How to write good science paper?

[Pawelk198604]

I am writing a master's thesis in Library Science, I know that many of you do you consider Library Science, Information Science or Bibliology (Science of Books or Book science) by real science, but I assure you that all of these interdisciplinary areas are real science:-)

I have only one problem with my supervisor (I know that many of you have a word associated with the promoter of professional boxing gala , but in Poland this word also means the thesis supervisor)

Well, my Promoter accuses me that my work is too chaotic and too many stylistic and grammatical errors (it's not my fault that I have dyslexia and dysgraphia, and my native language Polish contains many stupid and pointless grimmer rules, much more than in other languages)

I would like to ask you how well written a thesis? I have good grades in courses at my university, but I have a problem with writing research papers are too chaotic as .puts my supervisor.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Pawelk198604

[perk]

the rules are generally the same as every writing:

construct your argument:

1.1. outline what you are interested in (your thesis),

1.2. why you are interested in that question (applications/unanswered questions/conjectures)

1.3. how it was handled by others so far (relevant results)

2. what questions do you want to answer, and how

3. detail the methods of inquiry

4. apply the methods of inquiry

5. present results

6. conclude by tying your results back to your initial questions and motivations.

[Camacha]

the rules are generally the same as every writing:

I contest that every writing should follow that structure, but for research papers, sure.

[ZetaX]

A math paper is more like (1.1), 1.2, 1.3, (2.), 3., 4., 4., 4., 3., 4., 4., 4., 3., 4.

(the brackets being optional)

[perk]

oh, i deleted a part of a sentence when restructuring without replacing it appropriatly, it should have read:

"as every writing that is supposed to convey an argument"

and regarding the size of the paper: that depends on its purpose, there are fields of study where it is hugely relevant to put your work in the proper context (bigger percentage of content in section 1 and less in 4) or other fields where the context is clear but your experimental setup/control takes up 80% of the paper

Edited February 28, 2015 by perk

[PB666]

Have a person who is a technical Polish writer proof your manuscript for both clarity, continuity and select a field-specific reader proof it for content.

[Rich]

Have a person who is a technical Polish writer proof your manuscript for both clarity, continuity and select a field-specific reader proof it for content.

^ So much this and I would also advise finding similar pieces of "science" on google scholar and examining their structure.

[cpast]

Keep in mind that part of your supervisor's job is to tell you when your research paper writing needs work. It's not an accusation of you, and it's not them just being mean; you should take what they're saying seriously, but then work to improve it. Talk to them and ask if they have more specific stuff. Reading other papers in the field is a good idea (you should be doing this anyway when you're doing research, but if your writing needs work then pay attention to how they do things). There's quite likely a standard structure of a paper; follow that structure, be concise, and make sure you aren't meandering back and forth between topics. You might have to rewrite things a lot; that's fairly normal in writing (it might help if you first outline it so you know what you want to talk about and in what order).

[Vanamonde]

As this is about writing rather than about science, moved to Space Lounge.

[Bill Phil]

Outline it. Organizing your thoughts would help tremendously. That's what outlines do.

[Godot]

Also don´t forget to always include references, whenever you take passages/ideas from other papers