How to generate a scientific paper
(descriptive/ method-driven or problem-driven)
1)Make prediction or hypothesis (= most parsimonious assumptions, free of contradiction)
If needed, write first a proposal (Summary, state of the art, own preliminary results, working plan
including alternatives and feasibility estimation, flow chart and financing plan).
Ask yourself:
What is the problem?
Why did you select this problem?
How will you address the problem?
What controls are needed?
How is accessibility?
What is the long-term strategy?
Think about suitable material and approaches;
Outline the experimental design;

2) Practical part:
Perform experiments and document results;
Compare observation with expectation;
Do (proper!) statistics if applicable;
Perform repetitions, modifications, further controls where needed;
e.g., for T-DNA insertion mutants: copy number, 2 independent mutants, RT-PCR, rescue with WT gene

3) Chose a suitable Journal; read and follow carefully the instructions for authors,
Write the article as you would like to read:

short, clear, interesting
Title:
Should be a concise and clear statement
Authors:
The first author should have done a large part of experiments and at least have written a draft of
the paper. Each other author should have significantly contributed to the paper. The senior (last)
author should have conceived the work and/or designed experiments/have written the final version of
the manuscript. All authors must have read the manuscript and have agreed to the manuscript’s
content!
Summary or abstract:
Enframe briefly the problem; make statement about                             i) aims, main
results, their novelty and impact, including
conclusion(s),                                              ii) the subject and approach used.
Title and abstract are the most read part of a paper!

Example:
There is an upper length limit of chromsome size for normal development of an organism
Summary. A clearly definable upper tolerance limit for chromosome arm length has been found. As a
rule we postulate that, for normal development of an organism, the longest chromosome arm must not
exceed half of the average length of the spindle axis at telophase. Above this length, fertility
and viability of the carrier individuals become severely impaired due to increasingly incomplete
separation of the longest chromatids during mitosis, resulting finally in the loss of DNA. The
experimental work that points to a limit of genome plasticity has been carried out on a series of
field bean lines with karyotypes of considerable variation in length of individual chromosomes.
(Schubert & Oud, Cell, 1997)

Introduction:
Relevant, pre-existing knowledge, prerequisites and means to address the scientific topic;
in brief:
•What do we know (references)
•What do we NOT know
•Why (and how) you did this study
Do not write: “we will discuss…”
Material and methods:
Describe or refer in a way allowing others to repeat your experiments

- Precise details of the study design
- The methods that you used
- How you analysed the data.

Results:
Present your data as a clear text referring to Figures and Tables.
Figures must be self-explaining with a concise capture; legends must be comprehensible without
reading full text, as short as possible, but with all information needed to understand the message;
the same holds true for Tables.
Do not force readers to read other papers to understand yours;                       avoid
laboratory slang, avoid too many and unexplained abbreviations;                     keep a strict
logic order;
avoid unnecessary
wording;                                                                               write in
passive
form;
                    use past for describing the experimental outcome, and present for already
validated statements;
When needed and allowed, make clear and concise subheadings;
Make clear, what are your results and what comes from others;
Never try to manipulate any data; never copy & paste without citation, distingiush reviews from
original papers (for review see…)

Discussion:
Do not continue or repeat to describe results, but interpret them.            If necessary, show up
alternative explanations. Refer to relevant related data/interpretations of others. Read papers
before citing them. Interpret possible
differences.                                                                        Address
strength and limitations of your study. Draw preliminary or final
conclusions.
  Sum up the importance of your findings; avoid over- or
understatement.                                                                   (Where
applicable, future direction of related work may be pointed out)
Acknowledgement:
Grants, technical support, donors of material, people who contributed intellectually by stimulating
discussions or critical reading of the manuscript
References: Follow the style of journal
If allowed and needed, add Supplementals

4) Submission
Cover letter:
Include author’s name and title of the manuscript;
highlighting the main points of the work and the novelty of your data;
say why you have chosen this journal;
state that the manuscript has been seen and approved by all listed authors;
suggest potential referees (referees' names, institution, and e-mail), and, if applicable, name
individuals with potential conflict of interest, to avoid sending manuscripts to competitors;

If needed ...
give statement on personal communication or other permissions needed (data presented as unpublished
results from individuals other than the authors require permission for use);
statement regarding databank submission of data and a list of all gene/protein names and symbols
used in the paper - these must all adhere to approved nomenclature guidelines for specific species.
If required, declare conflict of interest and/or contribution of authors.
Final
check:
                                                                           Before submitting
compare with instruction for authors again; read once more carefully. When you are slowing down
during reading your manuscript, something has to be improved; do not ignore!
It is recommended to ask an experienced scientist, who speaks English very well, (or a commercial
company) to check for language and style of the paper before
submission.

5) Revision:
Check arguments of reviewers/editors carefully. Follow their advice as strict as
possible.
           If you have valid arguments against their advice, formulate them clear and
concisely.
Respond their arguments in a point-by point manner in a separate letter. Highlight changes in
manuscript in one of the revised versions.         Keep style of
journal.                                                                                 Be polite,
even when you disagree.                                                           Respond soon, but
not immediately after receipt of request for revision.
6) Proof reading:
Read carefully; follow instructions from the journal and answer queries of the
editors.
       Make yourself familiar with the general symbols for different types of correction.

Have a drink with your coauthors when the paper is accepted  !