how to write and publish a scientific paper (project centered course)

U.S. News & World Report Education takes an unbiased approach to our recommendations. When you use our links to buy products, we may earn a commission but that in no way affects our editorial independence.

How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (Project-Centered Course)

About this course.

What you will achieve: In this project-based course, you will outline a complete scientific paper, choose an appropriate journal to which you'll submit the finished paper for publication, and prepare a checklist that will allow you to independently judge whether your paper is ready to submit. What you'll need to get started: This course is designed for students who have previous experience with academic research - you should be eager to adapt our writing and publishing advice to an existing personal project. If you just finished your graduate dissertation, just began your PhD, or are at a different stage of your academic journey or career and just want to publish your work, this course is for you. *About Project-Centered Courses: Project-Centered Courses are designed to help you complete a personally meaningful real-world project, with your instructor and a community of learners with similar goals providing guidance and suggestions along the way. By actively applying new concepts as you learn, you’ll master the course content more efficiently; you’ll also get a head start on using the skills you gain to make positive changes in your life and career. When you complete the course, you’ll have a finished project that you’ll be proud to use and share.

Add a Verified Certificate for $49 USD

What Else Should I Know?

Education & Teacher Training

• Student / Candidate
• Faculty member
• Entrepreneur
• Executive / Manager
• École Polytechnique
• Training catalog
• Our teachers
• Online course

HOW TO WRITE AND PUBLISH A SCIENTIFIC PAPER

7-10h of study, 10h work on project

Prerequisites

This course is designed for students who have previous experience with academic research - you should be eager to adapt our writing and publishing advice to an existing personal project. If you just finished your graduate dissertation, just began your PhD

General & scientific knowledge

Course language

PRESENTATION: In this project-based course, you will outline a complete scientific paper, choose an appropriate journal to which you'll submit the finished paper for publication, and prepare a checklist that will allow you to independently judge whether your paper is ready to submit. How to write an article and publish it in Nature or Science? The MOOC in English "How to write a scientific paper", conceived by six PhD candidates from École Polytechnique, which opened on February 29th, 2016, on the American platform Coursera, deals with this exact issue. To help graduate and PhD students who want to see their work published, PhD candidates designed an online class focusing on the writing and the publication of a scientific paper. To do so, Mattias Mano, one of the PhD candidates, managed the pedagogical team constituted of Héloïse Berkowitz, Mathias Guérineau, Arnaud Jaoul, Haruki Sawamura and Alexandre Viard. Mathis Plapp, senior scientist at CNRS, supervised the scientific content. The MOOC is composed of four sections. The first one focuses on the context and the functioning of scientific journals. In the second part, the class provides advices on how to frame a research project. In the third section, the course describes the structure of an article and the use of concrete bibliographical tools such as Zotero. Finally, students will learn how to build a tool, the check list that they have to use before sending their article to a journal. The MOOC is taught in English, available on Coursera since February 29th, 2016. COURSE SYLLABUS Week 1: Understanding academia 1.0 Why creating such a MOOC? Who is it for? 1.1 Why is publishing important? 1.2 "KYC": Know Your Community 1.3 How journals work: the review process 1.4 Presentation of scientific journals 1.5 Ethical Guidelines Week 2: Before writing: delimiting your scientific paper 2.1 Paper definition "KYP', Know Your Paper 2.2 How to: the literature review 1/2: find a good literature review 2.3 How to: the literature review 2/2: construction of your own literature review 2.4 How to: the research design 2.5 How to: the gap 2. Additional class: Zotero Week 3: Writing the paper: things you need to know 3.1 The structure of an academic paper 3.2 On writing an academic paper, preliminary advice 3.3 How to: the bibliography 3.4 How to : the abstract 3. Additional content Week 4: After the writing: the check list 4.1 How to avoid being boring? 4.2 The main mistakes to look for: format 4. Two sides of a same coin 4.3 Constructing your checklist

Plapp Mathis

• Post a resource

How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (Project-Centered Course)

What you will achieve: In this project-based course, you will outline a complete scientific paper, choose an appropriate journal to which you’ll submit the finished paper for publication, and prepare a checklist that will allow you to independently judge whether your paper is ready to submit. What you’ll need to get started: This course is designed for students who have previous experience with academic research – you should be eager to adapt our writing and publishing advice to an existing personal project. If you just finished your graduate dissertation, just began your PhD, or are at a different stage of your academic journey or career and just want to publish your work, this course is for you. *About Project-Centered Courses: Project-Centered Courses are designed to help you complete a personally meaningful real-world project, with your instructor and a community of learners with similar goals providing guidance and suggestions along the way. By actively applying new concepts as you learn, you’ll master the course content more efficiently; you’ll also get a head start on using the skills you gain to make positive changes in your life and career. When you complete the course, you’ll have a finished project that you’ll be proud to use and share.

Part of resource: 

Similar resources.

The Research Paper: A Contemporary Approach

Write in Style & Practice in Style

About école polytechnique.

Since its creation in 1794, École Polytechnique has been producing and sharing multidisciplinary knowledge at the highest level, for its students, for companies and for society, by developing an entrepreneurial spirit, boldness and a sense of general interest in its three fundamental missions of education, research and innovation.

In a globalized higher education and research environment that is both competitive but also open and collaborative, École Polytechnique has inscribed its future within Institut Polytechnique de Paris.

Created in June 2019, Institut Polytechnique de Paris is a public institution of higher education and research, encompassing 5 prestigious French engineering Schools: École Polytechnique, ENSTA Paris, ENSAE Paris, Télécom Paris, Télécom SudParis.

Since its creation, IP Paris has established itself as a world-class institution of higher education and scientific and technological research, capable of attracting the best French and foreign researchers and students, and thus being an essential driving force for France's power and influence.

More by École Polytechnique

How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (Project-Centered Course)

OpenCourser is an affiliate partner of Coursera and may earn a commission when you buy through our links.

Get a Reminder

Not ready to enroll yet? We'll send you an email reminder for this course

École Polytechnique

Get an email reminder about this course

Similar Courses

What people are saying.

According to other learners, here's what you need to know

very good in 12 reviews

Very good review of tools and tricks about how can get that your paper be published This course has given me knowledge and confidence in publishing a scientific paper.

EXCELLENT Very good and motivational.

Very good and interesting for a beginner like me, I hope others also find use of this freely available quality material.

please very good course I would suggest to be more simple and effective.

Very good pieces of advice about writing strategies.

English of instructors wasn't very good.I was expecting more info.

It is a very good MOOC to whom seeking for starting their first paper immediately after, my only notice is the language it is good but needs to be clearer to better understand the ideas.

Very good course!

Very good, introductory course.

writing a scientific paper in 3 reviews

This course is excellent for start writing a scientific paper.

The course contains some interesting insights on writing a scientific paper.

very helpful in 8 reviews

Not super detailed, but very helpful nevertheless.

It is really a very helpful course.

This course is very helpful Although it is sometimes difficult for me to understand the people explaining the content (I am not a native English speaker), the course helped me to better understand some elements I already knew.I will recommend it to my fellow teachers.

Very informative with practical experience on how to write an abstract for publication.The exercise of Checklist preparation was very helpful.Thank you Coursera and the team for your excellent coordination,Good luck for the future.

Integration with interviews and peer-graded assignments were very helpful.Highly recommended!

The tips and interviews are very helpful.

The support materials were very helpful, as were the access to the transcripts, articles and forums.

recommend this course in 4 reviews

I recommend this course, it is interesting and helps to improve your knowledge about writing.

I really recommend this course if you are a phd student in the process of writing your dissertation, or if you are not!

I would like to recommend this course to all young and burgeoning researchers and PhD students as a great learning experience.

phd students in 5 reviews

Very well organised and creates new knowledge in the area of publishing for pHD students that is very useful.

Great course Must for all the PhD students.

Excellent work for the PhD students...!

academic paper in 4 reviews

The course provided all the essential elements to guide the students to write a well-written academic paper.

informative Very basic A very nice course for novices to prepare an academic paper.

and teaching methods on how to realy write and about plagiarism(styles like Harvard style, APA, etc....) good As i am a master student and i learnt a lots of things about Research This course has well-structured content, it guides me to have a complete view of how to publish a academic paper and it also shares useful tips of how to get a paper well-organized.

research scholars in 3 reviews

I would definitely recommend the course for new research scholars.

Very good course for research scholars not very useful because there are few examples of it.

makes it in 3 reviews

Sometimes the descriptions of the tasks don't appear until after you submit a task, which makes it difficult to reach 100%.

Moreover, their sentences are so long and complicated that makes it impossible to get it.

An overview of related careers and their average salaries in the US. Bars indicate income percentile.

Scientific Advisor Consultant 2 $71k

Scientific Communications Advisor $78k

Technical/Scientific Editor $85k

Scientific Quality Assurance Auditor $85k

Scientific Writer Fellow $86k

Associate Scientific Officer $87k

Programmer Scientific $90k

Scientific Applications $91k

Medical/Scientific Writer $121k

Senior Scientific Software Engineer $123k

Scientific Officer Expert $125k

Principal Scientific Researcher Manager $270k

Write a review

Your opinion matters. Tell us what you think.

Please login to leave a review

Sorted by relevance

Like this course?

Here's what to do next:

• Save this course for later
• Get more details from the course provider
• Enroll in this course

Special thanks to our sponsors

Online courses from the world's best universities

Develop in-demand skills

Simple, cost-effective cloud hosting services

Buy cheap domain names and enjoy 24/7 support

• Online Degree Explore Bachelor’s & Master’s degrees
• MasterTrack™ Earn credit towards a Master’s degree
• University Certificates Advance your career with graduate-level learning
• Top Courses
• Join for Free

Writing in the Sciences

Taught in English

Some content may not be translated

Financial aid available

470,292 already enrolled

Gain insight into a topic and learn the fundamentals

Instructor: Dr. Kristin Sainani

(8,120 reviews)

Skills you'll gain

• Medical Writing
• Science Communication

Details to know

Add to your LinkedIn profile

See how employees at top companies are mastering in-demand skills

Earn a career certificate

Add this credential to your LinkedIn profile, resume, or CV

Share it on social media and in your performance review

There are 8 modules in this course

This course teaches scientists to become more effective writers, using practical examples and exercises. Topics include: principles of good writing, tricks for writing faster and with less anxiety, the format of a scientific manuscript, peer review, grant writing, ethical issues in scientific publication, and writing for general audiences.

Unit 1 introduces the course and reviews key principles of effective writing. In particular, you will practice cutting clutter from writing.

What's included

7 videos 1 quiz

7 videos • Total 78 minutes

• 1.1: Introduction; principles of effective writing • 11 minutes • Preview module
• 1.2: Examples of what not to do • 6 minutes
• 1.3: Overview, principles of effective writing • 6 minutes
• 1.4: Cut the clutter • 17 minutes
• 1.5: Cut the clutter, more tricks • 4 minutes
• 1.6: Practicing cutting clutter • 9 minutes
• Demo Edit 1 (Optional) • 23 minutes

1 quiz • Total 60 minutes

• Unit 1 Homework • 60 minutes

Unit 2 focuses on writing with strong, active verbs. Lessons include how to: write in the active voice; avoid turning verbs into nouns; choose strong verbs; and get to the main verb of a sentence quickly.

7 videos • Total 87 minutes

• 2.1: Use the active voice • 16 minutes • Preview module
• 2.2: Is it really OK to use "We" and "I" • 5 minutes
• 2.3: Active voice practice • 5 minutes
• 2.4: Write with verbs • 8 minutes
• 2.5: Practice examples • 20 minutes
• 2.6: A few grammar tips • 10 minutes
• Demo Edit 2 (Optional) • 20 minutes
• Unit 2 Homework • 60 minutes

Unit 3 reviews how to vary sentence structure and write strong paragraphs. You will practice using the dash, colon, semi-colon, and parentheses, as well as writing well-organized and concise paragraphs.

8 videos 1 quiz 1 peer review

8 videos • Total 105 minutes

• 3.1: Experiment with punctuation • 28 minutes • Preview module
• 3.2: Practice, colon and dash • 6 minutes
• 3.3: Parallelism • 5 minutes
• 3.4: Paragraphs • 9 minutes
• 3.5: Paragraph Editing I • 13 minutes
• 3.6: Paragraph Editing II • 11 minutes
• Module 3.7: A few more tips • 7 minutes
• Demo Edit 3 (Optional) • 22 minutes
• Unit 3 Homework • 60 minutes

1 peer review • Total 60 minutes

• Paragraph editing exercise • 60 minutes

Unit 4 reviews the writing process. I will give you tips for making the writing process easier, more efficient, and more organized.

7 videos • Total 80 minutes

• 4.1 More paragraph practice • 16 minutes • Preview module
• 4.2 Overview of the writing process • 7 minutes
• 4.3 The pre-writing step • 11 minutes
• 4.4 The writing step • 7 minutes
• 4.5: Revision • 5 minutes
• 4.6: Checklist for the final draft • 12 minutes
• Demo Edit 4 (Optional) • 20 minutes

1 quiz • Total 180 minutes

• Unit 4 Homework • 180 minutes

Unit 5 reviews the sections of a scientific manuscript. You will learn how to format tables and figures, and how to write results, methods, introduction, and discussion sections.

9 videos 1 quiz

9 videos • Total 136 minutes

• 5.1: Tables and Figures • 36 minutes • Preview module
• 5.2: Results • 11 minutes
• 5.3: Practice writing results • 6 minutes
• 5.4: Methods • 13 minutes
• 5.5: Introduction • 15 minutes
• 5.6: Introduction practice • 4 minutes
• 5.7: Discussion • 21 minutes
• 5.8: Abstract • 6 minutes
• Demo Edit 5 (Optional) • 21 minutes

1 quiz • Total 45 minutes

• Unit 5 Homework • 45 minutes

Unit 6 discusses the peer review process, as well as ethical issues in scientific publishing. You will learn how to avoid plagiarism, determine authorship, submit a paper, write a peer review, and avoid predatory journals.

9 videos 1 quiz 1 peer review

9 videos • Total 143 minutes

• 6.1: Plagiarism • 17 minutes • Preview module
• 6.2: Authorship • 10 minutes
• 6.3: The Submission Process • 11 minutes
• 6.4: Interview with Dr. Bradley Efron • 14 minutes
• 6.5: Interview with Dr. George Lundberg • 27 minutes
• 6.6: Interview with Dr. Gary Friedman • 22 minutes
• 6.7: Doing a peer review • 13 minutes
• 6.8: Predatory journals • 8 minutes
• Demo Edit 6 (Optional) • 17 minutes

1 quiz • Total 20 minutes

• Unit 6 Homework • 20 minutes

1 peer review • Total 300 minutes

• Essay • 300 minutes

Unit 7 reviews types of writing beyond original research manuscripts. You will learn how to write review papers, grants, letters of recommendation, and personal essays.

7 videos • Total 103 minutes

• 7.1: Writing a review article • 13 minutes • Preview module
• 7.2: Grants I • 13 minutes
• 7.3: Grants II • 11 minutes
• 7.4: Grants III • 11 minutes
• 7.5 Writing letters of recommendation • 20 minutes
• 7.6: Writing personal statements • 18 minutes
• Demo Edit 7 (Optional) • 14 minutes
• Unit 7 Homework • 45 minutes

Unit 8 reviews communication with broader audiences. You will learn how work with the media, be interviewed, conduct an interview, and write about science for general audiences.

8 videos • Total 124 minutes

• 8.1: Talking with the media • 13 minutes • Preview module
• 8.2: Panel Interview • 22 minutes
• 8.3: Writing for general audiences • 21 minutes
• 8.4: Writing a science news story • 10 minutes
• 8.5: Interviewing a scientist • 16 minutes
• 8.6: Social media • 20 minutes
• 8.7: Concluding Remarks • 0 minutes
• Demo Edit 8 (Optional) • 19 minutes
• Unit 8 Homework • 60 minutes
• Lay summary exercise • 60 minutes

Instructor ratings

We asked all learners to give feedback on our instructors based on the quality of their teaching style.

The Leland Stanford Junior University, commonly referred to as Stanford University or Stanford, is an American private research university located in Stanford, California on an 8,180-acre (3,310 ha) campus near Palo Alto, California, United States.

Recommended if you're interested in Basic Science

École Polytechnique

How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (Project-Centered Course)

Lund University

Writing in English at University

Yale University

Understanding Medical Research: Your Facebook Friend is Wrong

University of Alberta

Science Literacy

Why people choose coursera for their career.

Learner reviews

Showing 3 of 8120

8,120 reviews

Reviewed on Feb 26, 2020

Respected Dr.kristiani sainani madam and coursera.

I thank you for the wonderful classes and presentations, it really didn't made me feel that i was learning online course but as in class learning.

Reviewed on Jan 19, 2020

a fantastic course! I've recommended it to my colleagues and even my supervisor! Every scientist of today should take this course and perhaps re-read when you want to start writing it! JUST LOVE IT!

Reviewed on Oct 11, 2020

This course was excellent! I have learnt a lot in just 8 weeks. I am excited to apply this knowledge to my field. I was actually disappointed when I reached the end of the course, because It was fun!

New to Basic Science? Start here.

Open new doors with Coursera Plus

Unlimited access to 7,000+ world-class courses, hands-on projects, and job-ready certificate programs - all included in your subscription

Advance your career with an online degree

Earn a degree from world-class universities - 100% online

Join over 3,400 global companies that choose Coursera for Business

Upskill your employees to excel in the digital economy

Frequently asked questions

Are there other versions of this course available.

Yes. There is a Stanford Lagunita offering, and a Continuing Medical Education (CME) offering. The different offerings are described below:

The Stanford Lagunita offering is self-paced, unmoderated, includes self assessment assignments, and offers you the ability to earn a free Statement of Accomplishment.

The Coursera offering is provided on a monthly basis, is more moderated, includes peer assessment assignments, and offers you the ability to earn a certificate of completion for a fee.

The CME offering can be used to earn Continuing Medical Education credits.

When will I have access to the lectures and assignments?

Access to lectures and assignments depends on your type of enrollment. If you take a course in audit mode, you will be able to see most course materials for free. To access graded assignments and to earn a Certificate, you will need to purchase the Certificate experience, during or after your audit. If you don't see the audit option:

The course may not offer an audit option. You can try a Free Trial instead, or apply for Financial Aid.

The course may offer 'Full Course, No Certificate' instead. This option lets you see all course materials, submit required assessments, and get a final grade. This also means that you will not be able to purchase a Certificate experience.

What will I get if I purchase the Certificate?

When you purchase a Certificate you get access to all course materials, including graded assignments. Upon completing the course, your electronic Certificate will be added to your Accomplishments page - from there, you can print your Certificate or add it to your LinkedIn profile. If you only want to read and view the course content, you can audit the course for free.

What is the refund policy?

You will be eligible for a full refund until two weeks after your payment date, or (for courses that have just launched) until two weeks after the first session of the course begins, whichever is later. You cannot receive a refund once you’ve earned a Course Certificate, even if you complete the course within the two-week refund period. See our full refund policy Opens in a new tab .

Is financial aid available?

Yes. In select learning programs, you can apply for financial aid or a scholarship if you can’t afford the enrollment fee. If fin aid or scholarship is available for your learning program selection, you’ll find a link to apply on the description page.

More questions

Manage cookies

In this window you can switch the placement of cookies on and off. Only the Functional Cookies cannot be switched off. Your cookies preferences will be stored for 9 months, after which they will be set to default again. You can always manage your preferences and revoke your marketing consent via the Cookie Statement page in the lower left corner of the website.

Like you, we love to learn. That is why we and third parties we work with, use functional and analytical cookies (and comparable techniques) to improve your experience. By accepting all cookies you allow us to place cookies for marketing purposes too, in line with our Privacy Policy . These allow us to track your surfing behavior on and outside of Springest so we and third parties can adapt our website, advertisements and communication to you. Find more information and manage your preferences via the Cookie statement .

check Accept all Cookies

cancel Reject optional Cookies

settings Manage cookies

How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (Project-Centered Course)

• Price completeness: This price is complete, there are no hidden additional costs.

Need more information? Get more details on the site of the provider.

Description

When you enroll for courses through Coursera you get to choose for a paid plan or for a free plan . 

• Free plan: No certicification and/or audit only. You will have access to all course materials except graded items.
• Paid plan:  Commit to earning a Certificate—it's a trusted, shareable way to showcase your new skills.

About this course: What you will achieve: In this project-based course, you will outline a complete scientific paper, choose an appropriate journal to which you'll submit the finished paper for publication, and prepare a checklist that will allow you to independently judge whether your paper is ready to submit. What you'll need to get started: This course is designed for students who have previous experience with academic research - you should be eager to adapt our writing and publishing advice to an existing personal project. If you just finished your graduate dissertation, just began your PhD, or are at a different stage of your academic journey or career and just want to publish your…

Read the complete description

Frequently asked questions

There are no frequently asked questions yet. If you have any more questions or need help, contact our customer service .

Didn't find what you were looking for? See also: MBA (Master of Business Administration) , Business Administration , Business Management , Leadership , and Management Skills .

About this course: What you will achieve: In this project-based course, you will outline a complete scientific paper, choose an appropriate journal to which you'll submit the finished paper for publication, and prepare a checklist that will allow you to independently judge whether your paper is ready to submit. What you'll need to get started: This course is designed for students who have previous experience with academic research - you should be eager to adapt our writing and publishing advice to an existing personal project. If you just finished your graduate dissertation, just began your PhD, or are at a different stage of your academic journey or career and just want to publish your work, this course is for you. *About Project-Centered Courses: Project-Centered Courses are designed to help you complete a personally meaningful real-world project, with your instructor and a community of learners with similar goals providing guidance and suggestions along the way. By actively applying new concepts as you learn, you’ll master the course content more efficiently; you’ll also get a head start on using the skills you gain to make positive changes in your life and career. When you complete the course, you’ll have a finished project that you’ll be proud to use and share.

Taught by:   Mathis Plapp, Assistant Professor

Each course is like an interactive textbook, featuring pre-recorded videos, quizzes and projects.

Connect with thousands of other learners and debate ideas, discuss course material, and get help mastering concepts.

Earn official recognition for your work, and share your success with friends, colleagues, and employers.

• Reading: MOOCKnowledge Survey
• Video: Introduction by Mathis Plapp
• Reading: Teaching team
• Video: Let me walk you through the course
• Discussion Prompt: Your thoughts
• Video: French version of the class
• Video: Why is publishing important?
• Practice Quiz: Why is publishing important?
• Reading: Breakthroughs!
• Video: "KYC": Know Your Community
• Practice Quiz: Know your community
• Video: How journals work: the review process
• Practice Quiz: How journals work: the review process
• Reading: Additional contents
• Video: Presentation of scientific journals
• Discussion Prompt: Compatibility between paper submission and editorial board
• Practice Quiz: Communication with the editorial board
• Video: Ethical Guidelines
• Reading: Examples of guidelines
• Practice Quiz: Ethical Guidelines and intellectual property
• Video: Paper definition "KYP", Know Your Paper
• Discussion Prompt: Compatibility between paper and journal
• Practice Quiz: So, what?
• Video: How to: the literature review 1/2: find a good literature review
• Discussion Prompt: Understanding how the literature review is structured
• Video: How to: the literature review 2/2: construction of your own literature review
• Reading: Books and tools
• Practice Quiz: Think about it
• Discussion Prompt: Finding Useful References: Difficulties & Strategies for Success.
• Video: How to: the research design
• Discussion Prompt: Comparing different research designs on the same subject
• Video: How to: the gap
• Video: Presentation of Zotero: aggregate references
• Video: The structure of an academic paper
• Discussion Prompt: Comparing different constructions of papers
• Video: On writing an academic paper, preliminary tips
• Reading: Important readings before writing a paper
• Video: How to: the bibliography
• Practice Quiz: Please, try by yourself
• Video: The abstract
• Discussion Prompt: Discussing abstracts
• Reading: detailed information on how to write your article
• Video: Zotero: online features
• Video: How to avoid being boring?
• Reading: Avoiding mistakes
• Video: The main mistakes to look for: format
• Reading: Format and Writing Readings
• Video: 1. The researcher
• Video: 2. The editor
• Video: Constructing your checklist
• Discussion Prompt: Several content worth taking a look at
• Reading: Tips
• Reading: Final survey

Share your review

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie statement
• Your reference ID is: Q5O0B
• The Netherlands
• United Kingdom

Writing and publishing a scientific paper

• Lecture Text
• Open access
• Published: 11 January 2022
• volume  8 , Article number:  8 ( 2022 )

You have full access to this open access article

• Fritz Scholz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6287-1184 1  

22k Accesses

8 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Cite this article

This text is designed to give the reader a helping hand in writing a scientific paper. It provides generic advice on ways that a scientific paper can be improved. The focus is on the following ethical and non-technical issues: (1) when to start writing, and in what language; (2) how to choose a good title; (3) what should be included in the various sections (abstract, introduction, experimental, results, discussion, conclusions, and supporting information (supplementary material); (4) who should be considered as a co-author, and who should be acknowledged for help; (5) which journal should be chosen; and (6) how to respond to reviewers’ comments. Purely technical issues, such as grammar, artwork, reference styles, etc., are not considered.

Graphical abstract

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

“Work, finish, publish” (Michael Faraday) [ 1 ]. Footnote 1

Introduction

The task of writing a scientific paper usually befalls young researchers quite early in their bachelor, masters or PhD degree programs. In most cases, the candidates know very little about the publishing process, which involves a complex combination of historical traditions and modern innovations. Guidebooks are of course available, but these tend to focus on purely technical issues, and miss the interpersonal nuances that are so daunting for the beginner. In any case, the technical issues are normally not the main problem for computer-literate students, so I avoid them in this document. Instead I present my personal views on the overall process, and leave it to the reader to evaluate them.

Long experience has taught me that there are many ways of writing a successful paper, but nevertheless some general principles can be identified. In what follows, all my suggestions are informed by my experience as the editor-in-chief of two international journals, the Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry for 25 years, and ChemTexts—The Textbook Journal of Chemistry for 7 years. I have also been the editor of the series Monographs in Electrochemistry , as well as various reference books and textbooks.

Looking back at history, the communication of scientific results in specialist journals is a rather recent development: its origins date back to the second half of the seventeenth century. In 1665, the Journal des sçavans started in France, while the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society began in Great Britain. Before that time, it was common to publish new findings in books. However, the increasing pace of scientific developments, as well as the increasing number of people who were devoting their lives to science, required a more efficient and faster form of communication. For this to be achieved, journals proved to be very successful. The history of scientific journals cannot be traced here, but I recommend the book The Scientific Journal by Alex Csiszar [ 2 ].

Scientific communication requires a common language that is shared by the author and the reader. Michael D. Gordin has described in his book Scientific Babel [ 3 ] how, over the last few centuries, scientific communication has gradually shifted from Latin to English. The author also pays detailed attention to the French, German and Russian languages, which played important roles in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. These languages retain their importance for scientists, because they contain the foundational texts of many important branches of science.

When to start writing a manuscript

It is trivial to say that one should write a manuscript only when one has new results to communicate. But new results do not appear suddenly and without ambiguity. Rather, they tend to accumulate gradually over time, and require repeated contextualisation to be fully appreciated. This begs the question, at what point should one publish?

Answering this question is difficult. Students certainly need to discuss the matter with their supervisors, who have the necessary experience and far-sightedness. Beginners often wildly underrate or overrate their data. Realistically, however, all scientific publication is a compromise between “publishing too late” and “publishing too early”.

“Publishing too late” (or never) is a well-known fault of some overcautious individuals, who withhold their data from public scrutiny because they are not satisfied with its accuracy and completeness. Although this demonstrates their high ethical standards as regards their personal participation in the scientific process, it also reveals an indifference to the social value of their data and the financial costs to others of having to reproduce their results. In the final analysis, tax-payers’ money that is spent on unpublished work is wasted money, and this raises questions of probity. (In the case of industrial research, contractual confidentiality may also restrict publication, but that is a problem I cannot discuss here.)

“Publishing too early” is a fault of some reckless individuals who have scant regard for the integrity of the scientific process. The institutional pressure to publish papers and the competition for scarce funds are the main causes of this. Nowadays, pollution of the scientific literature by worthless, irreproducible or sloppy work is an increasing and serious problem. Here I can only plead with colleagues of all ages: please do not be tempted by the short-term advantages of overpublication. The benefits are illusory, and the damage is untold. With the advent of mass data storage, published papers are effectively immortal, and sooner or later bad work (and its creators) will be found out.

Of course, “publishing too early” is most tempting for the beginner, and the problem becomes critical when the supervisor is also overambitious. If the supervisor pressurizes the student to publish uncooked results, then the student has a big problem! Now, many universities have introduced ‘thesis committees’ consisting of the primary supervisor plus two or three additional members. These committees can provide valuable advice with respect to timeliness of publishing and they may also mitigate conflicts between the student and their main supervisor, if they happen to occur.

Personally, I have been an ombudsman at my university, and I am pleased to say that such conflicts can be resolved amicably by careful and trustful discussions between all parties. But I fear that global science has a problem with this issue.

The whole question of when to start writing cannot be answered by a simple prescription, and depends to a large extent on the personalities of the individuals concerned. My personal advice is to start writing as soon as the main results become discernible. Writing down the first tranche of clear and reliable results is a useful discipline which indicates what has been achieved and what experiments remain to be done. If you delay writing until you think that all the required experiments have been completed, then you will be sadly disappointed. You will discover that much has been omitted, and then you will have to start again with certain crucial experiments. It goes without saying that co-authors should be involved very early in the writing.

In what language should the paper be written?

What language to use is rather obvious. If you want to be understood worldwide, then you must publish in English. In 2021, there were around 1.35 billion people, scattered over many countries, who spoke English as a first or second language. If you are not a native English speaker, then I strongly recommend that you start to write in English. Do not write in your native language with the vague notion of translating it later into English. This is always bad policy, because you will certainly find it more difficult to translate your text into English than to compose it from scratch. Assuredly, this demands a reasonable command of English. But there are practical steps that you can take to help you along the way.

To achieve a sufficient command of English, you should read as many well-written(!) scientific papers in English as possible. For technical English, try to focus on papers written by native English speakers. However, do not limit yourself to scientific papers, but also read English stories and novels, or any other writings, that can expand your knowledge of English. You should also try to distinguish the different styles (scientific, colloquial, etc.) and avoid mixing them in your own writing.

At this point I suggest the book The Chemist’s English [ 4 ] written by Robert Schoenfeld, and his paper “Say it in English, please” [ 5 ]. Schoenfeld was editor-in-chief of the Australian Journal of Chemistry . One trick that I have found very effective for improving my written English is to translate the draft manuscript back into my native language (in my case German). For many years I did this for publications in Angewandte Chemie , a journal that is published both in English and German, and these back translations frequently revealed the weaknesses in my English.

Concerning written text, I have some further advice which is not specific to the English language: first of all, write clearly and understandably! The eminent physicist Carl Wagner (1901–1976) famously wrote “Any fool can think and write something complicated” (“Jeder Dumme kann etwas Kompliziertes denken und schreiben”) [ 6 ]. Always remember these wise words! Whenever you write a very complicated phrase, ask yourself, do you really understand what you have written? Very often, complicated constructions are the result of an insufficient understanding, or represent an attempt at “hedging” i.e. attempting to disguise the omission of certain facts which might otherwise conflict with the overall claims being made.

In the same book, Wagner also wrote “It is a very special art to speak understandably about subjects when they are not yet completely known”. With regard to clear and understandable language, I should also like to give a serious warning regarding the misuse of certain words and phrases that express uncertainty: “possibly”, “probably”, “may be an indication of”, “seems to be”, “cannot be excluded”, “it is reasonable to assume”, etc. It is possible that these constructions may be justified in certain circumstances, but more often than not they hide a lack of understanding, and trigger alarm bells in the minds of readers. Whenever you write these phrases, ask yourself, are they necessary, are they well-reasoned? I have seen manuscripts full of such vague phrases, and it was clear that they were more or less worthless!

For the language of a paper to be intelligible, it is also necessary that a well-defined terminology is used. The terms have to be internationally accepted (e.g. by IUPAC) and have to be used consistently. It is not good to operate with several synonyms, but one and the same should be used throughout.

The structure of a scientific paper

Usually, scientific papers are structured in the following subsections: (1) title, (2) name of authors and their affiliation(s), (3) keywords, (4) graphical abstract, (5) abstract, (6) introduction, (7) experimental part, (8) results and discussion, (9) conclusions, (10) acknowledgements, (11) references, (12) list of figure captions, (13) figures. Most journals offer publication of ‘supporting information’ (or ‘supplementary material’): these supplements are not part of the main paper, but usually constitute a depository for data, figures, tables, mathematical derivations, etc. which the reader may like to consult for a deeper understanding, which, however, are not vital for a general understanding of the paper. I always prefer to put as much as possible into the main paper, and restrict supplementary information to items which are really of less significance. Many journals provide templates, which you should use. In these templates, the order of items may differ from that given above. You should always adhere strictly to the guidelines of the journal. Some details relating to the subsections of a paper are described below.

The title is the entrance door to your paper. Reading the title, many people make the decision whether to enter the document or walk away. According to Thomson’s Web of Science , about 27% of natural science papers are uncited after 5 years, most likely because they are unread, or undiscovered by search engines. To attract interest, the title of a paper needs to be as short as possible, but as long as necessary. It should also contain some searchable terms for easy computer recognition. Certainly, the title also needs to indicate the very essence of the paper. Prior to the advent of computers, it was customary to use titles like “Studies in phosphorus chemistry. Part XII.”! What on earth does that tell you? Nothing about the specific contents, that’s for sure. Luckily, the time of such absurdities is over.

Phrasing the title of a scientific paper is hard work, and usually the final choice will emerge only after long consideration. It is my personal view that authors should think about the title at the very beginning of writing a manuscript. Since the title reveals the essence, a well-chosen title can set the tone for the entire manuscript. And it goes without saying that the title can still be modified many times as the manuscript mutates into its final form.

The keywords

Most journals request a list of keywords. These are important for the classification of the paper in information systems. Think about the terms that best characterise the content of your paper. However, try to avoid newly created terms or abbreviations. Although an overlap between title terms and keywords is unavoidable, the latter should provide additional information.

The abstract

Following the title, the abstract is the most important device for attracting the attention of readers. Personally, I have always advocated writing the first draft of the abstract before writing the remainder of the text. This forces the author to identify the principal achievements at an early stage. Like the title, the abstract needs to be as short as possible and as long as necessary. Its function is to summarize all the main results. I know that many experienced colleagues disagree with my suggestion of writing the first draft of the abstract before writing the main body of the text. However, my suggestion is not meant to be an apodictic rule. You must find out what best suits you.

Drafting the title and abstract at an early stage presupposes that you already have a clear picture of your achievement. If you do not have that clear picture, then a good suggestion is to arrange all your diagrams and tables in a logical sequence, and then write the text around that.

The abstract needs to contain as much quantitative information as possible. If you have new and significant data, give them in the abstract!

The introduction

The introduction should state the motivation and the aim of the presented research and refer to all relevant literature. If the paper is intended for a specialised journal, avoid rehashing simple textbook knowledge, as you can assume that expert readers will already be acquainted with it. In more general journals, some wider introductory remarks may be necessary.

When you discuss earlier works in your field, do not focus purely on their shortcomings. Make sure that you acknowledge their achievements. Be fair in your presentation. Cite all relevant papers, at least the most important ones. Do not overcite your own papers.

At the end of the introduction, state what you have achieved and what you will present in the paper. Do not repeat the abstract. This is important for the entire paper: avoid repetitions!

The experimental part

This part should contain sufficient experimental details (chemicals, instruments, methods, etc.) for your work to be reproduced in another laboratory. If certain procedures or techniques have previously been published by you, or others, you may refer to those papers without repeating the details. However, the reference has to be accessible. I have seen papers in which the author wrote “the technique is described in Ref. X”. When reading Ref. X, I found the remark “the technique is described in Ref. Y”, and so forth until I gave up searching! This is unacceptable.

The results and discussions

In the past, many journals have demanded that the results and discussion be reported separately. Some journals still demand this. Especially in the case of highly multidisciplinary work it is necessary to present first the results of the different disciplines, followed by a joint discussion referring to all the disciplines. However, if possible, I advocate providing the results and discussion simultaneously, since the combined text is easier to understand.

The most important point in writing the results and discussion section is logical consistency . The most frequently seen weakness appears when authors forego logical consistency and instead provide a chronological history of their experiments. This is often copied from laboratory notebooks. One then finds phrases like “first we thought that x may be the reason for y, and we performed the following experiments… then it turned out that y has nothing to do with x, and we supposed that z might cause the observed effect. Then we did this, and later we did that, and in the end…”. Such historical summaries are extremely tedious for the reader, and may even be misleading.

In results and discussion , it is essential to illustrate the results with clear reference to figures and tables, and to arrange the results within a logical framework. Figures, having captions, and tables, having headings, should be understandable without reading the detailed text.

The conclusions

The most frequent fault is the copying of an abstract, or the minor modification of an abstract, without any reference to the context of the results. The abstract does not require justification of the work: the conclusions certainly do. The conclusions have to provide new insight into a field of research, and this must be explained. The best writers will also indulge in some speculations about future work. These should open the readers’ eyes to novel and unexpected applications of the findings.

When you have finished writing a manuscript, leave it for some time untouched, and then read it again after some days or weeks. You will discover that a fresh reading reveals flaws, repetitions, typos, etc., which you missed the first time around. You should also use that time to circulate the document among trusted friends and colleagues who may act as internal reviewers before external submission. You will be surprised what typos your friends find! The blindness of authors to their own typos is legendary. The modern spellcheckers of computer systems do not prevent all typos, but they are helpful. (They may even introduce further errors, if you are not attentive).

Who should be co-authors and who should be acknowledged for help?

The ethical guidelines of most scientific funding organisations (e.g. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)/German Research Council [ 7 ]) demand that everybody who has a distinct share, be it intellectual or experimental, in a paper has to be listed as a co-author. Any “honorary” co-authorship is not allowed! This is a clear statement, but a lot of questions may arise in specific cases. Since I cannot say it in a better way, I cite here from the DFG guidelines:

Guideline 14: Authorship An author is an individual who has made a genuine, identifiable contribution to the content of a research publication of text, data or software. All authors agree on the final version of the work to be published. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, they share responsibility for the publication. Authors seek to ensure that, as far as possible, their contributions are identified by publishers or infrastructure providers such that they can be correctly cited by users. Explanations: The contribution must add to the research content of the publication. What constitutes a genuine and identifiable contribution must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and depends on the subject area in question. An identifiable, genuine contribution is deemed to exist particularly in instances in which a researcher—in a research-relevant way—takes part in the development and conceptual design of the research project, or the gathering, collection, acquisition or provision of data, software or sources, or the analysis/evaluation or interpretation of data, sources and conclusions drawn from them, or the drafting of the manuscript. If a contribution is not sufficient to justify authorship, the individual’s support may be properly acknowledged in footnotes, a foreword or an acknowledgement. Honorary authorship where no such contribution was made is not permissible. A leadership or supervisory function does not itself constitute co-authorship.

At some educational institutions, the rules for submitting a PhD thesis demand a certain number of submitted or published papers. Unfortunately, this occasionally leads to a sharing of authorship among two or more candidates, so that each of them reaches the desired number, although neither of them has a proper share in all the papers. This is unethical and is strongly condemned.

A very crucial point is that all co-authors must give their clear consent to the submission of the manuscript. Nowadays, most journals send emails to the co-authors informing them about the submission. However, this does not liberate principal authors from the moral imperative of sending their co-authors copies of the manuscript in advance of publication and asking for their consent! Similar advice applies to acknowledgements. Who would be happy about an acknowledgement in a paper that they disagree with?

Which journal should be chosen?

The manuscript should be submitted to a journal which is devoted to the branch of science concerned. Usually there are several journals available so authors need rational criteria for making a choice. Experienced authors typically decide on the basis of publishers’ reputations (journal citation metrics) or personal connections (networks of esteem). Nowadays, scientific information systems even make it possible to unearth obscure papers published in “wrong” journals, on the basis of the title, keywords and abstract. However, indifference to journal choice is not recommended as a career strategy!

Citation metrics have a history of about 200 years [ 8 ]. However the modern infatuation with citation metrics has been driven by their uncritical adoption by research organisations and promotion committees in making decisions about funding and promotion.

In 2012, the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA; https://sfdora.org ) criticized the use of “impact factors” for evaluating the merits of scientists. Since then, the criticism has intensified (see, e.g., [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]). Authors are now in a serious conflict situation: should they follow the metrics, or should they choose a journal according to other quality measures? This question is difficult to answer.

What are other quality measures? In my view, one of the most important is the quality of its reviewers and their reports. Those reports are the best which are competent, fair and helpful. Journals which provide such reports should certainly be considered. But these high-quality journals can only be identified by long experience.

Ultimately, neither the Impact Factor nor the CiteScore of a journal is an unambiguous measure of the quality of a single paper. So students should not feel upset when their papers appear in low index journals, nor should they feel triumphant when their papers appear in high index journals.

In all cases authors should beware of publishing in predatory journals ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_publishing ). Open access predatory journals publish manuscripts without serious review. They publish only for money.

Now, a final word about “open access” publishing: this is certainly the best way to disseminate scientific information; however, only if the journals operate a strict peer review. Some scientific publishers (e.g. Springer Nature, https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/institutional-agreements ) also have international agreements with universities and institutions to pay the costs of publishing.

How to respond to reviews of submitted manuscripts

It is very interesting to learn how the “peer review system” emerged and I suggest that students read about it in a paper by Csiszar in Nature [ 14 ]. Nowadays, when a manuscript is submitted to a reputable journal, it will first be read by members of the editorial board, who decide whether it should be sent out to referees (reviewers) or sent back to the authors. If serious deficiencies are identified then it is senseless to bother reviewers.

When you receive the reviews of your manuscript, normally at least two or three, you need to know what to do with them. In any event, you should be self-critical: if you get the report “publish as is” or a similar positive evaluation, do not image that your manuscript is perfect. Possibly the reviewer was not competent or was very sloppy in assessing your manuscript. Believe the positive evaluations only when you get two or three of them!

The other extreme may be a report saying “this is a very weak manuscript that should not be published”, without giving specific criticism. Such a report is not helpful and the editor must take the blame for accepting it and passing it to the author. Harsh criticisms require detailed justification, just as extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Fortunately, most reviewers take their job very seriously and deliver clear and detailed reports. You, the author, should always presume that the reviewers are trying to help you to improve your manuscript. They are not your enemy, but on your side, and they are fair. If you do identify clear signs of unfairness, then you should turn to the editor and ask for further reports. It often happens that the first reaction of an author is “oh, this reviewer has completely misunderstood me” and then starts to write a long rebuttal to the editor, explaining all the misunderstandings! However, since reviewers are experts in their field, the author should realize that a likelier explanation of a poor review is the poor quality of the manuscript!

Of course, it really may be true that a reviewer has misunderstood a manuscript. However, in most cases, it is my experience as an editor that the misunderstandings result from deficiencies of the manuscript, such as confusing phrases. Therefore, it is my advice to ask yourself how this misunderstanding could have happened. Do not blame the reviewer; think about your own text!

When you prepare the revised manuscript, follow carefully the advice of the reviewers. In the revised manuscript, you should highlight all the revised parts, which makes it easy for the editor and reviewers to see how you have responded. Your revised manuscript also needs to be accompanied by a detailed document (rebuttal) in which you list the changes and give your explanations for the revisions. Certainly, you are not obliged to do everything as requested by the reviewers. If you have good arguments against the reviewer’s proposals, bring them forward, and it will be up to the editor and reviewers to accept or to reject them.

It goes without saying that it is unacceptable to submit a rejected manuscript to another journal (sometimes even the same journal) without any revisions. This is profoundly disrespectful. When a manuscript has been rejected by a journal, you are of course free to submit it elsewhere, but you need to pay attention to the previous reviews.

Conclusions

Writing a scientific paper is an art as well as a science. With all its dry scientific data and equations, it must nevertheless provide an exciting and fascinating story, in which the leitmotif is present in all parts. It should never be boring.

Publishing scientific results is a very serious task and authors must adhere to the highest ethical standards. It is neither a game nor a routine. Always remember that a published paper will remain forever attached to your name. Do not try to split your work into several pieces to increase the number of your publications. The scientific community is already overwhelmed by a flood of second-rate “minimalist” papers. Reviewers are also inundated with reviewing requests. One solid and comprehensive paper is worth much more than five short papers with tedious repetitions.

It is on record that when a young aspirant asked Faraday the secret of his success as a scientific investigator, he replied: “The secret is comprised in three words—work, finish, publish.”

Gladstone JH (1874) Michael Faraday. Macmillan, London, p 122

Csiszar A (2018) The scientific journal. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Book   Google Scholar  

Gordin MD (2015) Scientific babel. The language of science from the fall of Latin to the rise of English. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Google Scholar  

Schoenfeld R (1985) The chemist’s English. VCH, Weinheim

Schoenfeld R (1988) Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 27:1050–1057

Article   Google Scholar  

Wagner C (1974) Methoden der naturwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Wissenschaftsverlag Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim

Guidelines for safeguarding good research practice. Code of Conduct (September 2018) ISBN 978-3-96827-001-2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, German Research Foundation, Bonn, Germany

Csiszar A (2017) Nature 551:163–165

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Molinié A, Bodenhausen G (2010) Chimia 64:78–89. https://doi.org/10.2533/chimia.2010.78

Ernst RR (2010) Chimia 64:90. https://doi.org/10.2533/chimia.2010.90

Finch A (2010) BioEssays 32:744–747

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Curry S (2018) Nature 554:147

Waltman L, Traag VA (2021) F1000Research 9:366. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23418.2

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Csiszar A (2016) Nature 532:306–308

Download references

Acknowledgements

The following colleagues have provided very valuable suggestions: Antonio Doménech-Carbó (Valencia), György Inzelt (Budapest), Sigurd Lenzen (Hannover), Michael Hermes (Berlin), Heike Kahlert (Greifswald), Uwe Schröder (Greifswald) and my wife Gudrun Scholz. I am grateful for general advice from Stephen Fletcher (Loughborough), and especially thankful to him for his elegant language editing. Wilhelmine Klamt (Greifswald) is acknowledged for having drawn the graphic abstract.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universität Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany

Fritz Scholz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fritz Scholz .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Scholz, F. Writing and publishing a scientific paper. ChemTexts 8 , 8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00160-7

Download citation

Received : 17 November 2021

Accepted : 03 January 2022

Published : 11 January 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00160-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Peer review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us

How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (Project-Centered Course)

Key Information

About the content.

What you will achieve: In this project-based course, you will outline a complete scientific paper, choose an appropriate journal to which you'll submit the finished paper for publication, and prepare a checklist that will allow you to independently judge whether your paper is ready to submit. What you'll need to get started: This course is designed for students who have previous experience with academic research - you should be eager to adapt our writing and publishing advice to an existing personal project. If you just finished your graduate dissertation, just began your PhD, or are at a different stage of your academic journey or career and just want to publish your work, this course is for you. *About Project-Centered Courses: Project-Centered Courses are designed to help you complete a personally meaningful real-world project, with your instructor and a community of learners with similar goals providing guidance and suggestions along the way. By actively applying new concepts as you learn, you’ll master the course content more efficiently; you’ll also get a head start on using the skills you gain to make positive changes in your life and career. When you complete the course, you’ll have a finished project that you’ll be proud to use and share.

• Week 1 - Understanding academia In this section of the MOOC, you will learn what is necessary before writing a paper: the context in which the scientist is publishing. You will learn how to know your own community, through different exemples, and then we will present you how scientific journ...
• Week 2 - Before writing: delimiting your scientific paper A good paper do not loose focus throughout the entirety of its form. As such, we are going to give you a more detailed view on how to delimit your paper. We are going to lead you through your paper by taking a closer look at the paper definition which will ens...
• Week 3 - Writing the paper: things you need to know In this part of the MOOC, you will learn how to write your paper. In a first part, we will focus on the structure of the paper, and then you will be able to see how to use bibliographical tools such as zotero. Finally you will be required to write your own abs...
• Week 4 - After the writing: the check list After writing the paper comes the time of reading your paper a few times in order to get everything perfect.In this section you will learn how to remove a lot of mistakes you might have been writing. In the end, you will have to build your own checklist corres...

Instructors

Mathis Plapp Assistant Professor Physics Department

Content Designer

École Polytechnique combines research, teaching and innovation at the highest scientific and technological level in the world to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The leading French engineering school for over 200 years, its training promotes a culture of multidisciplinary scientific excellence, open to a strong humanist tradition.

It was founded in 1794 by the French National Convention under the name École centrale des travaux publics, and militarised in 1804 by Napoleon I. Originally located in Paris, the school has been in Palaiseau (Essonne) since 1976, at the heart of the Paris-Saclay technology cluster. It has the status of a public scientific, cultural and professional establishment (EPSCP-GE), is a military grande école whose engineering course is supervised by the Ministry of the Armed Forces and is a founding member of the Paris Polytechnic Institute.

Coursera is a digital company offering massive open online course founded by computer teachers Andrew Ng and Daphne Koller Stanford University, located in Mountain View, California. 

Coursera works with top universities and organizations to make some of their courses available online, and offers courses in many subjects, including: physics, engineering, humanities, medicine, biology, social sciences, mathematics, business, computer science, digital marketing, data science, and other subjects.

You may be interested in...