this and still end up tearing your hair out because a reviewer completely misses a point or your supervisor/collaborators feels the to re-write your work in their words. In such cases...
I sympathize.

 

[cgk]

Well it sounds like you aren't working in an organization based on the tenure system. If you were you would know what I'm talking about. In virtually all tenure-based organizations if you didn't publish it, it didn't happen.

I am and I know what you are talking about. As I mentioned in the post you are citing, this is the reason why I write papers. But this effectively has only an influence on *my career*. But my contribution to the science is not primarily through papers, but by producing programs which allow other people to do their research. In that sense writing papers is essential for personally getting ahead in the "science system", but depending on the field, not necessarily either for the production or the communication of knowledge itself.

Are you serious? That borders on malpractice. You seriously think that people in your field don't actually read the papers they're citing? Really? If you're talking about people using your code in their projects that is engineering reuse, a very good thing, but not science. Otherwise, wow. I'm speechless.

Exactly how does this border on malpractice and how is this not science? The programs and papers concerns highly specialized quantum simulation techniques. People citing the papers primarily use the already-programmed techniques to treat real-world chemistry problems. They have to cite them in order to make clear exactly which techniques were used such that their own research is reproducible. But unless they intend to develop such techniques themselves, they do not need to know all the gory details (and in fact, one of our primary goals is making sure that the programs still work if the user doesn't know all the gory details).

This situation is not at all uncommon in fields focused on helping other researchers do their science. This not only includes software, but also the development of empirical formula, tabulated works, and all kinds of physical tools not (yet) comercially produced (say, measurement or sample preparation devices).

If you want to see what I am talking about, have a look at this: http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.37.785 and where its citations come from. Want to guess how many of the researchers citing this have read the Colle-Salvetti paper in detail? LYP is cited because it established a standard technique which works in a wide variety of contexts, and is thus widely used. But it could just as well have been a paper with 10 citations if it had not been one of the first functionals implemented in computer programs (by other people!) and found to work well (in other studies!) in a certain combination with other techniques. This doesn't make it less important, or citing it malpractice or bad science.

Of course disliking paper writing is legitimate. I never said publishing is the core qualification of a scientist. It isn't. It is, however, the main way in which scientists are evaluated. Unfairly or not, a scientist is judged by the quality of his or her papers.

I fully agree with that. I must have misinterpreted your previous post.

 

[carlgrace]

I was far to strident in my initial post. I apologize.

I looked at that paper (22,500 citations!) and I think I can see your point. I have never cited a reference I haven't read, even if it is a seminal work in my field. That said, I haven't cited works far afield either, for example pure math papers. So I do see your point. It works in your field and I do respect that. Sorry if I came across as a jerk.

I am surprised that they cite the original work when they don't directly interact with it. So in these fields if you use a particular code to solve a particular problem it is customary to cite the original work? Interesting. I work in the field of semiconductors and we use SPICE-like tools daily, however we don't cite the original paper on SPICE. I guess it is a custom thing.

Anyway, thanks for the lesson. I guess I let the attitude of the OP get under my collar. Shouldn't have done that.

 

[AlephZero]

Universities will often host technical writing workshops or short courses that are optional for graduate students. It's worth the time to attend one of these.
...
Another tip is organization of the group dynamic. Sometimes this can be about as productive as hearding cats, but sometimes it really pays off. Identify who is responsible for what. Establish timelines and expectations. Try to get things done well-before deadlines. Cut the dead weight if possible.

Interesting that you mention courses/workshops for writing, but not for the other issues. Industry has figured out that it pays to teach employees (pretty much all employees, not just "managers") something about leadership, assertiveness, negotiation techniques, time management, etc.

Actually, some universities probably do run graduate level courses in all of the above - but only if you pay them an arm and a leg to become an MBA...

 

[Iforgot]

@ZapperZ: No it's not like a chef hating knives. It's like a knife salesman hating knives. Doesn't anyone read the original posts anymore ;-)

I would like to transition into a field where productivity isn't measured by papers, but rather by patents, software, hardware... Something that is more immediately applicable.

Thanks all for listening to me vent.

 

[Iforgot]

Has anyone here ever been told that they need to improve their writing by

1) adding more bovine manure

2) make it effing sexy?

It's not that I don't like writing. I just have an extreme distaste for embellishing

Seriously. If anyone has any advice for learning how to write... Write well, that is, please please please post it. I'm going batty here

 

[Choppy]

There are two rules to becoming a better writer.
1. Read a lot.
2. Write a lot.

I would recommend against adding bovine manure. There's already enough of that in the world. And to be honest, reviewers really don't like the smell of it. If the feedback you're getting is that you need to add more content, request specifics.

 

[Iforgot]

Ok, has anyone done a writing exercise like this?

Take 10 random abstracts from different physics fields, and write your abstract by trying to change those abstracts by as little as possible. Like making a Madlib.

The final product is 10 different versions of the same abstract worded differently.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1121

 

[atyy]

Writing is simple:
1. Make sure what you say is correct
2. Say it simply and clearly

The underlying idea of point 2 is that the reader should have to read each sentence only once to understand it. Brevity is generally better, but can be counterproductive if the writing is perceived as terse. Finding the balance depends on knowing your readership.

Working with people is hard, which seems to be part of the problem you were having. In my experience, a bunch of superb like-minded people writing together can be very easy. But one is not always so lucky.

Some will offer more rules, but they are generally superfluous and overly constraining.

As an unconventional example of good scientific writing, may I offer Xiao-Gang Wen's "Origin of Light":

"In an attempt to explain the meaning of "empty space" to a young child, I said "space is something not made of atoms." He replied "Then you were wrong to tell me last time that only light is not made of atoms." Indeed, light and gravity are two singular forms of "matter" which are very different from other forms of matter such as atoms, electrons, etc . (Here I assume space = gravity.) The existences of light and gravity – two massless gauge bosons – are two big mysteries in nature."

 

[epenguin]

Seriously. If anyone has any advice for learning how to write... Write well, that is, please please please post it. I'm going batty here

There are any number of books and manuals on it including in scientific journals particularly those of scientific societies. You will find some in any scientific bookshop. As good as any is probably "Writing Scientific Papers in English" by O'Connor & Woodford (Else-Ciba Foundation Guide). I have 1976 copy! I see now Amazon is giving them away! The parts about the physical manuscript and journals will be out of date, but not the parts dealing with your problems. This volume was originally intended to have been followed by ones in different languages for authors writing in English, which would have been useful as from each linguistic background there is a different series of difficulties and of common errors. However, just quickly looking now it seems only one in Spanish ever came out, I may be mistaken.

I also remember hearing of a series by authors whose names were something like P.Nickerty, P.Dantry and P.Ninneck but I cannot locate them offhand.