There are two schools of thought on what should be included in the introduction of a full-length paper (i.e. one with defined sections for intro, methods, etc.) The first is that the introduction should set up the problem that the paper addresses. The second is that the introduction should both set up the problem and summarize the paper's findings.
I see a lot of papers in the second category these days. Many authors seem to prefer the opportunity to state their conclusions early, so the reader can make no mistake about the direction the paper is taking.
But I personally prefer the older-school style in which the introduction functions more like the start of a murder mystery, leaving the reader to consider the problem without having an answer immediately presented. It's a trope, of course, because no one on Earth reads the introduction without having first read the abstract, which has already established that it was Professor Plum in the drawing room with the pipe wrench.
But it's a nice trope, even a civilized one. It's as though the author has said, "If you care enough to read this paper start to finish, then let's lay out the groundwork of intellectual premises together, without knowing the foregone conclusions. I'll tell you how I plan to address the question, but not what I found. You can sit for a moment and think about how you might have chosen to approach the problem, or what you might expect to find, without being told my conclusions at the outset."
Besides, there are already at least two other spots in the paper where the authors have a chance to summarize their findings: in the abstract and in the first paragraph of the discussion. Do you really need another?
I understand, of course, that the goal of a paper is to persuade the readership that you've found what you claim, and that repetition of the findings can aid you in this goal, but still and all--I prefer the classic intro.
Then again, I'm still using Pine in a Unix shell to check my email, so you might just want to file this entry under Cranky Granny Jekyll.
15 years ago
18 comments:
I loved Pine!!!!....wish it was still available to me. I'd also still be using WordPerfect if my (DOS) Tandy hadn't died at Year 11 of a "bad" fan. And I also don't understand the point of putting the conclusion in the intro. If for no other reason than you've got to think of yet another way to rephrase it there that's slightly different than everywhere else you'll put it....
A number of journals are mandating this now. I have specifically been asked to summerize the findings at the end of the intro on a couple of occassions now, becasue I also prefer a bit of intrigue to the story.
Then again, I'm still using Pine in a Unix shell to check my email...
Haha! I do this as well. I've also seen different versions of the conclusions in the intro. Most of the papers I've been reading recently are from the 80s and 90s, and stick to the 'traditional' intro where the authors summarize what they do and not give away their findings. I wonder when it changed and why?
It really makes no fucking difference, since the only people who even read introductions are first-year grad students and cranky old fucks who are trying to make sure you cited their magnum opus.
Wow, a treasure-trove of Pine lovers! Gmail can suck it. Anon 1, I specifically use an email account from an institution I no longer belong to, because the admins there are sympathetic to the Pine admirers among us.
CPP, I disagree. Maybe this will change when I become busy faculty, but I read introductions from time to time. When I moved to this postdoc, I jumped areas, and I'm still playing catch-up with the literature. So introductions are often a useful way to orient myself to the assumptions and directions of the field.
And Prof-Like--I'm surprised that anyone at the journal cares enough to demand a recap in the intro....that's very odd.
For my job (as a curator at a model organism database) I read a ton of papers and I would say that the format of providing a summary the findings at the end of the introduction is fairly common in journals covering biomedical research. Frequently these summaries are clearer than the actual abstract.
I like the introductions to state "why this work is done at all" and "where in the grand scheme of things does it make sense".
Therefore I don't really like the "state the result in the end of the introduction". To me, that feels like the abstract, where I do like it :)
the thing I am bothered about today is more that everyone is cutting down the materials and methods to the point that it can hardly be redone by reading it... maybe it should be exempt from the word counting in the future...
Pine in a Unix shell!
I agree. Mostly because of the trope thing. In my opinion, papers are not meant to be read linearly. I usually read in the following order: abstract, figures, discussion, introduction, results, methods. I like it when each section does it's job. It just muddies the matter when you start putting results in the introduction and discussion in the methods, etc.
Also, pine rocks.
One sentence or something at the end of the intro to ste up the main result is fine. Beyond that it's a waste. But as CPP said, it's probably a waste anyway, since I almost never read intros anymore. And if I am reading them, it's likely just hte first sentence of each paragraph.
I'm with Chall about the methods sections ridonkulous cutting. And supplementary methods doesn't cut it with me, unless the pdf automatically comes with the supplmentary appended when you download it. But do M&M sections have word limits other than at GlamorMagz?
Pine? I use Apple Mail, which has the lovely feature of recognizing that emails containing dates and times may describe events you'd like added to your calendar, and emails with addresses and phone numbers may describe people you'd like added to your Contacts list.
Indeed, introduction is for introduction. Most annoyingly, many of the authors just copy/paste the "relevant" part of the discussion there. Just waste of the paper/brandwith.
NAt: I meant more that the word count is for the whole paper and therefore most people seem to cut in the M&M section so they can "elaborate" more in the intro & discussion part....
That's what I figured Chall. I was just curious if anyone here knew of journals without an overall workd limit, but with a limit on the Mat. Methods section. It didn't seem likely, but I honestly have limited experience in submitting to varied journals.
Along with everyone else though, the idea of journal editors actually demanding a summary at the end of the Intro just seems bizarre.
There's a third category -- papers with extremely detailed literate reviews in the introduction. In my field, introductions are often MUCH longer than the discussion! I remember several papers with multipage introductions that I abandoned reading before I got to what the authors themselves had done... because after reading their literature review I had learned so much I didn't feel a need to know any more.
But a well-executed three paragraph introduction is great, and I'll be using DJ&MH's murder mystery metaphor in the future...
I loved Pine too. I only gave it up grudgingly when I started getting endless attachments and html messages.
I think summarizing the results at the end of the intro is a waste of space. I'm surprised to hear that any journal would REQUIRE it!
I agree, murder mysteries are wayyy more fun to read.
I propose another solution to the abstract-ruins-it problem. I usually read the abstracts of a stack of papers first; then go away for a while. By the time I come back and read the intro, I've mostly forgotten the abstract!
Of course nowadays the trend is to put the punchline in the title, which still ruins the ending anyway.
Especially if the title is overstated or has nothing to do with what the paper actually showed!
Yeah, overstated titles are another pet peeve of mine. It's like people think unless the title says that they solved consciousness, no one will read their paper. It's surprising to me that more reviewers don't object to the over-the-top titles.
Post a Comment