How to write scientific papers? Experiences from business and management research Heiko Gebauer Center of Innovation Research in Utility Sectors Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG) Zurich, Switzerland 2 1 Research activities @ Competence Center of Managing industrial services •  Vision: Assisting manufacturing companies in the service business development Institute of Technology Management (Operations Management) •  Time: 1996 to 2010 •  Research approach: engaged scholarship, focus groups, benchmarking projects, and surveys •  Research partners: approximately 350 SMEs and MNEs in Switzerland, South of Germany and Northern Italy, international firms University of St. Gallen •  Industries: Manufacturing, utilities, consultancies, and others •  Topics: “Everything, but nothing twice” Company examples 2 Scientific Writing 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 Why should we write scientific articles?   A scientific career is all about expansion of human knowledge   In the academia, scientific papers ARE the means for this expansion.   “Publish or Perish” should indeed be the rule for scientists working as individuals - scientific papers ARE your professional contribution. You don’t publish, you’re out. 6 3 What makes the difference in publishing? Personal experiences -  -  -  -  No single best way Varies from paper to paper Wait till data analyzed Background reading -  not too extensive -  make notes; make notes of notes -  write down sentences or parts of them -  not during “writing time” Writing recommendations 0) Preparation 1) Subject matter 2) Writing constraints (e.g. audience, purpose, occasion) 3) Writing style Find your own (authentic) writing and publishing style Crime novelist – Agatha Christie Business researcher – you 8 4 Key recommendations in the preparation of the manuscript (1) -  Journal -  Choose before writing, balance general versus specialized journals, decide on journal ranking -  Sequence -  Fix realistic schedule (moderate), adherence enables good outcome, draw figures and tables, formulate methods and result sections, formulate discussion and introduction, and finalize abstract and title -  Title -  Maximize information in few words (12 words – 100 characters), label, state results 9 Key recommendations in the preparation of the manuscript (2) -  Research method -  Enough information to repeat your study, avoid tiresome detail, cut-and-paste from your previous work, use subheadings -  Result section -  Description and no interpretation, good result section has a definite structure, makes its key point, despite space restrictions, figure and tables, direct anecdotal evidence, details are of high interest -  Figures: do before writing, redraw, redraw until one figure, one message, describe the message -  Tables: do before writing, single unit and should be understood without text 10 5 Key recommendations in the preparation of the manuscript (3) -  Discussion -  Discussion should interpret the findings, highlights theoretical extensions and replications -  State major findings in first paragraph, and summarize findings in the last paragraph -  “In summary…” (2-3 sentences) -  “In conclusion…” (biggest message, return to Introduction, avoid speculation, avoid “need more work” -  Middle paragraphs should be based each on a major result -  Always focus on your results -  Never discuss prior work without referring to your findings 11 Key recommendations in the preparation of the manuscript (4) -  Introduction -  Only 2-3 paragraphs with less than 500 words, -  First paragraph should introduce broad area -  Second paragraph should explicit the rationale or motivation to the study -  Last paragraph should contain the main hypothesis or research question -  Abstract -  Very precise writing, rather informative and not descriptive, determines whether paper is read, key findings, counterintuitive insights 12 6 Key recommendations in the preparation of the manuscript (5) -  Sequence -  Method (How?) -  Results (What?) -  Discussion (So what) -  Introduction (Why?) -  Abstract -  Structure -  Plan the structure -  Biggest problems come first -  Use subheadings -  IMRAD: each on a separate sheet -  Random order, telegraphic style -  Ideas must be numbered and an order generated 13 Writing Stages 1. Creating momentum 2. Writing the first Draft 3. Revision, revision, and revision 4. Finishing 7 Succeeding though the writing stages (1) -  Momentum & concentration -  Fix a schedule & monitor progress, consider your own biological clock, skip trouble spots -  When time is short: prepare and revise, very boring area -  First draft -  Write as quickly as possible, Get everything down, Ignore spelling, grammar, style -  Correct and rewrite only when the whole text is on paper -  Do not split the manuscript among the co-authors 15 Succeeding though the writing stages (2) -  Revision, Revision, and Revision -  Establish a good writing style - content, accuracy, clarity, precision, logic, and order of presentation -  Avoid bad writing style – if words don‘t justice to your ideas, mistakes in spelling and syntax, reviewer suspects similar sloppiness in data collection and analysis -  Wording should be clear and exact, ambiguity, inconsistency and wooly words should be avoided, prefer concise, least, and short words, one word better than many -  Simplify your wording (e.g., a majority of = most, at the present time = now, give rise to = cause, is defined as = is) … but not all words must be short. Use strong, effective words with precise meaning. Build your vocabulary … -  Simplify your struture (e.g. avoid any loose ends) -  Remove value judgments: “Surprising”, “interesting”, “unfortunately” have no place in a scientific paper. 16 8 Succeeding though the writing stages (3) -  Revision, Revision, and Revision -  All first drafts have too many words -  Reshape, refine, tighten up the manuscript -  Juggle words, change sentences around -  Strengthen transition between sentences & check narrative flow -  Successive drafts: prune vigorously, strip every sentence, look for excessive adverbs, adjectives -  Writing improves in proportion to deletion of unnecessary words -  After several drafts ask for a second opinion -  Test your manuscript at conferences, presentation and for various audiences 17 Finishing the manuscript 18 9 Reviewers are just in the way for getting a great paper published 19 What authors think about reviewers   Reviewers are too general in their comments (e.g., “You don’t answer the ‘so what’ question for me”).   Reviewers are frequently wrong but never in doubt; they can be overly assertive and controlling at times.   Reviewers sometimes try to convert the author’s research into the article they themselves would have written 10 What reviewers think about authors   There is a special place in hell for faculty members who make their Ph.D. students submit articles   There is often egregious disregard for format, style, typical conventions, and rules of grammar   There is a sneaking suspicion among reviewers that some authors are not sufficiently well trained in theory or in method   There is a thin line between being developmental and doing major reconstructive surgery. Recommendations for the revision process (1)   Take seriously the needs and expectations of the other party.   Not submitting either articles or reviews at the last minute.   Use the editor as a middleman or as a wailing wall, depending on whose ox is being gored.   Recognize that writing and reviewing are, to some extent, an act of compromise.   Frequent, long delays by either party dampen enthusiasm and respect for the other’s contributions. 22 11 Recommendations for the revision process (2)   Getting thoughtful reviews is not an entitlement.   Try to pick up on subtext and don’t respond in needlessly literal ways   Sometimes an error is just an error and not the basis for some horrible attribution about the author or reviewer.   Remember that writing and reviewing are noncompensated activities 23 Some final thoughts -  Paper should be scholarly but you’re not writing for the ages – others will come after you with newer data and better models. -  Think of your role as guiding their future efforts -  Being occasionally wrong is forgiven, being boring is not - optimize content, style and form -  Quantity doesn’t matter beyond an expected number – quality is what matters -  What determines the perceived quality of a scientific paper? (now routinely- perhaps unfortunately – measured by the citation index) -  Originality and importance of ideas -  Effectiveness of communication, particularly when it comes to planting the flag for new ideas -  Advertising: presentations, communications at meetings and with visitors, email exchanges, citations… 24 12 References   Feldman, D., C. "Writing and reviewing as sadomasochistic rituals," Journal of Management (31:2) 2005 http://www.journalofmanagement.org/ writing_and_reviewing.php.   Presentations:  HOW TO WRITE A SCIENTIFIC PAPER, Walter A. Zin,  The Craft of Scientific Writing, Reese & Woods 25 Thank you very much for your attention 26 13