Modular Templates for Writing SCI Papers and What to Watch Out For

>

> >

> >

He said, “Long live the people” …

He called us the sun at eight or nine in the morning …

He said, “Our hopes rest on you” …

We must keep striving! We must push forward with all our might! Our golden world, our brilliant and glorious world, lies ahead! —— Mao Zedong, “The Great Union of the Popular Masses”, 1919

Preface

In the earlier posts “A Writing Framework for Original Research Papers in SCI Journals“ and “A Writing Framework for Literature Review Papers in SCI Journals“, we went through writing frameworks for two types of SCI journal papers. But for students writing an SCI paper for the first time, a framework alone may leave them lost, not knowing how to start.

The solution is simple:

1. Read a lot, imitate the structure of excellent existing SCI papers, and learn their logic, structure and organization.
2. Use frameworks: apply templated logical writing frameworks to write each small part in a formulaic way.

This post gives general step-by-step templates for the Introduction, descriptions and discussion of tables/figures, and the Discussion of an SCI paper, and notes what to watch out for when writing them.

A Four-Step Template for the Introduction

The introduction of a research paper is basically written in four steps:

(1) Research background: introduce the background knowledge, definitions and importance of the field; define our own new research content, introduce the necessary knowledge briefly. Let people understand what is being studied.

(2) Literature review: next, review the existing literature on “what we study” and “what is related to what we study”: what work has been done, what conclusions are known, then compare, analyse and draw conclusions from the review.

(3) Research gaps: present the shortcomings, gaps and weaknesses of existing research, then state the problem this paper solves, how it solves it, the method, and what results the study will produce.

(4) What this paper does: describe the paper’s structure and research content.

Here we use Using Minecraft to cultivate student interest in STEM [1] as an example to take this step-by-step template apart.

The paper opens with the broad background of the problem: “Learners often find STEM difficult because it requires complex thinking, repeated practice, and self-discipline”, then cites facts to support it, for example: “Filipino students scored a low 353 and 357, respectively. Only 1 out of 5 attained the minimum proficiency level in math…”. Then it states the research focus: “Improving students’ self-efficacy through learning experiences is essential to cultivating students’ interest and enthusiasm in STEM careers”. The research gap is briefly pointed out right after. Note, however, that when we write the gap ourselves, we should cite more existing studies to support the shortcomings and gaps we identify; that is more convincing.

The authors put the necessary background knowledge in the literature review part. After all, a template is only a template and shouldn’t be applied mechanically; advanced, fluent writing logic matters most. The rest of the introduction presents related knowledge and reviews previous research. We can also see that the four steps of the template are not necessarily written in order, because the purpose of a paper is to let people understand what we study, what we did and what we found, and to spark the interest of readers, reviewers included.

At the end of the introduction, the authors state the research content. When writing our own, it is best to add the structure of the paper and what each section does, so readers can see it at a glance and the paper reads more logically.

Tense Rules for the Introduction

When writing the introduction, pay special attention to English tenses. First, a general principle: in SCI papers, whether in the introduction or elsewhere, we generally use only four tenses: the simple present, the present perfect, the simple past and the simple future.

In the introduction, follow these rules:

Simple present: for the research background, because the background consists of established facts and the current general situation.

Present perfect: for the research background and the summary of the literature review. In English both the simple present and the present perfect are “present” tenses; the present perfect is used for “an action that started in the past, continues to now and may continue” or “the effect of a past action on the present”.

Simple past: for the literature review. Existing studies are past studies, so when reviewing earlier results we use the simple past to discuss and summarize what previous researchers found.

Simple future: for the last paragraph of the introduction, describing the structure of the paper. For example, “Section 2 will discuss…”.

A Four-Step Template for Describing Tables/Figures

Our results are usually presented visually, but for every figure we need to write its introduction, description, discussion and result. This is the four-step template for describing tables and figures.

(1) Introduction: first introduce the figure. This usually appears near the figure caption and briefly states the background, purpose and importance of the figure. It should be concise so readers quickly grasp what the figure means. (Introduce the figure: origin + what it is + conditions.)

The simplest templates are “This figure shows/displays … (e.g. the mechanical response of geomaterials at different temperatures)” or “Figure X illustrates … (e.g. changes in soil permeability at different humidities in the experiment)”. Admittedly this is unoriginal; fluent, logical writing catches the reader’s eye far better.

(2) Description: describe in detail the components, main features, data and trends in the figure. Focus on the content of each part, trends and comparisons. The description should be objective, without personal speculation or conclusions. (Objective statement: components + content + observed results.)

The simplest template is “In Figure X, … shows a (linear, non-linear, increasing, decreasing, etc.) trend.” (e.g. “As shown in Figure 3, the shear strength of the soil increases significantly with pressure.” “At 135 °C, the fatigue life of material xx is strongly affected by temperature; compared with temperature xx, its compressive strength drops by xx, to 86% of that under condition xx…”)

(3) Discussion: analyse the data or trends in depth, which may involve interpreting the data, comparing with other studies and analysing possible causes. Research hypotheses and theoretical models can be introduced here. (Preliminary conclusion + causes + citations of earlier studies to support the causes and compare results + inferences or hypotheses.)

Simple examples:

“As can be seen from Figure X, …, which is consistent/inconsistent with the findings of earlier study xx.”

“These data indicate that … (explain the cause or mechanism).”

“Compared with other studies, the results in this figure … (comparison).”

“Therefore, it can be inferred that … (inference or hypothesis).”

(4) Result: summarize the main finding the figure reflects and stress the most important conclusion. This part is usually short; don’t repeat the figure, but stress its scientific significance or practical value. (Stress the main conclusion + its significance.)

Simple examples:

The results show that temperature has a significant negative effect on the fatigue performance of the material.

Overall, Figure 6 shows the effect of humidity on soil permeability, and this effect is non-linear.

For step (1), the introduction, we take Figure 19 of Space-time virtual element method for elastodynamics: Theory, applications, and code development [2] as an example.

Fig. 19. Geometry and mesh of the animal shape plates.

This is the introduction to Figure 19. It naturally describes where the figure comes from and its conditions, and says what the figure is:

“For the last example, a two-dimensional animal-shaped subjected to volume forces is considered. The geometry and polygonal VEM mesh are shown in Fig. 19. In this work, downward and rightward body forces $g = 10$ are considered. The material parameters are assumed as $E = 200000$, $\nu = 0.3$, $\rho = 50$.”

For the other three steps, we take Table 1 of Automated image-based generation of finite element models for masonry buildings [3] as an example.

“Table 1 shows that the MA scores average over 90% (metric mean values - MA−A:92.7%; MA−B:90.6%) and MB scores, with one exception, are equal to or larger than 2.0 (metric mean values - MB−A:3.2; MB−B:3.1). In general, the experts were satisfied with the performance of the methodology for all example buildings studied, with the framework producing appropriate discretizations and definition in the EFMs for numerical simulations of the building. The only disagreement with the experts stemmed from personal criteria in the discretization process, which they considered to be expected and normal. Their most relevant comments for improvement were: 1) the systematic methodology sometimes produces overly large and rigid nodes—their size should be reduced and adjacent piers or spandrels should be increased; 2) small openings should be disregarded to avoid creating too many rigid nodes. Improvements along these directions will be considered in the future (see Conclusions). Overall, these results show the clear potential for the use of image-based approaches in automatically generating finite element geometries of the facades of historical masonry buildings.”

A Five-Step Template for the Discussion

In papers with a very large amount of work, very strong logic, or very good writing, the Discussion is usually a section of its own.

A simple five-step template:

(1) Summarize the main findings

At the start of the discussion, briefly summarize your main findings or results. This reminds readers of the focus of your work and sets up further analysis. But this is not a simple copy of the results; stress the significance of the core results and avoid repeating detailed data or over-interpreting.

For example: “We found that, compared with the control group, temperature X clearly improves property Y of material xx, especially under condition xx, where property Y increases significantly. This shows that X has a large effect on Y, which agrees with our hypothesis but differs from earlier studies that reported no significant effect.”

(2) Explain the significance of the results

Give a reasonable explanation of the key results (why + the mechanism + support and comparison from earlier studies), and explain their scientific significance or practical value in detail. This helps readers understand why the results matter and why they occur.

For example: “Compressive strength increases with curing temperature. At higher temperatures, the activation energy needed for curing xxx decreases, speeding up the reaction between the precursor and the alkaline activator.”

(3) Compare with other studies

Compare your results with other studies in the field, stating whether they agree or differ. But! If you support earlier conclusions, don’t just write that your results match study xxx; explain what you added to their conclusion. If you differ, explain why.

Compared with earlier studies, the results of this study … (agree/disagree)

This finding is consistent with / differs from Smith et al. (2020), who found …

Other studies (e.g. …) proposed …, whereas this study …

For example:

Supporting earlier conclusions: This result agrees with the earlier findings of Hu et al. (2024), who also observed that the compressive strength of geopolymer masonry increases with curing temperature. Our study extends their conclusion by showing that the strength gain is more pronounced above 80 °C, where the microstructure becomes denser.

Disagreeing with earlier conclusions: The results of this study differ from the conclusion of Yamada et al. (20xx), who reported that the thermal conductivity of the material increases significantly with temperature. Our study, however, shows that thermal conductivity levels off once the temperature reaches 200 °C, with no significant change observed when the temperature is raised further to 400 °C. This difference may be related to several factors. First, the mix proportions differ from those of Yamada et al.: we used a higher proportion of filler, which may have optimized the heat conduction paths so that thermal conductivity stabilizes at lower temperatures. By contrast, Yamada et al. used a more uniform mix with less filler, so the conductivity rose gradually with temperature. Second, this study applied sustained heat treatment at high temperature, which may have accelerated the stabilization of the lattice structure and thus of thermal conductivity, whereas Yamada et al. focused mainly on the response to transient high temperature, so the experimental conditions differ. In addition, the effect of microstructure on thermal conductivity cannot be ignored. Our material has a more uniform particle size distribution, which may improve heat conduction efficiency, whereas the material of Yamada et al. is less uniform in microstructure, which may make conductivity change more noticeably at high temperature. During the experiments, micro-cracks may form on the material surface as temperature rises, which may also be an important cause of changes in conductivity. Given these different conditions, we believe that in practice the thermal performance of the material may be affected by many factors, especially filler proportion, microstructure and processing.

(4) Limitations and uncertainty of the results

Discuss possible limitations or uncertainties. Pointing out the study’s shortcomings briefly and honestly (without listing a pile of them) shows critical thinking and gives directions for future research.

“This study has some limitations. First, …”

“Although our study provides valuable findings, some potential uncertainties remain, such as …”

“It should be noted that the results may be affected by …”

“One limitation of this study is …, which may limit the … of our findings.”

“In addition, this study was conducted under … conditions and may not reflect …”

(5) Future research and applications

Based on the findings and limitations, propose possible directions and suggestions for future research, identify new directions or improvements, and discuss how your results can be applied in practice.

“Future research could further explore …”

“To verify our findings, future studies should …”

“This study provides important clues for the practical application of …; future work could continue to study … to understand how X affects Y …”

“Future research could further explore the effect of different humidities on the fatigue performance of the material to verify the trend we observed.”

“This study provides a theoretical basis for designing durable materials for high-temperature environments, which could be applied to the optimized design of real structures in future.”

References

1. Tablatin, C. L. S., Casano, J. D. L., & Rodrigo, M. M. T. (2023). Using Minecraft to cultivate student interest in STEM. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 8). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1127984
2. Xu, B.-B., Junker, P., & Wriggers, P. (2025). Space-time virtual element method for elastodynamics: Theory, applications, and code development. In Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering (Vol. 435, p. 117683). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2024.117683
3. Pantoja-Rosero, B. G., Achanta, R., & Beyer, K. (2023). Automated image-based generation of finite element models for masonry buildings. In Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (Vol. 22, Issue 7, pp. 3441–3469). Springer Science and Business Media LLC. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01726-7