Source: How and Why Biologists Write, Introduction (pp. 1–4)
Tags: scientific writing, biological literature, research paper, review paper, peer review, grant proposal, science communication
Difficulty: Introductory | Prerequisites: None. This is a foundational chapter suitable for students with no prior exposure to scientific writing conventions.
This chapter opens the textbook by addressing why writing matters in biology at all. It sits at the very beginning of the course because everything that follows (research papers, review articles, proposals, lab reports) depends on understanding that science is a collective, communication-driven enterprise. If you have never thought about the different forms of scientific writing, or assumed scientists mostly work in labs and barely write, this is the chapter that reframes that assumption. You do not need any prior coursework to follow it.
Scientists write far more than most people realise, and writing well is not optional in biology. The field depends on clear communication of findings through research papers, review articles, grant proposals, conference presentations, and popular writing. Most formal writing grows out of informal writing (notes, outlines, emails), so good writing habits matter at every stage.
Research paper (primary literature)
A journal article reporting original findings from a field or laboratory investigation. It follows a standard structure: Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Literature Cited (References). Think of it as the core unit of scientific contribution, the thing a biologist's career is largely judged by.
Review paper (secondary literature)
A journal article that synthesises work by many independent researchers on a particular subject or problem. It does not present new data but instead surveys, summarises, and interprets existing studies. In simple terms, it is a curated map of what the field knows so far on a given topic.
Peer review
The process by which a manuscript submitted to a journal is sent to several independent experts in the author's field. These reviewers read the paper critically and recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. Think of it as quality control for published science.
Research proposal (grant proposal)
A carefully organised plan for future research, submitted to funding agencies (e.g. the National Science Foundation) or academic committees. It includes a literature review, rationale, methodology, and projected costs. In simple terms, it is a pitch for money and permission to do the work.
Conference presentation
A paper or poster presented at a formal meeting of scientists. It often covers unpublished or in-progress research. Think of it as a preview of findings before they reach a journal.
Abstract
A concise summary (usually one paragraph) placed at the beginning of a research paper, review, or conference submission. It gives the reader enough information to decide whether to read the full work.
Literature Cited (References)
The section of a scientific paper that lists every source the author referred to. Allows readers to trace claims back to their original evidence.
Formal writing
Writing intended for publication or official submission: research papers, reviews, proposals, textbooks. It follows discipline-specific conventions for structure, style, and citation.
Informal writing
Writing that precedes and supports formal work: lab notebooks, field notes, outlines, journal entries, emails, discussion posts. In simple terms, it is the scaffolding that shapes the final product.
Science is a collective enterprise. Its growth depends on the work and insight of many individuals and the free exchange of data and ideas.
No experiment, however brilliant, contributes to the existing fund of scientific knowledge unless it has been described to others working in the same field.
The primary aim of scientific writing is to communicate as clearly, accurately, and succinctly as possible.
Good scientific writing translates complex data and theory into clear, straightforward, illuminating prose. The best examples have their own kind of grace and elegance.
Poor scientific writing does exist: stilted, jargon-ridden papers appear in journals. But the standard to aim for is clarity, not ornamentation.
Research papers
Report original findings from field or laboratory work that may have extended over weeks, months, or years.
Divided into six standard sections: Abstract (or Summary), Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Literature Cited (References).
Editorial requirements vary between journals, but the basic organisation is consistent across the discipline. The format reflects both the logic of the scientific method and a long history of printing and publishing traditions.
A research paper is at heart a well-structured argument founded on supporting evidence. It presents findings and argues for or against competing hypotheses.
If independent investigators use similar methods but get different results, the original study's conclusions may need re-evaluation.
Papers go through multiple drafts, collegial feedback, and formal peer review before publication. The entire editorial process can take many months.
Short reports and communications
Many journals publish shorter reports of original findings in sections titled Research Notes, Communications, or similar.
Organisation resembles a full research paper, but certain sections are streamlined to meet shorter manuscript specifications.
Conference presentations
Presented orally or as posters at formal scientific meetings.
Often cover unpublished, in-progress research. Biologists rely on them to learn about the current activities of colleagues.
Abstracts of presentations are usually distributed in printed form and listed in major indexes.
Authors of conference talks and posters typically publish their work as journal papers as soon as possible.
Research proposals (grant proposals)
A carefully organised plan for future research, submitted to funding agencies or academic committees.
Proposals suggest work rather than present completed studies, so they may have lengthy introductions reviewing existing literature and providing a rationale for the proposed project.
They include methodology and projected costs for equipment, research assistants, travel, and other expenses.
A results section is absent (the work has not been done yet), though the introduction may showcase previous findings, especially if the same funding agency supported earlier work.
Biology students may also write research proposals in anticipation of independent coursework or Ph.D. research.
Review papers
Synthesise work by many independent researchers on a particular subject or scientific problem.
Serve as a valuable summary of research: they bring together the most pertinent findings from a large number of studies.
A good review does not only summarise; it provides interpretive analysis and sometimes a historical perspective.
Reviews vary in aims, scope, length, and format, but they all include a relatively lengthy reference section.
Journal editors sometimes invite prominent experts to write reviews in their particular fields. The ability to give an authoritative overview of a subject usually develops with experience.
Whether solicited or unsolicited, review papers must still conform to journal specifications and pass peer review.
Many biologists write extensively for readers with little background in science.
Magazines such as Natural History (American Museum of Natural History) and Smithsonian (Smithsonian Institution) feature essays and articles written by experts for nonspecialists.
Many scientists take great pleasure in transforming their professional work into writing that reaches the general reader.
Beyond magazine submissions, some biologists write books on natural history, health, the environment, or the practice of science. Others compose poetry or write novels that combine science with literature.
Biologists also contribute to science education by writing textbooks and articles for journals such as Journal of College Science Teaching and American Biology Teacher.
Biologists who teach at colleges and universities routinely produce lectures, course syllabi, paper assignments, examinations, letters of recommendation, memos, departmental reports, CVs, and letters of application for academic positions.
Most formal writing is preceded and shaped by informal writing: notes, outlines, journal entries, laboratory or field data records, and communication with colleagues through letters, professional newsletters, email, and discussion groups.
The takeaway: good writing skills are as indispensable to biologists as they are to scholars in any other academic discipline.
Every scientific discovery you read about in the news, from a new cancer treatment to a report on climate change, reached you because a biologist (or team of biologists) wrote it up clearly enough for others to evaluate, replicate, and build upon. Grant proposals are the mechanism through which nearly all funded research begins, so the ability to write a persuasive, well-structured proposal has direct career and financial consequences for working scientists.
Students often think scientists do not do much writing. They do. Writing is one of the most frequent and consequential professional activities in biology.
Students often assume scientific writing is inherently dry and unreadable. Good scientific prose can be clear, elegant, and even enjoyable to read. The tedious examples are failures of execution, not features of the genre.
Students sometimes believe that only the research paper matters. In practice, biologists write across many formats: reviews, proposals, conference presentations, popular articles, textbooks, and a wide range of informal documents.
Students sometimes treat the standard paper format (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References) as arbitrary. It is not. It mirrors the logic of the scientific method and has evolved over a long history of publishing.
⚠️ Be able to name and distinguish the major types of biological literature: research paper, review paper, research proposal, conference presentation, and popular science writing.
⚠️ Know the six standard sections of a research paper and understand that the format reflects the scientific method.
⚠️ Understand the difference between a research paper (presents original data) and a review paper (synthesises existing work without new data).
⚠️ Understand peer review: what it is, who does it, and why it matters for the quality of published science.
⚠️ Be ready to explain why writing skills are essential for biologists, not a secondary concern.
True or False: Scientists spend relatively little of their professional time writing. False.
True or False: A review paper presents the author's own original experimental data. False. It synthesises existing work by many researchers.
Fill in the blank: The six standard sections of a research paper are Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, ________, Discussion, and Literature Cited. Results.
True or False: Peer review means the journal editor alone decides whether to publish a paper. False. The editor sends the manuscript to several independent expert reviewers.
True or False: Informal writing (notes, outlines, emails) plays no real role in the production of formal scientific papers. False. Most formal writing is preceded and shaped by informal writing.
Q: What is the primary aim of scientific writing, according to this chapter?
A: To communicate as clearly, accurately, and succinctly as possible.
Q: Name the six standard sections of a biological research paper, in order.
A: Abstract (or Summary), Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Literature Cited (References).
Q: How does a review paper differ from a research paper?
A: A research paper reports original findings from the author's own investigation. A review paper synthesises and interprets existing work by many independent researchers on a particular subject. It does not present new experimental data.
Q: Why does the chapter describe a research paper as "at heart a well-structured argument"?
A: Because it is founded on supporting evidence and serves as a vehicle for presenting findings, drawing conclusions, and arguing for or against competing hypotheses.
Q: What is peer review, and what role does it play in scientific publishing?
A: Peer review is the process by which a submitted manuscript is sent to several independent experts who read it critically and recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. It acts as a quality-control mechanism, ensuring that published work meets the field's standards for rigour and clarity.
Q: Give two examples of writing tasks a biologist might do outside of journal publication.
A: Any two of: grant or research proposals, conference presentations (talks or posters), popular science articles or books, textbook writing, course syllabi, examinations, letters of recommendation, departmental reports, CVs, or letters of application.
Q: Why does the chapter emphasise the connection between informal and formal writing?
A: Because most formal writing is preceded and shaped by informal writing (notes, outlines, journal entries, lab data, emails). Understanding this connection helps students see that developing good writing habits early, even in casual contexts, directly supports the quality of their later formal work.
This chapter lays the groundwork for every later chapter in the course. The six-section structure of the research paper (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References) will be examined in detail individually. Understanding the distinction between research papers and review papers connects directly to lessons on reading and evaluating primary versus secondary literature. The discussion of peer review will come up again when the course covers manuscript revision and responding to reviewer feedback.
Scientific writing, biological literature, research paper, primary literature, review paper, secondary literature, peer review, manuscript review, grant proposal, research proposal, NSF proposal, conference presentation, poster presentation, scientific communication, science communication, abstract, IMRaD format, Introduction Materials Methods Results Discussion, Literature Cited, References section, formal vs informal writing, lab notebook, field notes, popular science writing, Natural History magazine, Smithsonian magazine, science journalism, textbook writing, American Biology Teacher, Journal of College Science Teaching, academic writing in biology, ENGL 106, English Composition II, Purdue University, how biologists write