Bloke of the forest

Let me say I want to be realistic and not offensive in anyway.

 

If you are writing a paper in physics then you will have discovered something new, maybe theoretically a new way to view something known, or a new way to calculate something, or maybe something novel and really unexpected. To get the background knowledge to start such research you will have read existing literature. Part of this may well be books, but for the cutting edge of science you will most likely need to examine published papers or their online preprint counterparts. This is also necessary in placing your work in a larger context, which is important. Your work should be correct, but it should also be of some interest to other people.

 

So, if one has not looked at journal papers and similar I would say that one is unlikely to have anything of much worth to say.

 

Now, as you have looked at papers maybe you have a few on your desk? Or as pdfs on your computer? If so you do have some idea of what is required and the general layout, which of course will vary in details.

 

You don't seem to be asking for much general advice on writing papers, but concentrating on the layout.

 

As for your "history question", it is important to set the context of the work in the introduction. This is the place to say something about other approaches, what motivated the work and point to related works. However, I would avoid a detailed history lesson.

 

Have a look at the arXiv. It will help you.

Okay, cheers. Another question occurred to me: when using references, what kinds of sources should you use, other papers? How is their accuracy determined?

Shouldn't that have been 'No there aren't'?

You don't know nothing about English grammar!

One more question (hopefully): Would it be a good idea to include some history on the subject? My idea for example draws on some other ones, so would it be advisable to explain the context?

I do find this a little strange as one would have looked at published papers when working. So, he should have some idea...Working in science but never seen a published paper or a preprint should set alarm bells ringing.

What do you mean "working in science"? And what do you mean by "alarm bells ringing" - as to what? I have seen published papers before, I just wasn't making rigorous notes on their structure.

Some journals only accept very short papers (a few pages or less); others will accept papers ten or fifteen pages long. You should identify some scientific journals in your field and check their guidelines.

I will do.

That's really down to the journal's style guides, but most papers I've seen do not use numerical headings.

 

How long is this paper? It shouldn't be long enough to require a table of contents or numbered headings, if you want it published in a mainstream journal. It's best if you can get your ideas across in 5-15 pages.

I was just about to get onto that. I don't think my idea will cover many pages and five probably will be the maximum(?) It isn't that my idea is actually too simple to be scientific or not thought through enough, it just doesn't cover much ground and should be fairly concise. I was going to ask whether there is a "standard/minimum" general length or does the length not matter. (Quality over quantity)

English literature and science combined?! And not only that, poetry used to present (alliteration) a physical model?! Post-modernism has reached new juxtaposed heights!

 

Time dialation happens on a plane of space

when velocity exceeds the speed of light

 

Isn't this impossible?

Generally speaking, should there be a contents and "numerical headings" e.g. 1.2...4.1....e.t.c?

Dear Citizen,

 

[blah, blah, blah]

 

Yet their use continues to increase at the hands of, very much in the dark Doctor's.

 

[blah, blah, blah]

 

That's: Doctors. (The apostrophe shouldn't be there otherwise it would be either, "in the dark Doctor is"? or "in the dark; the fullstop(?) belonging to the Doctor.

Additionally, is there a reason why you capitalised the 'd' in doctors?

Althogh the OP was not well-formulated, there are some good points buried in that text.

No there isn't.

Looks to me that someone needs to visit an asylum.

Or rather, the euthanasia clinic since holding those beliefs must be unbearable agony.

Hello, I'm also a Lepton!

Preparations:

A) Figure the message you want to convey. Sadly, that's "we did the same thing as the other guys, but with slightly different parameters/systems" in many cases. Possibly even more sadly: that's enough to get it published.

B) look through the results of your calculations/simulations/experiments. How do the data support the claim, and which of them do you want to show. Sadly, cherry-picking data (i.e. showing only the data that fit best and ignoring that some of the data not shown wouldn't even support the hypothesis at all) is very common there. Luckily, you might not need to because one can get away with rather dubious data anyways (a colleague recently got a paper accepted in which the referees said that the data are not entirely convincing, but probably the best that can be done with today's technology).

 

Certainly, a lot can be said about actual writing, but (cliche!) the process can often be cut down to realizing that B) is void. No offense meant, btw. I'd gladly say a few words about the actual writing once you figured out B). It's just that before that it is a waste of time.

Cheers.

So as for structuring, does it go: Abstract, Introduction, Middle bit*, Conclusion?

[*Contains the important stuff.]

Normally, would the references that are used go at a bibliography at the end or would they be in the margins?

Hello sciencefourms.net, it's nice to meet you (collective sense). I'm just some Bloke from the forest who's interested in science - feel free to derive profundities from my name, if you want.

That's the introduction out of the way...

So,

I'm not actually writing a scientific paper for a journal; not yet. I am going to though. A few weeks ago a Eureka moment hit me and now I think I have a scientific theory! It is about physics. And no, (cliché) I'm not going to "reveal" what it is because I would be worried that someone might...steal it. And so, I want to get it down into a paper and (hopefully) get it published. The only thing is (cliché) I'm not very good with articulating ideas in writing so I'm stumped when it comes to writing a scientific paper.

This is where you come in (cliché), I was hoping that some bright sparks here could give me advice on how to go about constructing a paper.

As for my experience with science: I have a decent A-level at Physics and Maths (from...let me think) and a undergraduate degree (Open university).