Core Topics

The workshop introduced us to the different levels at which a scientific text can be structured. At the broadest scale, we discussed how to target journals strategically by examining citation networks, keyword choices, and the “bubble” of related outlets where similar work is published. This showed us that journal selection depends on audience, scope, and the conversations a journal contributes to.

We then examined the structure of scientific papers. Using real examples, we broke down introductions into paragraph-level functions such as identifying knowledge gaps, situating real-world problems, highlighting conceptual frameworks, and stating research objectives. Abstracts were analyzed with a clear storyline of aim, location, methods, results, and conclusions. This pattern illustrated how clarity often comes from predictable structures that readers anticipate.

At the paragraph scale, we practiced shaping arguments through topic sentences, which announce the focus, and closing sentences, which provide transitions into what follows. The body of the paragraph is where evidence and reasoning accumulate, usually across eight to twelve sentences. Several structural models were introduced, including broad to detail, binary contrasts, pro and con arrangements, and the hourglass shape often used in discussions.

We also reflected on writing style as a matter of deliberate choice. Sentence length creates rhythm, active and passive voice shift tone, and the And But Therefore (ABT) model helps build narrative tension. These elements showed us how scientific writing gains momentum when structure and style are aligned with the intended message.

Practical Skills

The workshop gave us concrete methods for shaping text and improving drafts. One recurring tool was the use of topic sentences and closing sentences to frame paragraphs. A topic sentence announces the focus clearly at the beginning, while a closing sentence signals transition and prepares the ground for what comes next. Practicing this pattern helped us design paragraphs with a clear entry point and a purposeful conclusion, rather than leaving them open-ended.

We also looked at how to build flow across a manuscript. Transitions between paragraphs, sections, and ideas determine whether a paper reads smoothly or feels fragmented. Exercises on separating, fusing, or reordering paragraphs showed how meaning changes when the structure is adjusted. This made revision feel more like editing a film, where cutting and sequencing create coherence and rhythm.

Feedback was another central theme. We discussed how to give and receive comments productively by focusing on the text rather than the author. Strategies included pointing to specific interruptions in flow, highlighting strong passages, and suggesting concrete ways to improve structure. Non-verbal or visual forms of feedback, such as color-coding, were introduced as quick ways to convey impressions without long explanations.

The course also presented practical aids to support writing. Synonym lists help avoid repetition, while applications such as Obsidian and Research Rabbit can be used to organize notes and explore literature networks. We were also introduced to reference words and “boosters” such as crucial, important, and furthermore, which strengthen arguments when used with precision. These tools provided us with small but effective ways to refine drafts and shape tone.

Exercises

A significant part of the workshop was devoted to applying the concepts directly through structured exercises. We worked with published papers, breaking down their introductions paragraph by paragraph to see how authors built arguments step by step. For each paragraph we identified the main topic, the function it served within the introduction, and how it prepared the reader for what followed. This practice revealed patterns that were easy to miss when only reading papers passively.

Abstracts were another focus of analysis. We mapped them onto the storyline of aim, location, methods, results, and conclusions, which highlighted how effective abstracts follow a rhythm that guides readers quickly from motivation to outcome. Comparing multiple abstracts across journals showed us how subtle differences in style can change the impression of urgency or importance.

We also practiced reshaping text at the level of paragraphs. In small groups we examined examples where content could be separated, merged, or cut entirely. This exercise underscored how revision is less about word-by-word editing and more about shaping arguments at higher levels of structure. Seeing how meaning shifted with each change helped us become more comfortable with bold revisions rather than small cosmetic edits.

Finally, we explored the use of language resources to strengthen writing. We compiled lists of reference words and boosters such as crucial, important, or furthermore, and practiced inserting them into sentences to see how tone and emphasis changed. These small experiments made clear that academic writing is not only about clarity but also about persuasion, and that word choice can reinforce the overall impact of a paper.