This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Throughout the years I have
participated in reading committees of more than a hundred
doctoral dissertations.
Additionally,
reports of the Stanford Exploration Project (SEP)
contain about sixty papers a year;
and I am nominally in charge of making them presentable.
In all this activity I have seen many poor abstracts;
and in each case I have spared myself and the author much struggle
by referring to the short paper,
Scrutiny of the abstract,
by
Landes [1966],
which was made available to SEG's aspiring authors.
I rarely rewrite authors' abstracts
any more---it's usually enough to have them read Landes' paper
and rewrite it themselves.
Landes' own abstract is worth quoting:
Introductions are not easy to write either.
I am pleased to report that
in recent years
I have developed a formula for the introduction.
With this paper expounding my formula,
I am hoping to reduce the need
for one-on-one tutoring.
You might be able to produce a good introduction without following my formula,
but if you are having trouble producing an introduction
that pleases other people
and you would like to finish the writing and get on with your life,
then I suggest you follow my formula.
First I'll describe the three essential parts of an introduction
and then I'll give you some tips on overall organization.
You will see why introductions are so difficult to write
once you understand how introductions
depend on that most embarrassing of all words, "I".
My formula for an introduction is a sequence of three parts.
They are (1) the review,
(2) the claim, and (3) the agenda.
Pick out about 3-10 papers providing a background
to your research and say something about each of them.
You could paraphrase a sentence or two from each abstract.
The review is not intended to be a historical
review going back to Newton or Descartes.
Try to find a few papers
by your office mates, your advisor,
your predecessors, or other associates.
That way you might find somebody to give you helpful criticism!
Anyone can follow these instructions and write a review
that looks presentable.
Where intelligence and skill are required
is in organizing the review
so that it leads up to something, namely, to your
claim.
The most important part of the introduction is buried in the middle.
It is the claim.
The claim is where you claim
your work is a worthwhile extension
of the review you just wrote.
If someone says your writing is "unmotivated,"
they are not insulting your humanity;
it just means they can't find your claim.
In your claim you should use the personal pronoun "I"
(or "we" if you aren't the sole author).
The word "I" tells people
where common knowledge runs out
and your ideas begin.
If you are writing a doctoral dissertation
or an article for a refereed journal,
then you should be making a new contribution to existing knowledge.
Your paper is not acceptable without an identifiable claim.
An agenda is found at the end of many introductions.
It summarizes what you will show the reader
as your paper progresses.
Your agenda will be dull if it is merely a recital
of the topics you will cover.
Your agenda should tell how
your paper works to fulfill your claim.
In this way your agenda should clarify your claim.
The agenda is not as important as the review
and the claim.
Keep it short.
Occasionally you will be fortunate enough
to be writing about something in which
some of your conclusions can be made in simple statements.
If so, state them early, right after your agenda.
You aren't trying to write a mystery!
Many more people will
begin
reading your paper than will
finish
reading it.
Motivate them to finish!
Unfortunately, many technical papers do not lend themselves
to early conclusions.
Of course you want people to read beyond your introduction too.
So think carefully about the order of your material
and how you say things.
(Notice this tiny paragraph is a small abstract of what follows).
You may use personal pronouns elsewhere in your paper, too.
Generally, you should use a personal pronoun whenever you are
expressing an opinion
or
exercising judgement.
Another time to use "I" is whenever there is a simple matter of
choice.
For example, "To test the theory I selected some data,"
or "To examine the theory I programmed the equations,"
or "To evaluate the theory I made some synthetic seismograms."
Whether your ideas are solid as bed rock
or speculative as clouds,
you need first-person pronouns.
Where your ideas are speculative, the pronouns signal a disclaimer.
Where your ideas are solid,
the pronouns signal that you may be credited for them.
When your friends see your personal pronouns they will know
just where they should offer their questions and suggestions.
Good scientific papers contain wide ranging statements
from ancient axioms and common knowledge
to speculations and outright guesses.
It is the writer's fault if
a casual reader cannot distinguish these types of statements.
Personal pronouns are good words to help keep the distinctions clear.
Other good words for this purpose are
"should, could, would, might, may, can, is, does,...".
Use them all and pick the best for each purpose.
Some editors of scientific papers
mechanically introduce
the personal pronoun "I" to avoid the passive voice.
I don't agree with them.
For example,
such editors will change your words
"Substitution of equation (1) into equation (2) gives..."
into the words
"Substituting equation (1) into equation (2) I find...".
The first wording states a simple fact
but the second wording
hints that someone else might get a different result.
My papers often describe processes.
I find it best to first describe inputs,
next I describe outputs,
and last I describe the process itself.
It is illogical to describe the output
before the process which creates it,
but that nonlogical approach helps people
see where I am going
and why I do what I do.
You could write your paper so that each part builds on earlier parts.
Like the axiomatic approach to geometry,
you could refuse to refer to things not yet proven.
But, rather than write your paper that way,
it is wiser to maximize your readership.
More people will begin your paper
than will reach the end.
Try to state results before you prove them.
Push off complicated derivations and digressions until the end.
Complicated mathematical derivations,
especially if marginal to your main thesis,
should be relegated to appendices.
In your paper you might want to include digressions,
possible applications, etc.
That's nice.
But be sure to include language that
labels them as peripheral.
If you don't,
some people will miss your main point
and quibble with these peripheral matters.
Writing English as a second language
A technical document rarely has a preface
because a preface describes the document itself
without describing the material content.
For example, if I made a preface to this article it would say
that this article previously appeared in a report
of the Stanford Exploration Project.
The introduction to a speech is quite different
from that of a technical paper.
INTRODUCTION
The abstract is of the utmost importance,
for it is read by 10 to 500 times more people than hear or read
the entire article.
It should not be a mere recital of subjects covered.
Expressions such as 'is discussed' and 'is described' should never
be included!
The abstract should be a condensation and concentration of the
essential information in the paper.
THE BODY OF AN INTRODUCTION
The review
The claim
The agenda
AFTER THE INTRODUCTION
Order of material
Wordy constructions rob the prose of force. -Allen Matusow.
What is central and what is peripheral?
What is a preface?
The introduction to a speech
Paper Lecture
Review
Attention getter
Claim
Thesis
Agenda
Preview
CONCLUSION
This short article is not a typical technical paper,
but you might like to look back at
my introduction
to see if I follow my own advice.
Azerbaijanian language by Amir Abbasov
Chinese language by Alexander Tse.
Czech language by by Lera Domartina.
Slovak language by Barbora Lebedova
Spanish language by Chema Bescos.
Ukrainian language by Fixgerald