Skip to main content

Format: Science Paper

Purpose​

Use for strict, evidence-led scholarly communication with precise claims.

Canonical Structure​

  1. Title and abstract
  2. Introduction and research question
  3. Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Limitations and conclusion

Rules​

Rule: Claims Must Match Evidence Strength​

Description: Use language that reflects what the data supports. Negative example: "This proves universal effectiveness." Positive example: "These results suggest improved performance under the tested conditions."

Rule: Keep Methods Reproducible​

Description: Report sufficient details for replication. Negative example: "We used standard methods." Positive example: "We used protocol X with parameters A, B, and C, run for N trials."

Rule: Separate Results From Interpretation​

Description: Report findings first, then explain implications. Negative example: Mixing speculation into raw results section. Positive example: Results section presents data; discussion section interprets impact.

Rule: Use Informative Subsection Headings​

Description: Structure sections with explicit, descriptive subheads so readers can navigate arguments quickly. Negative example: Large methods or discussion blocks with minimal internal structure. Positive example: Subheads for data collection, preprocessing, model specification, and evaluation.

Rule: Use Precision Without Unnecessary Obscurity​

Description: Preserve rigor while improving readability where possible. Negative example: Dense nominalized phrasing that hides action. Positive example: "We measured X at 10-minute intervals across 4 cohorts."

Rule: Convert Dense Enumerations Into Lists or Tables​

Description: When presenting multiple variables, assumptions, or limitations, use lists or tabular structure. Negative example: One paragraph listing ten parameters inline. Positive example: Parameter table or bullet list with one item per line.

Rule: Handle Readability as an Optimization Constraint​

Description: Precision is primary, but clarity still matters. Negative example: Assuming jargon density alone signals rigor. Positive example: Define terms early, simplify syntax, and keep sentence structure controlled.