manuscript-writing-style

name	manuscript-writing-style
description	Style and structure for research manuscript text: IMRaD, hourglass narrative, formal tone, topic sentences, reproducible Methods, captions that tell the story. Use when drafting or editing titles, abstracts, sections, captions, or reports.

Manuscript writing style

Guidance from Chamba, Knapen & Black (2022), Papers I–II (arXiv:2207.12959 — optional; skills stand alone). Applies to .tex body text, abstracts, and captions.

Narrative structure

• One message — every section advances the story from planning (Paper I). Cut prose that does not serve it.
• IMRaD: Introduction → Methods/Data → Results → Discussion → Conclusion. Do not mix roles (no new background in Discussion; no results in Methods).
• Hourglass (Paper II, Sect. 2.4): broad intro → narrow methods/results → broad discussion/conclusion.

Section checklists (Paper II)

Section	Job
Title	~15 words; accurate; keywords; main result if possible; no vague "On…"/"Towards…"; no jokes
Abstract	Scene → problem → method → results → conclusion → optional outlook (~150 words)
Introduction	Big picture → sub-topic → literature gap → your aim → what you did → optional section map
Methods	What data/tools and why they meet your goals; enough to judge and reproduce; state caveats honestly; past active ("we used…"); no results here
Results	What you found; figures drive structure; foreshadow main points; compare (i) "Figure 3 shows…" vs (ii) "To show how x relates to y, Figure 3 shows…" — prefer (ii)
Discussion	See seven-point list below; limitations explicit
Conclusions	Separate section (or "Discussion and Conclusions"); many readers skip here — summarise why/how/what; refer to key figures; strong final sentence with implication

Discussion — seven aspects (Paper II, Sect. 2.8)

Work through in order, widening the hourglass:

1. Repeat why you did the study.
2. Return to the main question from the abstract; answer it.
3. Show how the answer is supported by data, models, figures.
4. Compare to literature — agreement and disagreement.
5. Explain disagreement or alternatives without losing the main message.
6. Wider implications, applications, recommendations.
7. What future work would clarify or advance the field.

Formal tone (Paper I, Sect. 2.5)

• Inform, do not entertain. Objective, neutral, professional.
• No contractions (write "do not", not "don't").
• No imperative to the reader ("note that…" → "the data are…").
• No colloquialisms, slang, or pop-culture references.
• Criticise prior work professionally, not personally.
• Inclusive language: avoid violent metaphors common in astrophysics when alternatives exist (Paper I, Sect. 2.5.1); define non-standard terms on first use.

Paragraphs and sentences (Paper II, Sect. 3.1–3.3)

• Topic sentence first — main idea in sentence 1, then evidence (~3–7 sentences).
• One idea per paragraph; split half-page blocks.
• Link sentences — repeat a key noun at the start of the next sentence; new information at the end of the sentence (English convention).
• Sign-post words: "for example", "first/next/finally", "however", "in contrast", "consequently", "similarly".
• Length: average 18–32 words; limit long "which/that" chains (~1 in 3–4).
• Subject–verb–object; keep subject and verb close.
• Active voice when possible ("we measured…"; also "Figure 1 shows…", "this paper presents…").
• Tenses: present for facts and for referring to figures in this paper; past for what you or others did in the study; present perfect for recent work with current relevance ("algorithms have been proposed…").
• Dangling modifiers — place phrases next to what they modify (Paper II, Sect. 3.4).
• Ambiguous "this" — follow with a noun ("this evolution", not bare "this").
• Phrasal verbs — avoid in formal prose ("investigate" not "look into"; "discuss" not "talk about"; Paper II, Sect. 3.10).
• Data is usually plural; amount for uncountable quantities, number for countable objects (Paper II, Sect. 3.6, 3.9).

Before heavy notation: one plain sentence on what the quantity is and why it matters.

Captions and figures (text side, Paper II Sect. 2.3)

• Captions: full sentences; explain every panel element; units, sample size, method id.
• Figures should tell the story — many readers see only title, abstract, figures.
• End captions with a one-sentence takeaway when helpful.
• Consistent typeface, text size, and colour coding across figures in one paper.
• Text and captions must match current figure files and run ids.
• Abstract/conclusion numbers must trace to the same artifacts as figures.

Visual export (vector PDF, colour-blind-safe line styles + colour) → scientific-plotting.

Clarity and honesty

• State caveats and limitations; do not bury serious doubts only in an appendix.
• Prefer concrete ids (method v2, N=512) over vague "the model".
• Cite claims; read cited papers — verify they support your statement.
• No hype without numbers.

No em dashes

Do not use em dashes (U+2014) in manuscript text, captions, or user-facing reports.

Use comma, parentheses, colon, separate sentences, or en dash for numeric ranges (e.g. 10--20 samples). Hyphenate compound modifiers (cross-validated).

Self-check before submitting text

1. Search for — and replace every instance.
2. Skimmer test: result clear from title + abstract + figure captions alone?
3. Methods: could a colleague reproduce the analysis from this section?
4. Discussion: all seven aspects addressed; limitations stated?
5. Conclusions: strong final sentence, not only "more research is needed"?
6. Formal tone: no contractions, phrasal verbs, or imperative-to-reader?
7. Numbers in abstract/conclusion match manifest-backed figures?

Integration

• paper-writing-workflow: planning, literature review, compile/VLM loop.
• plotting/ skills (scientific-plotting, plot-check, vlm-figure-audit): figures.
• paper-layout-review: layout only — not wording.