Tatjana Scheffler
The single most important thing I want students to learn about academic writing is that your paper is not a mystery novel! Please state your results right there in the introduction! 🕵️‍♀️ #amGrading #academicWriting #academicChatter #ice515
Apr 8, 2025 at 7:12amWeb
Show threadNils MüllerApr 8, 2025

@tschfflr I also like to use this analogy...

Together with the holy trinity of academic writing:

- Tell me, what you are going to do and why this helps answer the question.
- Do it.
- Tell me what the results you got mean.

Show threadKai Rüsberg Apr 8, 2025
@Weltenkreuzer @tschfflr
...and tell it like your grandma will read it (so that even journalists might get it). At least the introductory part.
Show threadTatjana SchefflerApr 8, 2025
@Ruhrnalist I see what you’re trying to do here but object to the use of “grandma” in this kind of tip - eg my kids’ grandma is a prof emerita and highly accomplished in her field. I wouldn’t assume my students’ grandmas to be different. I usually recommend to write the intro part for the imagined audience of a student in their program who hasn’t taken the class yet - ie to assume only very general knowledge and introduce all models/approaches we discussed in class.
NB: This would not suffice for most journalists, but the term paper they might see is rare. If you need journalist level of simplification I recommend using “taxi driver” instead of “grandma”. It’s clear you can’t assume any specific pre-knowledge, but it doesn’t carry the same misogynistic and ageist presuppositions (some taxi drivers are highly trained in other fields, and most people know this) @Weltenkreuzer
Show threadKai Rüsberg Apr 8, 2025
@tschfflr @Weltenkreuzer to my knowledge, 100% of Taxi drivers are students without graduation - or grandpas...
Show threadMarc SchulderApr 8, 2025
@tschfflr “and then it turned out it was the null hypothesis all along!”
Show threadJohannesApr 8, 2025
@tschfflr
I wonder how this differs by field. Having a summary of the results at the end of the introduction is fairly common in biomedical studies, but not universal. Introductions with or without summary - either works for me, as I generally don’t read manuscripts linearly. However, with the short introductions for the high profile biomedical journals I do question what yet another summary adds when there is already the abstract, the graphical abstract, the key points/editorial/lay summary, a conclusion at the end of each paragraph and a summary-at-the-start-of-the-discussion.
This might be very different in the humanities, but I much prefer if the authors are not trying to shoehorn their writings into any story format (mystery or otherwise). To quote Michael Eisen “The narrativization of science is often the fictionalization of science.”.
Show threadDave NathansonApr 8, 2025
@tschfflr Academics need to follow this excellent advice, not just students. The students likely get this misguided approach from published articles. Lawyers and any other professional writers as well.
Show threadJerry D. Harris 🦕👣Apr 8, 2025
@tschfflr As a long-time teacher of scientific writing, I respectfully disagree. The Results section of an IMRaD paper exists for the results. The purpose of the Introduction is to provide the background necessary for readers to understand where the hypothesis came from, which provides a framework for understanding the results. The only place where the results & introductory stuff belong together is the abstract. An Introduction is not a second abstract (nor should be a Conclusions section).
Show threadTatjana SchefflerApr 8, 2025
@dinogami then I'm glad you're not teaching my students 😁 cause I get to be the one that teaches my students how our term papers are supposed to look
Show threadJerry D. Harris 🦕👣Apr 8, 2025
@tschfflr What, then, is the purpose of structuring and writing out the whole paper? If everything can be poured into a single section, why have an overall paper structure to begin with? Why not just write the abstract and leave it at that?
Show threadTravis F WApr 9, 2025
@tschfflr as a student (again) who hasn't yet written papers, I'd like to ask, would you two agree that authors should assume, in the introduction, that readers have read the abstract? @dinogami , would you say the results section should stand on its own so that it may be read first?
Show threadJerry D. Harris 🦕👣Apr 9, 2025
@travisfw @tschfflr Great questions! I think most readers will at least peruse the abstract before the Introduction, but the abstract is a standalone thing: the rest of the paper should be written as if the abstract wasn't there at all. In my experience, most readers will need the framework of the Introduction (especially your hypothesis) to comprehend your results—the Results section shouldn't include the hypothesis or where it stemmed from. It's literally just results. /1
Show threadJerry D. Harris 🦕👣Apr 9, 2025
@travisfw @tschfflr Some complex research projects may even require readers to understand both the Introduction _and_ Methods sections for the results to make any sense. But the Results section being just results, free of interpretation of what they mean (that all goes into the Discussion section, introduced by the resolution to the hypothesis), really should contain very little repetition of material from the Introduction... /2
Show threadJerry D. Harris 🦕👣Apr 9, 2025
@travisfw @tschfflr ...and then only if the pre-Results sections were so long that readers might've forgotten the key elements of the hypothesis. For experimental papers, the Results section typically is the shortest section because it is free of all that other stuff; for descriptive papers, it might be the longest, containing the description of the studied object(s). /3
Show threadJerry D. Harris 🦕👣Apr 9, 2025
@travisfw @tschfflr A few of your paper's readers might be as specialized as you in your subject and so can understand the results without the Introduction (and Methods) first, but many won't be, so the Introduction must set them up to understand your results. As previously noted, a few journals now more or less begin papers with a "Results and Discussion" section, but in those cases, a de facto Introduction still has to precede the results and interpretations later in that section. /4
Show threadJerry D. Harris 🦕👣Apr 9, 2025
@travisfw @tschfflr In other words, even if it's not under an "Introduction" heading, some version of such a thing still must be written to contextualize the results and interpretation bits. You wouldn't launch into a paper with, say, a bunch of statistics from your analysis if no one knows to what those statistics pertain. The stats need a framework first, which is the Introduction, whether or not it's labeled as such. I hope that makes sense! /end
Show threadOliver BrendelApr 8, 2025
@dinogami @tschfflr I completely agree with dinogami, but then I'm from a natural, experimental science background. And habits clearly vary among disciplines.
Show threadTatjana SchefflerApr 8, 2025
@olibrendel @dinogami Nature & Science require results before methods 🤷‍♀️
But also, the intro should contain some indication of where it’s going (surely not all results, but at least some pointers, not just a completely open question). A scientific paper is an argument, and I must say an argument of what. I absolutely require this even in experimental studies, which I supervise a lot. In addition, I was speaking about student papers (term papers , BA/BSc theses). They often don’t have an abstract.
Show threadOliver BrendelApr 8, 2025
@tschfflr @dinogami well, an introduction should clearly end with objectives and hypotheses to be tested, but I would never put results into the introduction section. That is what I consider the results section to be for. And in my discipline, I don't remember reading any article that would show it's results in the introduction section.
Show threadTatjana SchefflerApr 8, 2025
@olibrendel 4th paper on your Scholar list has the main result as the (full-sentence) title! 2nd paper has a full-on "summary" box with main results on the title page! I don't think you leave the main results as secrets to be revealed in the last section, or would argue for that!
Show threadOliver BrendelApr 8, 2025
@tschfflr yes, I agree that the title can and should contain a hint at the results, also the abstract, and the recently often asked for highlights section. However, all of these are in my opinion not the introduction. I also never argued that the results should be kept a mystery until the last section (end of the discussion ? Conclusions ?), but that I usually put them into the results section.
Show threadJerry D. Harris 🦕👣Apr 8, 2025
@tschfflr @olibrendel Indeed, a few journals have messed about with the IMRaD format by moving (and subordinating) the Methods section to the end of a paper, which puts the Results immediately after the Introduction. And, of course, good writing will have a smooth transition from the end of the Introduction into the following Results section, but I still see no need to put results in the Introduction, especially in such a "misplaced-Methods-section journal" case...they'd just be redundant.
Show threadJeroen BosmanApr 8, 2025
@tschfflr Not only good advice for students but for all researchers. And I would add: also include the main results clearly in your abstract. And for editors: as a rule do not accept articles that omit results/conclusions from the abstract.
Show threadVincent 🌻🇪🇺 en 🌹☘️Apr 8, 2025
@tschfflr “The butler with the particle accelerator in the dungeon”!
Show threadBenjamin Ultan CowleyApr 9, 2025
@tschfflr great points and interesting debate in the comments. The back and forth has so far missed one key reason to provide a precis of results before the main results section: the classic structure of story telling, which has three parts. First you tell what you're going to tell, then you tell what you want to tell, then you tell what you told. The form and purpose of the telling changes throughout, but the essential information is repeated. Check out Freytags pyramid for example.
It's not necessary to get stuck on the exact details of how it's done, which I feel some comments have. But the principle is much broader and older than scientific writing, which should tell us something.