How to write the results section?
Peter Li
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 03:18 UTC
Hello, I am a new science writer. Currently I am writing the results section of a paper I am trying to publish. However, what I wrote so far seems very boring and I couldn’t find any resources on if this is the right style. I am wondering if some writing masters could give me some pointers. Here is what I have, as you can see, it is very dry.
Results
Baseline measurements: Measurements of internode 1 of both treatment groups revealed no prior differences in internode 1 between the two treatment groups (0.2 < p < 0.5, table 1). Data obtained for each group followed that of a normal distribution (figure 1 for group A and figure 2 for group B).
GA3 effect on total height: GA3 treated G.max seedlings showed significant difference in their height compared to control seedlings (p < 0.001, table 1). It is clear from Fig. 3 that treated seedlings had increased mean height compared to control seedlings. In fact, the treated seedlings had twice the mean height than control (table 1).
GA3 effect on internode 2 length: Seedlings treated with GA3 had a significant difference in their internode 2 length compared to control (p < 0.001, table 1). The mean internode 2 length was higher in treated seedlings relative to control seedlings (figure 4 and table 1 for numerical values).
GA3 effect on internode 2 diameter: There was a significant difference in the diameter between the two treatment groups (0.001 < p < 0.002, table 1). There was an appreciable increase in mean diameter in the GA3 treated group (figure 5, table 1).
GA3 effect on the number of leaves: GA3 treated group had a mean leave number per plant that differed significantly from the untreated group (p < 0.001). Like in previously examined parameters, there was an increase in the number of leaves in the GA3 treated group (figure 6, table 1).
-
Replies
-
This is not really science writing as most people who hang out here would recognise it. This is an example of “paper chasing”. Something that scientists do as they pursue fame and glory.
The rules of paper chasing are very different from those of science writing. Bring the latter to the former and you run the risk of having papers rejected as being too readable. “If it is that easy to understand, then it can’t be real science.”
Doubtless there are guides to writing scientific papers. But science writers probably don’t know about them.
-
Is this your own research? Then writing the paper is not science writing as understood by most – it simply is reporting your research. There is literature out there to help you guide writing such papers, plus it is important to closely follow the directions for authors supplied by the journal you want to publish in. These directions, naturally, differ from journal to journal, so before finalizing your paper be sure to read them and make sure your work fulfills each and any requirement listed.
Michael J. Katz’s “From Research to Manuscript: A Guide to Scientific Writing”, Robert A. Day and Barbara Gastel’s “How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper”, or Mimi Zeigler’s “Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers” may all help you with your writing.
If you are writing up someone else’s research, you are close to what we mean here by science writing, but the above sources would still help. However, in that case you are opening a whole new can of worms regarding authorship…
Ulrike
-
