IOS, CAS Webinar 1 - Focus On Scientific Writing I - Watermarked

Masterclass in Scientific Writing
and Publishing
Webinar 1: Focus on Scientific Writing I
State Key Laboratory Superlattices & Microstructure,

Institution
Institute of Semiconductors, CAS
dates
22 March 2021
GoToTraining sound check
Please message the Organizer if

you are having technical difficulties
Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

During the webinar
Take advantage of your time with the trainer.
We will ask you to interact throughout the webinars!
Vote in the poll
Hands raised
Chat box

Using GoToTraining
This is the hand raising

button. During the exercises
and Q&A sessions, you can
raise your virtual hand if
you would like to speak and
the facilitator will unmute
you.
Alternatively, share your comments and

questions in the chat. You can select whether to
share with ‘Entire Audience’ or ‘Organizer(s)
Only’.
Workshop materials
Here you can download:

● Participant Guide
● Resources booklet
● Webinar slides
Participant guide page 8
Show of hands: Have you completed the pre-

workshop activities for this webinar?
Let the trainer know!
Hands up

Trainer: Webinar 1, 2 & Abstract Review
Christiana Varnava
Senior Editor, Nature Electronics
• PhD from University of Cambridge, UK
• Research focused on entangled light-
emitting diodes based on quantum dots
and on optical quantum information
applications

Trainer: Webinar 3, 4 & Abstract Review
Olga Bubnova
Senior Editor, Nature Nanotechnology
• PhD from Linköping University,
Sweden
• Research focused on organic
singlet fission photovoltaics

Objectives for this workshop
• Increase confidence in writing papers
• Make the most of the writing process to improve accessibility
and increase impact
• Understand editorial processes and how to work with them

Webinar 1: Webinar 2: Webinar 3: Webinar 4:
Focus on Scientific Focus on Scientific Abstract Review Focus on Scientific Focus on Scientific
Writing I Writing II Publishing I Publishing II
What Makes a Great From Introduction to Abstract Consultation Submitting Your Journal Decisions
Paper? Conclusion • How to structure and Paper • Journal decisions and
• What researchers and improve your how they affect your
• How to structure each scientific writing • Journal submission
editors look for in a manuscript
great paper part of your paper to procedures • How to assess and
• Characteristics of facilitate clear writing • How to structure and respond to journal
excellent primary write a good cover decisions
research papers and letter to the Editor
review articles Figure Presentation Plagiarism and Other
• An interactive module An individual 8-minute
session with a Nature The Editorial Process Ethical Issues
Titles and Abstracts on designing clear and
• How to write a informative figures and Research journal editor and Peer Review • Why research
compelling title tables to discuss your pre- • The editorial process misconduct happens,
• Structuring a well- submitted abstract and the value of peer what it looks like and
balanced abstract + Interactive activities review
what to do about it
and Q&A sessions • The importance of
+ Interactive activities referee reports
+ Interactive activities
and Q&A sessions
+ Interactive activities and Q&A sessions
and Q&A sessions

What do you want to get out of this workshop?
Share your thoughts!

Hands up
Chat box

Webinar 1: Focus on Scientific Writing
What Makes a Great Paper?

What do you think makes a great paper?
What are the characteristics of a great primary research paper?
Think of papers you have read that were particularly impressive.

What made them stand out?
• Directly relevant to my research

• Robust data sets that support the main conclusion
• Well written text and clearly presented layout
• Engaging and well thought out figures
• Describes a new or surprising finding
Vote in the Poll!
What makes a great paper?
Great research! Grant
application
• Strong evidence
Refinement Experiments
• Noteworthy conclusions of ideas and analyses
A compelling story Paper

Publication
writing
• Effective, clear writing
• Know your audience Submission
and revision

Great research arises prospectively
• Exciting findings usually result from asking a good question
• Thoughtful experimental design, taking into account any
need for statistical analysis from the start
• Well chosen, well executed protocols

Nature’s mission
statement
… to place before the
general public the
result of scientific
discovery and to help
scientists to learn
about advances in all
branches of natural
knowledge …

Nature
• Publishes important advances with wide
implications
• Importance should be readily apparent to
non-specialists
Nature Research journals

• Publish important advances in the
discipline covered by each journal
• Relevance to the field should be
apparent to anyone in that
discipline

Nature Communications
• Springer Nature’s flagship
Open Access journal
• Significant advances for the
field
• Broad appeal isn’t a
prerequisite
• Therefore, the chances of
being published are more
than twice that of other
Nature Research journals

Communications journals
● Professional editors
supported by external
academic editorial board
members
● Selective but do not apply as
strict standards of selectivity
as the Nature Research
journals

Scientific Reports
● Speed: Scientific Reports is
committed to providing rapid
publication
● Acceptance rate: Over 60%
● Scope: Publishes technically
sound, original research papers in
all areas of the natural and clinical
sciences
● International Editorial Board:
Over 8,000 members across all
disciplines
● Visibility: Over 3.8 million article
page views per month
Journals at Nature Research
Selectivity
Exposure
Editorial input
Copyediting and art

input

What do editors look for in a great paper?
Think like an editor!
• Which criteria would you consider when assessing a research

paper?
• How would you prioritize those criteria?
Vote in the poll!

What do editors look for in a great paper?
• Directly relevant to the scope of the journal
• Robust data sets that support the main conclusion
• Well written text and clearly presented layout
• Engaging and well thought out figures
• Describes a new or surprising finding
Vote in the poll!

What do Nature editors look for?
Mainly:
• Breadth of interest: Novel conclusions of interest or direct
relevance to scientists in other fields
• A striking conceptual advance: Novel conclusions that change

our understanding of the field

But also:
• Strong logical support for conclusions
• Mechanistic insight
• Work that will inspire further research

And for certain types of articles:
• Significant resource value
– e.g. CRISPR–Cas9 screen, ENCODE and Pan-Cancer Analysis
of Whole Genomes
• Significant technical breakthrough
– e.g. new structural biology or single-molecule approach
• Significant public interest
– e.g. COVID-19 biology and therapeutics, phase I clinical
trials

Incremental advances are generally less
successful
These include:
• Findings that are entirely in line with expectations
• Further details of well-established systems that are not
greatly anticipated
• Methods of use only to specialists
• Replications and confirmations that do not move the field
forward

Example paper
What do you think of this paper (Paper 1)?
Share your ideas!

What is a Review article?
• Synthesis of advances in a field
• Discussion of advances from the past 2–3 years
A Review is not…
• … a simple summary of findings in the literature (‘laundry list’)
• … an opportunity to present the authors’ personal viewpoint
(unless editor requests)
• … an opportunity to give inappropriate focus to the authors’
own work

What makes a good Review?
• Authoritative assessment of a field
• Accessible to non-specialist readers
• Concise
• Good illustrations and examples
• Objective and balanced discussion
• Timely coverage of recent literature
• Forward-looking and inspirational
• Fits within journal guidelines!

An example Review
What do you think of this review (Paper 2)?
Share your ideas!

Summary
• There is no secret formula or back door that guarantees
publication in a top journal
• Editors apply the same criteria to every submission
• The research question, data and findings are the key factors

Summary
• Take a step back from the work when assessing your findings
and selecting a journal
• Briefly and objectively explain the importance of your findings
• Don’t lose sight of the fact that studies can be extremely

influential and high quality even if they are not published in a
journal such as Nature

Q&A
Ask the Editor!

Exercise 1
You’re the Editor!


Read Abstracts 1–3 in the Participant Guide.
Imagine you are an Editor at Nature. Decide which of the

abstracts, if any, you would publish!
Hints:
• What is the impact of the authors’ achievements?
• What story does the abstract tell about the research?


Which of the three abstracts would you publish in Nature?
• Abstract 1: Microwave-driven coherent operation of a

semiconductor quantum dot charge qubit
• Abstract 2: Fast coherent manipulation of three-electron
states in a double quantum dot
• Abstract 3: Magnetically tunable singlet-triplet spin qubit in
a four-electron InGaAs coupled quantum dot
Vote in the Poll!


Read Abstracts 1–3 in the Participant Guide.
For each abstract, suggest a journal that might be suitable for

the level of scientific advance.
Share your suggestions!

Hands up
Chat box

Abstract 1 Abstract 2 Abstract 3
Nature Nature Scientific Reports 3,

Nanotechnology 10, Communications 5, 3121 (2013)
243–247 (2015) 3020 (2014)

Break

Webinar 1: Focus on Scientific Writing
Titles and Abstracts

Titles and abstracts

The ABC of writing style
a b c
accurate brief clear

Writing a compelling title
d e f
Declarative Engaging Focused

Making titles accessible
• Avoid complex compound nouns
• Use the active voice, if possible
• Avoid acronyms
• Avoid being too assertive
• Avoid questions

Avoid questions as titles
• The question suggests a lack of definite assertion
• A 2011 study revealed titles with a ‘?’ tended to be
downloaded more but cited less (n=2172 articles)
Scientometrics (2011) 88, 2

Avoid questions as titles
Instead of
“Why does organic carbon persist in soil?”

Avoid puns in titles
• Are invisible to web searches
• Can confuse readers
• Usually funniest to the authors

Other common errors
Too specific

Other common errors
Topological Schrödinger cats Contains jargon

Other common errors
What do you think is wrong with this title?
Hetero-site-specific ultrafast intramolecular

dynamics
• Not declarative
• Not focused
• Not engaging
• Contains jargon
Vote in the poll!
A more declarative title

Other common errors
High-resolution X-ray spectra of NGC 1313 X-1 and

NGC 5408 X-1
• Not declarative
• Not focused
• Not engaging
• Contains jargon
Vote in the poll!
A more engaging title

Other common errors
Tuneable on-demand single-photon source
• Not declarative
• Not focused
• Not engaging
• Contains jargon
Vote in the poll!

A more focused title

Summary: Titles
• Be accessible to reach a wide readership
• Focus on the main finding, but don’t be too specific or technical
• Be accurate, brief and clear
• Be declarative, engaging and focused
• Avoid questions and acronyms

Structuring an abstract
Introduction • We don’t know the reason for A
and context Why did you do • B is a practical problem and we need to
(gap, problem) the work? solve it
• C happens and we don’t know why
Scientific
What did you do? • We aimed to answer D
question
• We measured / calculated / analysed X

Method How did you do it?
• We used method Y
What did you

Findings • We found out that X is…
show?
Implications, • This gives us a clue about A

What does this
conclusions, • This provides a solution for B
mean?
advance • This could help to explain C

The Nature abstract formula
Basic introduction to the field, which is comprehensible to a
scientist in any discipline. Detailed background,
comprehensible to a scientist in a related discipline. One or
two sentences stating the general problem studied in the
paper. One or two sentences summarising the main result.
(“Here, we show …”) One or two sentences explaining how
the main result adds to previous knowledge. One sentence
putting the results into a more general context.

The Nature abstract formula
Today’s most precise time and frequency measurements are performed with optical
atomic clocks. However, it has been proposed that they could potentially be
outperformed by a nuclear clock, which employs a nuclear transition instead of an
atomic shell transition. There is only one known nuclear state that could serve as a
nuclear clock using currently available technology, namely, the isomeric first excited
state of 229Th (denoted 229mTh). Here we report the direct detection of this nuclear
state, which is further confirmation of the existence of the isomer and lays the
foundation for precise studies of its decay parameters. On the basis of this direct
detection, the isomeric energy is constrained to between 6.3 and 18.3 electronvolts,
and the half-life is found to be longer than 60 seconds for 229mTh2+. More precise
determinations appear to be within reach, and would pave the way to the
development of a nuclear frequency standard.
Introduction to the topic. Problem that is being addressed.

The research and key results. Context and implications.
Don’t alienate your target audience
“To investigate the effects of compounds ADC13A and ADC13B,
development of the dorsal aorta (DA) was tracked for 167 hours
post fertilization (HPF) in BALB/c mice embryos, treated with
ADC13A or ADC13B at 5 mg ml−1 for the first 24 HPF. Within
14.73 HPF, DA expression of DCL2 was reduced by 50.31%, and
total body mass (TBM) decreased by 7.64%.”

Avoid empty statements
“The present findings offer the capability that will make possible
the simulation of a wealth of new systems and new physical
effects.”
“…gaining certain key insights of relevance to these interactions

in general, and specifically to molecular engineering.”

Choosing keywords
• Both the title and abstract should contain keywords
• Help readers find your paper online
• Some journals ask for a list
• Not too common, not too rare
• Not too specific, not too general

Summary: Abstracts
• Structure similar to a paper
• Consider the ‘Nature formula’ for your abstract, if
appropriate
• Avoid jargon and empty statements
• Add keywords to increase discoverability

Q&A
Ask the Editor!

Participant Guide page 13
Exercise 2
Writing a Title

Writing a Title
Read Abstract 4 in the Participant Guide.
Think about an appropriate title for the corresponding paper!
Hints:
• Does your title describe the main results of the work?

• Is your title accurate but also engaging?
• Make sure to use clear and simple language!

Writing a Title
Abstract 4
Low-dimensional perovskites have—in view of their high radiative recombination rates—

shown great promise in achieving high luminescence brightness and colour saturation.
Here we investigate the effect of electron–phonon interactions on the luminescence of
single crystals of two-dimensional perovskites, showing that reducing these interactions
can lead to bright blue emission in two-dimensional perovskites. Resonance Raman
spectra and deformation potential analysis show that strong electron–phonon
interactions result in fast non-radiative decay, and that this lowers the
photoluminescence quantum yield (PLQY). Neutron scattering, solid-state NMR
measurements of spin–lattice relaxation, density functional theory simulations and
experimental atomic displacement measurements reveal that molecular motion is
slowest, and rigidity greatest, in the brightest emitter. By varying the molecular
configuration of the ligands, we show that a PLQY up to 79% and linewidth of 20 nm can
be reached by controlling crystal rigidity and electron–phonon interactions. Designing
crystal structures with electron–phonon interactions in mind offers a previously
underexplored avenue to improve optoelectronic materials' performance.

Writing a Title
Read Abstract 4 in the Participant Guide.
Think about an appropriate title for the corresponding paper!
Share your suggestions!

Hands up
Chat box

Writing a Title
Read the following title suggestions for Abstract 4.
Which title do you think is most appropriate?

Writing a Title
Which title do you think is most appropriate?
• Title A: Reducing electron–phonon interactions slows non-radiative decay,

raises photoluminescence quantum yield and leads to bright blue emission
in two-dimensional perovskites
• Title B: How electron–phonon interactions in perovskites can improve
optoelectronic performance
• Title C: 2D perovskites emit bright blue light
• Title D: Controlling crystal structure, rigidity and electron–phonon
interactions in high-quality, reduced-dimension perovskites yields a deep-
blue emitter with a PLQY of 79% and a sharp PL spectrum of 20 nm
• Title E: Can 2D perovskites provide a high luminescence efficiency?
Vote in the poll!

Writing a Title
The published title:

Writing a Title
Think about what makes a good title.
What do you think of the published title?
Share your ideas!

Hands up
Chat box

Q&A
Ask the Editor!

Webinar 1: Webinar 2: Webinar 3: Webinar 4:
Focus on Scientific Focus on Scientific Abstract Review Focus on Scientific Focus on Scientific
Writing I Writing II Publishing I Publishing II
What Makes a Great From Introduction to Abstract Consultation Submitting Your Journal Decisions
Paper? Conclusion • How to structure and Paper • Journal decisions and
• What researchers and improve your how they affect your
• How to structure each scientific writing • Journal submission
editors look for in a manuscript
great paper part of your paper to procedures • How to assess and
• Characteristics of facilitate clear writing • How to structure and respond to journal
excellent primary write a good cover decisions
research papers and letter to the Editor
review articles Figure Presentation Plagiarism and Other
• An interactive module An individual 8-minute
session with a Nature The Editorial Process Ethical Issues
Titles and Abstracts on designing clear and
• How to write a informative figures and Research journal editor and Peer Review • Why research
compelling title tables to discuss your pre- • The editorial process misconduct happens,
• Structuring a well- submitted abstract and the value of peer what it looks like and
balanced abstract + Interactive activities review
what to do about it
and Q&A sessions • The importance of
+ Interactive activities referee reports
+ Interactive activities
and Q&A sessions
+ Interactive activities and Q&A sessions
and Q&A sessions

Still to come
Webinar 2: Focus on Scientific Writing II
Tuesday 23 March, 16:00 -18:30 CST
Abstract Review
Wednesday 24 March, 16:00 -18:30 CST
You should have received an e-mail with your time slot for the Abstract Review session. If you
haven’t, or if you have any questions, please get in touch by e-mailing:
trainingwebinars_china@springernature.com
Webinar 3: Focus on Scientific Publishing I

Thursday 25 March, 16:00 -18:30 CST
Webinar 4: Focus on Scientific Publishing II
Friday 26 March, 16:00 -18:30 CST
Your feedback
Thank you for attending this workshop. We really value your
feedback and comments. Please take the time to complete our
short feedback form.
It only takes 10 minutes and it allows us to take your input on

board!
Survey will open when you leave the webinar

Thank you for attending!
Institution
dates

IOS, CAS Webinar 1 - Focus On Scientific Writing I - Watermarked

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOS, CAS Webinar 1 - Focus On Scientific Writing I - Watermarked

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Masterclass in Scientific Writing

Webinar 1: Focus on Scientific Writing I

State Key Laboratory Superlattices & Microstructure,

Please message the Organizer if

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Vote in the poll

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

This is the hand raising

Alternatively, share your comments and

Here you can download:

Show of hands: Have you completed the pre-

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Share your thoughts!

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

What Makes a Great Paper?

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Think of papers you have read that were particularly impressive.

• Directly relevant to my research

A compelling story Paper

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Nature Research journals

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Copyediting and art

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Think like an editor!

• Which criteria would you consider when assessing a research

• How would you prioritize those criteria?

Vote in the poll!

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Vote in the poll!

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

• A striking conceptual advance: Novel conclusions that change

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Share your ideas!

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Share your ideas!

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

• Editors apply the same criteria to every submission

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

• Briefly and objectively explain the importance of your findings

• Don’t lose sight of the fact that studies can be extremely

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

You’re the Editor!

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

You’re the Editor!

Imagine you are an Editor at Nature. Decide which of the

Institute of Semiconductors, CAS, 22 March 2021

You’re the Editor!

• Abstract 1: Microwave-driven coherent operation of a