WRITING A

SCIENTIFIC
PAPER
Peter A. Thrower
Editor-in-Chief, CARBON
 The Past
• Typewriters demanded extreme
care.
• Copy Editors were important.
• Publications were in other
languages.
• Typesetting was “manual”.
• Submission costs!
• Always saw complete ms.
(Title, Abstract, Text)
 The Present
• Computers make correction and
revision easy.
• There are no copy editors - must
rely on grammar and spell
checkers. These are poor
language monitors!
• English is the language of
science - sorry!
• No typesetting - electronic
formatting.
• Free submissions via website.
 The components
• Title
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Experimental
• Results & Discussion
• Conclusions (or Summary)
• Acknowledgments & References
 What do I do first?
• Certainly NOT write in the order
the sections appear. Perhaps as
follows.
– Results & Discussion
– Conclusions
– Experimental
– Introduction
– Abstract
– Title
– Organise References
– Acknowledgments
 Results
• A paper is centered around
the Results
– First get them organised. What
to include?
– Any photographs?
– How will I present them -
figures and/or tables?
– Do I need to combine results
with discussion?
– Can some Results be presented as
 Results
• Tables Exact, Objective
Check accuracy

• Graphs Some guesswork?

• Photographs
Representative?
Subjective

• Supplementary Material
 Figures
• Make sure each one is
important.
• There is no need to have a
photograph of a nanotube in
every paper dealing with
them!
• Do not duplicate data in both
figures and tables. Which
shows the data more clearly?
 Discussion
• If possible, separate from the
Results
BUT
• Sometimes a result, or set of
results, must be discussed in
order to logically point to
the next stage in the
experiment.
• In this case combine Results
 Discussion
• Keep it logical.
• Do not “ramble”.
• Compare your results with
those of others. References
are really important here.
• Be careful to show where your
work has advanced the
subject.
• Try to lead naturally to the
 Conclusions
• This is NOT the same as a summary.
The Abstract is usually a summary.
A reader who has the paper will
certainly have the Abstract.
• Personal preference is to have the
Conclusions as a list.
• If it is a summary -give it that
heading and make it more than the
Abstract.
• NEVER make conclusions that cannot
be justified or are not mentioned
in the main text.
 Experimental
This section has two purposes:
– To convince readers that the
work has been done
systematically and thoroughly
using appropriate equipment.
– To allow readers to repeat the
experiments if they wish.
• To check (doubtful) results
• To prepare the same materials, etc.
 Experimental
• Should contain ALL
information needed for
another person to repeat the
experiment.
– Sample preparation. Times and
temperatures. Heating rates.
– Sources of materials. Purity.
Particle size. Synthesis of
intermediates
– Analytical & measurement
techniques.
 Experimental
• Are instrument details important?
(They should usually be
irrelevant.) Does somebody need
the same instrument to repeat the
research?
• What is the difference between
TEM and HRTEM? When does an
instrument become “high
resolution”?
• Do not sub-divide too much.
(Some papers are submitted with
 Introduction and
References
• Why together? Because usually a
minimum of 30%, and as many as
70+% of all references are cited
in the Introduction.
• Most Introductions are
unnecessarily long.
• A reference is something you may
wish to refer to for further
information. When did you last
consult a reference?
• If you have done so, it is most
unlikely to be one of the first
What is the purpose of the
Introduction?
• A brief, or complete, history
of the subject?
• What does the reader need to
know?
• What will the reader already
know?
BUT
• Some reviewers are upset if
their papers are not
 Citation Index
Should be based on papers
referenced other than in the
Introduction! References
cited in the Discussion are
certainly more important to
the paper’s content.
[1] S. Iijima, Helical microtubules of
graphitic carbon. Nature 1991;354
(6348):56–58.
This paper has nearly 10,000
citations but most are in
 Titles
• Be straightforward and precise:
– “Improved mechanical properties”
• Which ones? Strength? Stiffness?
• For what applications?
• Better for one application may be the
opposite for another.
– “Activated carbons produced at low
temperature”
• 80 K is low! 500°C is not.
– “CNT solution in organic acids”
• All? Which did you investigate? Fumic
and acetic.
 Titles
Never use a colon (or hyphen)
unless the paper is part of a
multi-part series.
“Chemistry and kinetics of chemical vapor
deposition of pyrocarbon: I. Carbon
deposition from methane .”
“Chemistry and kinetics of chemical vapor
deposition of pyrocarbon: II. Carbon
deposition from propylene ”

“The structure of CVD carbon: the effect

of deposition temperature” should be:
“The effect of deposition temperature on
 Abstract
“In this paper we report new
results on the successful
preparation of ……”
• We know it is not a different
paper, but this one.
• We know it is “you”.
• We know the results are new - we
would not publish if they were
old.
• We assume the experiment was
 Abstract
Simply tell the reader two
things:
• What was done.
• Important results obtained.
Do not:
• Provide history or narrative.
• Speculate - possible uses,
etc.
• Include data that is not in
A recent example.
 Submitted Abstract
This paper presents the development of activated carbons (ACs) for a 4.5 K
sorption cooler for ESA´s Darwin mission. A sorption cooler has two parts:
(i) cold stage; (ii) sorption compressor. ACs are very interesting candidates
for sorption compressors because large amounts of gas can be adsorbed
reversibly. In the present paper, ACs with different surface area, micropore
size distribution and packing density were prepared from an anthracite and
bituminous coals. The development of porosity was carried out by different
activation methods using KOH, NaOH and CO2 as activating agents. Some
ACs were agglomerated using different binders to prepare activated carbon
monoliths (ACMs). In order to predict the performance of these materials in
Helium sorption compressors, Helium adsorption isotherms were measured
up to 35 bar in a cryogenic volumetric characterization set-up, at different
temperatures (from 20 K up to 150 K). Moreover, other measurements were
carried out, including packing density, mechanical properties (compression
strength, vibration tests), thermal expansion and also pressure-drop
measurements. From the results obtained in this study, an ACM with a high
helium adsorption/desorption capacity, high density, low pressure drop, low
thermal expansion and good mechanical properties was prepared and
applied successfully in a 4.5 K sorption cooler. (195 words)
 Edited Abstract
For use in a 4.5 K sorption cooler, activated carbons (ACs) with different
surface areas, micropore size distributions and packing densities were
prepared from anthracite and bituminous coals. The development of
porosity was carried out using KOH, NaOH and CO2 as activating agents.
Some ACs were combined with different binders to prepare activated
carbon monoliths. In order to predict the performance of thesematerials in
helium sorption compressors, helium adsorption isotherms were measured
up to 35 bar in a cryogenic volumetric characterization apparatus, at
different temperatures (20 to 150 K). Packing density, mechanical
properties (compression strength, vibration tests), thermal expansion and
pressure-drop measurements were also investigated. From the results, a
monolith with a high helium adsorption/desorption capacity, high density,
low pressure drop, low thermal expansion and good mechanical properties
was prepared and used successfully.(134 words, >30% less)
What were the binders?
What was the successful monolith?
Were commercial materials compared?
 Correct this Abstract!
• In this study, entangled and bundled MWNTs
produced in different temperature and catalysis
by CVD techniques were adopted to fabricate
MWNTs/PA6 composites. The results demonstrated
the better mechanical properties were achieved
for bundled MWNTs than entangled MWNTs. With
addition of only 1.0wt% MWNTs into PA6 matrix,
the tensile strength and modulus were increased
up to 15.6% and 16.5% respectively. The storage
modules of the two kinds of MWNTs/PA6
composites at 40°C increased about 30%, and the
Tg increase to 61.3 and 63.3°C respectively from
57.7°C of neat PA6.
 Better?
• Entangled and bundled MWCNTs produced by CVD at
different temperatures and using different
catalysts were used to fabricate MWCNT/PA6
composites. Better mechanical properties were
achieved for bundled MWCNTs than for entangled
MWCNTs. With the addition of only 1.0wt% MWCNTs
to the PA6 matrix, the tensile strength and
modulus were increased by 15.6% and 16.5%
respectively. The storage moduli of the two
MWCNT/PA6 composites at 40°C increased about
30%, and the Tg increased from 57.7°C for neat
PA6 to 61.3 and 63.3°C for the bundled and
entangled MWCNTs, respectively.
The Submission Process
• Read the “Guide for Authors”.
PLEASE!
– Section headings. Reference
format. Length restrictions for
Letters.
• You MUST submit using the
website.
• Make sure you include
suggestions for international
 Submission
• If the Editor-in-Chief has
told you to resubmit - true
for most papers from China.
– Make sure you do as requested
and carefully follow each point
in the “Resubmit” letter.
– If you do not agree with some of
my suggestions, please include a
cover letter to explain why this
is so.
– Be sensible! If I correct
something in the Abstract, ask
 Abbreviations
• To define an abbreviation, first write the term in full followed by the
abbreviation in parentheses. “X-ray diffraction (XRD) examination
showed that the samples were not crystalline …..” Do not do the
reverse.
• Never define an abbreviation in the manuscript title.
• Never use abbreviations in the Abstract without defining them, and
only define them if they are used later in the Abstract.
• Define an abbreviation the first time it is used in the text, even
though it may also have been defined in the Abstract.
• Only define an abbreviation if you are going to use it later.
 Some English problems
• We do not usually use plural
nouns as adjectives - “carbon
fiber composites” not “carbon
fibers composites”.
• Do not use hyphens unless
necessary to clarify meaning.
“Chinese food seller”!
– “Chinese-food seller” - a person who sells
Chinese food
– “Chinese food-seller” - a Chinese person who
sells food
 Some English problems
- articles
• “of” is usually preceded and
followed by “the”
– …the dimensions of the sample were measured
– …the speed of the car BUT .the speed of light
• Some nationalities tend to use
“the” where not necessary and
omit “a” where it is necessary
– “The FTIR is one of the typical methods used to
characterise the chemically modified nanotubes.”
• FTIR is a typical method used to characterise
chemically……...
– “We obtained black solid after the reduction of
the….”
• We obtained a black solid after reduction of the…….
 Some English problems
• Literal translation is
often wrong!

“This is the reason why

some samples gave
different results…….” is
correct. NOT “It is the
reason why………”
 “Respectively”
• “In order to make sure of the
necessity of the hydrogen
involvement, experiments were
carried out in helium and
hydrogen atmospheres
respectively.” WRONG.
• “In order to make sure of the
necessity of the hydrogen
involvement, experiments were
carried out in helium and
hydrogen atmospheres at 230°C and
 “Respectively”
The word is used to link items
in two or more lists in the
order in which they appear in
those lists.

To say that “samples were heat

treated at 450°C and 700°C
respectively” is incorrect
unless there is a list of two
 Latin phrases
• In situ - means in the place.
All things happen in a
place! Use it ONLY to
indicate that something is
taking place where it will
later be used.
• Via - “by” is usually enough
& simpler
• e.g. (for example) and i.e.
(that is, or that is to say)
 Nano
• Nano - one billionth
– Hence nanosecond, nanometer, nanogram
• Nano has become shorthand for
“nanometer” or “nanometer sized”
• Nanotechnology - the art of
manipulating materials on a very small
scale in order to build microscopic
machinery (Encarta)
• Nanobot - a robot of microscopic
proportions built using nanotechnology
(Encarta)
 Misuse - loose use

• A recent review of Liszt

piano concertos criticised
the pianist for entering a
nanosecond late at one point!
The reviewer had superhuman
ears.
– She meant “slightly late” -
probably a tenth of a second
 Misuse - bad
constructions
• Nanocrystalline - perhaps
• Nanobuckling
• Nanostress - can you measure?
• Nanothermodynamics
• Nanocomposites
• Nanosheets - ambiguous?
• Nanolayers - ambiguous?
• Nanostructured - perhaps - composed of nm
size particles
• Nanoropes - Nanotube ropes
 Nanocomposites
• “composites, in which the constituents are mixed on a
nanometer-length scale.” (Cornell Univ.)

• Surely it should be “nanometer-size constituents are

mixed…..’. Nanotubes are not of nanometer- length.

• You would never believe a need for shorthand terminology

if you could see the unnecessary length of most
submissions!
 Misuse - overuse (ms
titles)
• Fabrication of carbon nanotube and
nanorod arrays using nanoporous
templates
• Novel nanocomposite of carbon nanotube-
nanoclay by direct growth of nanotubes
on nanoclay surface
• Micromorphology, macroporosity, and
micro/mesoporosity of resorcinol-
formaldehyde carbon cryogel
microhoneycombs
• Synthesis of nano-glassy carbon by
laser ablation
 Misuse can lead to
ambiguity
• What does this title mean to
you?
“Synthesis of carbon/silica
nanocomposite films by an
electrochemical method”
– I thought the paper was about a
CNT/silica composite (CNTs
embedded in silica), BUT it
concerned nanometer particles of
silica in amorphous carbon
 Nano in the wrong
place?
• “Nanomechanics of carbon
tubes”

• Should it not be
“Mechanics of carbon
nanotubes”?

• Why not millimechanics and

kilomechanics?
Does Peer Review Work?
• Mostly yes - but
not perfect
• The photograph
shows a copy of the
paper model of C60
'Buckminsterfullere
ne' made by
R.W.Henson at AERE
Harwell,UK in 1970
• Peer opinion -
“nonsense”
• "In Science the credit goes to the
man who convinces the world, not
to the man to whom the idea first
occurs." (Sir Francis Darwin)
 Be Honest -
How to make large quantities of
fullerene?
 Conclusions
• Read the Guide for Authors.
• Take time! Organize.
• Be honest.
• Remember to make Title,
Abstract & Paper
independently understandable.
• Pay careful attention to the
comments of the Editor and
the Reviewers. Do not waste
their time!
Thank you for your
attention.