REU Physics Writing Workshop
Department of Physics, UF
PRESENTED BY
Dr. Mickey S Schafer
University Writing Program
JULY, 2015
REU Physics Writing Workshop 1
Welcome to the REU Writing Workshop
Why a workshop on scientific writing? Consider the following from F. Peter Woodford:
Some of the worst [articles] are produced by the kind of author who consciously pretends to a
"scientific scholarly" style. He takes what should be lively, inspiring, and beautiful and, in an
attempt to make it seem dignified, chokes it to death with stately abstract nouns; next, in the
name of scientific impartiality, he fits it with a complete set of passive constructions to drain
away any remaining life's blood or excitement; then he embalms the remains in molasses of
polysyllable, wraps the corpse in an impenetrable veil of vogue words, and buries the stiff old
mummy with much pomp and circumstance in the most distinguished journal that will take it.
Considered either as a piece of scholarly work or as a vehicle of communication, the product is
appalling. (Science, Vol. 156, No. 3776 (May 12, 1967), pp. 743-745)
Woodford finishes the paragraph with the question: "Does it matter?" Nearly 45 years after his complaint,
we are still asking the same question, and still answering "Yes, it matters". It matters because scientific
progress depends on evidence and consensus -- the success of evidence relies on experimental design, but
the success of the consensus turns solely on communication. Brigham Young University puts it this way:
What is real?
The work on your [research report] is perhaps the closest thing to a "real-world" experience that you
will have in college. Nobody solves textbook problems or takes exams for a living. Soon, others will judge
you primarily by your research initiative and on your ability to communicate; your college grades will
be superfluous. For the first time (and far from the last) you will be expected to craft and define a
problem which inevitably will be murky in the beginning. You will have to find and explain the context
for that problem, including a clear summary of the related works of others. You must justify your choice
of problem. The research for a [written report] will require initiative and imagination. You will have the
opportunity to develop a clear description of your work and a coherent and concise argument for its
conclusions. (http://www.physics.byu.edu/Undergraduate/Thesis.aspx/ [research/written report] are
"senior thesis" in orginal)
Good scientific writing is more than a hypothetical concern.
This workshop addresses the immediate need to produce a written research report at the end of your
research experience. It will also furnish you with transferable skills -- writing skills that will last the rest
of your academic career. Why am I so confident of this? Because writing across the sciences require the
same basic pieces of information delivered with the same basic style needs. This workshop will address
these needs. You will leave knowing the structure of a scientific report, the template for building that
structure, and the process for writing research efficiently and effectively.
The Research Report
Writing is/should be an integral part of research, not a separate activity...It is efficient to focus
research on getting the information needed for the paper, rather than on wandering randomly in
intellectual phase space. from Writing a Scientific Paper, George M Whitesides
If the research is worth writing, it is worth writing well. Elements of Style, Nature Physics
REU Physics Writing Workshop 2
Scientific research begins with a question and ends with communication. Communication can happen in
the lab, in informal conversation, in progress reports to the PI, in conference presentations, but to really
get credit for your work, communication ends with a written report, submitted for publication.
What do you expect when you sit down to read a scientific article? You want to know “what happened?”
and "why should I care?”. These are the two main questions that any research report has to answer.
Historically, scientists themselves created a standardized format through which to answer these questions
→ this is the “research report”, and while each discipline has a slightly different take on how to write one,
all science publication on experimental data is composed of 4 parts, each answering some part of “what
happened” and “why should I care”.
What happened: 1) methods section; 2) results section
Why should I care: 1) Introduction; 2) Discussion/Conclusion
Fortunately, science report writing has been around a long time, thus has been conventionalized. This is a
beautiful thing! Whatever scientific field you read in, you will recognize the basic parts of the research
report: they are an idealized form of the scientific method itself.
Each of the functional headings -- Introduction,
Methods/Materials, Results, Discussion/Conclusion -- has a
template to guide writing; the templates specify the kind of
information that should go in each section and suggest an
order for the information, too. The template guiding writing is
represented in the text through subheadings, titles, abstracts,
in-text citations, figures, references, and all the other features
that clearly signal that a document is a science research
report.The template helps the writer communicate clearly,
concisely, and comprehensibly. When the reader encounters
the information in the expected order, the writer's credibility increases, too.
REU Physics Writing Workshop 3
Introductions
...Next comes the most important paragraph of the whole paper: the first one. Even if it is a work
of expositional genius, few among a broad audience are likely to read beyond it. So it is vital that
this paragraph tells the central story of the paper, and makes clear why this story deserves to be
told. Don't launch into technical details, or merely list what you did. Set the scene, explain the
background — that will give the non-specialist reader a context in which to understand the
significance of the work, but fellow specialists will also appreciate your telling them what you
consider to be the relevant questions in the field. Elements of Style, Nature Physics
6 steps to Writing the Introduction
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Establish Topic
Provide significance
Review the relevant literature
Point out the gap
Reveal the research question/statement
Discuss primary Results and central Conclusion
The first 5 steps include information that is found solely in the Introduction -- they tell the "story" (in
scientific terms) of how the experimental information (Methods, Results, Discussion) came to be. The
introduction is also the only place where the researcher explains the motivation for the work.
We'll use a recent publication to exemplify each of these steps.
Single domain to multi-domain transition due to in-plane magnetic anisotropy in phase separated
(La0.4Pr0.6)0.67Ca0.33MnO3 thin films
Hyoungjeen Jeen and Amlan Biswas*
Department of Physics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA
(Received 25 October 2010; published 11 February 2011) (pre-print version in Arxiv)
Note: Physics writers have the tendency to write in very long paragraphs...at this stage of writing, use shorter
paragraphs. You can always remove paragraph breaks for publication, but the short paragraph style will make the
paper easier to assess. Here are two options for the Introduction.
Option #1 (if long lit review): paragraph 1 -- topic, significance; paragraph 2 -- lit review; paragraph 3 -gap, research question, results + conclusion
Option #2 (if short lit review): paragraph 1 -- topic, significance, lit review; paragraph 2 -- gap, research
question, results + conclusion
Establish Topic
You might have noticed while reading in the research literature that research reports tend to start
immediately – there’s very little “warm up” material involved. Nevertheless, we are so used to writing
this way that it may not be possible to just start at the beginning. If this is the case, go back and cross out
the first couple of lines.
REU Physics Writing Workshop 4
The coupling between structure, transport, and magnetism in hole-doped manganites leads
to phenomena such as, colossal magnetoresistance (CMR), colossal electroresistance (CER),
photo-induced metal-insulator transition, and colossal piezoresistance (CPR)1–5.
Provide Significance
The second step to the introduction is to offer the first bit of persuasion to the reader: show the
importance of the topic by offering something of practical or research significance. Significance comes
from the research literature, too, and is usually established in terms of practical application or research
significance.
While these properties could lead to future applications in devices such as bolometers and
cryogenic memories, manganites are already providing a unique insight into the effect of
competing phases on the physical properties of materials6,7.
Review the Literature
Following the first paragraph which introduces the topic and provides significance, the writer must now
review the literature for the reader. The literature review (hereafter, “lit review,” the short phrase used by
research writers everywhere) accomplishes many objectives at once.



First, the lit review informs the reader of the most important research needed to understand the
research question.
Second, the lit review gives credibility to the writer as someone who knows what they are talking
about.
Third, the lit review is organized so that the research question is validated; in other words, the
review leads the reader to a “gap” or “conflict” in the literature.
It is now widely accepted that phenomena such as CMR are consequences of the competition
among different phases with similar free energy. Such competition leads to phase coexistence
among three distinct phases, viz. cubic ferromagnetic metallic (FMM), pseudo-tetragonal (more
precisely orthorhombic) antiferromagnetic charge ordered insulating (AFM-COI), and pseudocubic paramagnetic insulating (PMI) phases, in materials such as (La1−yPry)1−xCaxMnO3 8–10. In
addition to well-known effects such as CMR and CER, the coexistence of the three magnetic
phases also leads to unique phenomena such as temperature dependent magnetic domain
transition and ellipsoidal growth of the FMM phase, which have been observed using Lorentz
microscopy in very narrow temperature ranges 11. Due to the same coupling between crystal
structure, transport, and magnetism, manganite thin films have shown properties distinct from
bulk behavior such as substrate strain induced metal-insulator transition and anisotropic
transport due to strain fields from substrates12,13. The effect of strain on the transport properties
of manganites has been widely studied and it is accepted that multiphase coexistence and
percolation play a significant role2,9,10.
Point out the Gap
The “gap” in the literature is a conflict or missing piece of information that your research question will
answer. If the research has already been done, then why waste your time and the reader’s time with all
this work? The gap also explicitly identifies the contribution a piece of research makes. It’s as though the
writer is saying “See, Scientific Community, this is what we know but this is what we do not know.” The
reader needs to be shown that this gap exists in order to believe that the research is valid. Providing the
gap is part of the writer’s job.
REU Physics Writing Workshop 5
Note: The "gap" is the only place where the writer/researcher should draw attention to possible
unanswered questions. Unlike Review papers where the writer points out unresolved issues as part of the
critique, in a research report of any kind, ALL questions posed in the Introduction are supposed to be
addressed via the experiment. Limit questions to only those your research is set up to answer. (The other
questions still left may be taken up in the Discussion section.)
However, the effect of strain on the magnetism of phase separated manganites is more subtle
and is still being debated. One such problem is the distinction between intrinsic magnetic
properties and extrinsic effects on magnetic properties of manganite thin films. For example,
when La0.77Ca0.33MnO3 thin films were grown on single crystalline NdGaO3 substrates,
Mathur et al. concluded that the in-plane magnetic anisotropy originated not from stress
anisotropy but from magnetocrystalline anisotropy14.
Reveal the Research Question
The final non-experimental part of the Introduction is the Research Question – this is the part that
everything else has been leading to. This is where the writer presents the question that will answer the gap
as revealed by the literature to be a missing piece of the topic’s research puzzle! The RQ may be
expressed as either an actual question or a declarative sentence. Some journals seem to prefer that
research writer’s express the RQ as a question; some prefer the RQ is expressed as statement. Following
the research question may be a hint of method, hypotheses, or nothing at all.
Here, we report that substrate induced stress plays an integral role in determining the
magnetic properties of manganite thin films.
Discuss Primary Results and Central Conclusion
The introduction ends with a brief statement of the primary result (which demonstrates why you bothered
writing all of this up in the first place!) and the main concluding thought the researcher/s want the reader
to understand.
We observe that in-plane stress anisotropy leads to an in-plane magnetic anisotropy and a
magnetic domain transition as a function of temperature in phase separated
(La1−yPry)1−xCaxMnO3 (x = 0.33 and y = 0.6) thin films grown on (110) NdGaO3 substrates
with anisotropic in-plane strain. Our data show that while anisotropic stress has a profound
effect on the magnetism, the in-plane resistivity of the films remains virtually isotropic. / By
comparing our results for the films on anisotropic NGO to those grown on isotropic (001)
SrLaGaO4 (SLGO) substrates, we conclude that anisotropic strain can be used to control the
magnetic “hardness” i.e. the coercive field in a mixed phase manganite. Such control could
play an important role in the design of nanomagnetic devices.
Methods -- Experimental Details
This is the "how" section of your research report. Precision and exact details are key to this section, but
do not include irrelevant material. This concrete infomation is usually presented in simple past tense,
either active voice ("We collected water samples every three days") or passive voice ("Samples were
collected every three days"). The ultimate test of a well-written Methods section is in replicability -could someone else reproduce the study given what you wrote?
REU Physics Writing Workshop 6
Include enough information about materials and methods to enable another suitably qualified
person to repeat your experiments. Relegate tedious but necessary details to an Appendix, so
that there are no breaks in the flow of ideas in your presentation. from "How to Write a Thesis"
Interestingly, most of the sources on how to write a research report don't have much to say about the
methods section. I believe this is because most scientists find this section the easiest to write. The
researcher is most familiar with this activity; after all, s/he experienced it! The Experimental Details are
written much how they are performed: materials followed by procedure in chronological order. Precision
and accuracy are critical -- use an outline to help you keep track of all the information you need to write.
Materials -- write everything you used, making sure to specify specific types or versions where
necessary; machines and tools should include version information whenever possible.
(La1−yPry )1−xCaxMnO3 (LPCMO, x = 0.33 and y = 0.6) thin films of two different thicknesses
(30 and 20 nm) were grown on orthorhombic (110) NGO substrates by pulsed laser deposition
(PLD) (KrF, λ = 248 nm). The substrate temperature during growth was 780 ◦C, the O2 partial
pressure was 130 mTorr, the laser energy density was about 0.5 J/cm2, and the growth rate
was kept at about 0.4 °A/s. Step flow growth has been consistently observed under these
conditions in the LPCMO thin films up to 60 nm thickness. The magnetic response reported
in this paper was observed in four different films.The thicknesswas controlled by deposition
time and then confirmed by atomic force microscopy.15
The structure of the films was characterized by conventional θ − 2θ x-ray diffraction using a Philips APD 3720
diffractometer.Magnetic propertiesweremeasured using a Quantum Design 5 T superconducting quantum
interference device (SQUID)magnetometer
Procedures -- procedure includes preparation AND experimentation.
Two different methods were used to remove the background paramagnetic signal from the
NGO substrates and obtain the magnetic moments of LPCMO films. The first method was
direct subtraction for which, magnetic moment as a function of applied field
[M(H)]measurements,was carried out at different temperatures for the bare NGO substrates
before film deposition. M(T ) was also measured for the same substrates in a field of 100 Oe.
After deposition of the LPCMO films on the substrates, M(H) and M(T ) curves were acquired
under the same conditions as the background measurements. The M(H) and M(T ) curves of
the substrates were then subtracted from the corresponding M(H) and M(T ) curves of the
film plus substrate to obtain the magnetic moments of the LPCMO thin films. The second
method was based on linear background fitting. The raw M(H) data of LPCMO films have
signals both from the ferromagnetic films and the paramagnetic NGO substrates.
Results
Explain, don't hype. The object is not to find fine words or turns of phrase that will convince the
reader to care if normally they wouldn't; nor is it to push the boundaries of what is clearly
supported by the evidence presented. If claims matter, they will be scrutinized, and if they're not
robustly supported by the results, no amount of hyperbole will convince anyone — editor, referee
or reader — otherwise. Elements of Style, Nature Physics
Results are the heart of research -- they are what you spent your time achieving and what you
want to be most influential in writing. Here are some guidelines for writing results successfully.
REU Physics Writing Workshop 7
Report, do not interpret
In a traditional Results section -- that is, one that is communicating only data -- make certain that you
only report results and do not include interpretation. Interpretation, speculation, claims, and arguments are
saved for the Discussion section. Results should be only the data generated by the research. Because
science believes in replicability as its standard for credible research, the results of a particular experiment
should be the same regardless of how often or by whom the experiment is run. For this reason,
experimental results are considered "eternal", and in English, timeless entities are expressed in the present
tense.
Resistivity measurements of the LPCMO//NGO films show sharp transitions at the insulatormetal transition temperature (TIM, obtained while cooling) and metal-insulator transition
temperature (TMI , obtained while warming) whereas, the LPCMO//SLGO thin films show a
more gradual transition and narrower thermal hysteresis (Fig. 1(b))19.
If you refer to the experimental method while discussing results, use the present tense when writing about
the results and the past tense when writing about the experimental method.
− 2 x-ray diffraction pattern of the 30-nm-thick LPCMO//NGO film did not show any
individual LPCMO peaks due to the similar lattice parameters of LPCMO and (110) NGO in the
out-of- plane direction, while the x-ray diffraction pattern of the LPCMO//SLGO film clearly
shows sharp LPCMO peaks (Fig. 2). Thus, all the LPCMO films were grown with a single
chemical phase and were highly ordered along perpendicular direction to the substrate
surface. The films are smooth on an atomic scale and show sharp resistivity transitions at TIM
and TMI .
Sometimes, the Results and Discussion sections are combined; in this case, the final section of the paper
will be called "Conclusion". This option will be discussed in the next section on Discussion sections.
Do you need subheadings?
Some results sections do not need subheadings -- if you ran a single experiment with clear, logical
progression from beginning to end, then you may not need subheadings. If you ran an experiment with
several parts or that produced several different kinds of outcomes (for example, examining different
properties of the same material), then it makes sense to use subheadings. Use this clue: If you find
yourself getting confused writing the results, then try using subheadings to organize -- if that helps, then
use them in the paper because likely the reader will get confused, too!
Subheadings are likely necessary if you are writing a combined Results-Discussion section. Also, if you
are running a "methods project" -- a piece of research testing a variety of methods, often on the same
material or with the same goal -- then you should use subheadings for each of the experimental methods.
In this case, it is more common to discuss method and outcome together, a sort of combined MethodsResults section. This is perfectly acceptable! The variety of motivations and outcomes in Physics
necessitates broad variation in format...this is why the AIP Manual and Physics Review Style Guide do not
have much to say about what to write in Methods and Results. Instead, style guides specify how to use
formulas correctly and create clear, informative figures.
REU Physics Writing Workshop 8
What order should results be in?
Organize information from strongest to weakest results. If using subheadings, organize within each
heading in the same manner. If writing a combination Methods-Results section, order either strongest to
weakest results or in chronological order.
What about using Figures?
Yes, you will need to use figures, images, tables, etc. Physics definitely makes good use of figures.
Figures are part of the story and provide critical evidence answering the "what happened?" question. But
figures cannot be stranded, sitting alone in isolation, with only a caption for company. The text of the
Results section is explaining "what happened," so must communicate the main result while pointing to the
figure for further detail. Figures are important enough to merit their own page, so scroll down to get to
that information.
Fig. 3 shows M(T ) curves of a 30 nm-thick LPCMO//NGO thin film, taken under field
cooling (FC) and field cooled warming (FCW) in a field of 100 Oe applied parallel to the
[1¯10] NGO direction.
Discussions/Conclusions
This is the last opportunity to tell the reader why the research matters. In the Introduction, you started
with the topic and expert literature to narrow to your specific research focus. In the Discussion and
Conclusion, you begin with the results of your research and widen back out to demonstrate what it means
for the field of study.
What is the difference between a Discussion and Conclusion?
The Discussion section of a research report makes use of the published literature to create a “dialogue”
between the results of your research and the results of other people’s research. It is NOT mere
speculation! Instead, Discussion is where you substantiate claims about your results by referring to what
other experts have found and suggesting what research should come next.
REU Physics Writing Workshop 9
The relationships between results come in three flavors:

Corroborate -- your results agree with, support or extend other results


Clarify -- your results make other results more specific or narrow in scope


The M(T ) behavior is similar to previous results obtained for bulk LPCMO (x = 0.375 and
y = 0.600).20
Previous studies have shown that in-plane anisotropic strain leads to uniaxial magnetic
anisotropy in the plane of the thin film.14,22 However, these studies were performed on
purely ferromagnetic manganites. In a phase-separated manganite, we expect that the
magnetic anisotropy may lead to anomalous behavior of the submicrometer-sized
ferromagnetic regions.10
Conflict -- your results are in conflict with or in contrast to other published results

Thus, we believe that anisotropic in-plane properties due to substrate-induced strain can
be clearly observed in magnetic measurements, but not in transport measurements. Our
observation is in contrast to Ward et al. who suggested that the difference in TIM and
maximum ρ observed along two perpendicular in-plane directions of LPCMO thin films
grown on NGO substrates was due to anisotropic strain and was maximized as themagnetic
field was lowered.13
The Discussion also suggests further research; suggestions are most credible when closely related to the
results obtained. While you may foresee years of potential research inspired by a project, be circumspect
in your recommendations and stick to only those projects that directly follow the one you are writing
about.
While we observed clear in-plane strain-induced magnetic anisotropy, we did not observe
any significant in-plane anisotropy in the transport properties [Fig. 7(b)] (we did observe
a lower resistivity at low temperatures along the magnetic hard axis but that was due to
a higher electric field in that direction since the distance between the voltage leads was
shorter along the [001] direction2). In fact, in a linear scale [inset of Fig. 7(b)] the ρ(T )
behavior appears identical in the two in-plane directions. The TIM is 60 K in both
directions and at that temperature the resistivity anisotropy(| ρNGO[001]−ρNGO[1¯10]
ρNGO[1¯10] | × 100) is ≈15%. Thus, we believe that anisotropic in-plane properties due
to substrate-induced strain can be clearly observed in magnetic measurements, but not
in transport measurements. Our observation is in contrast to Ward et al. who suggested
that the difference in TIM and maximum ρ observed along two perpendicular in-plane
directions of LPCMO thin films grown on NGO substrates was due to anisotropic strain and
was maximized as the magnetic field was lowered.13 Such a strain-induced resistivity
anisotropy has also been predicted theoretically.30 It is possible that such resistivity
anisotropy can only be clearly observed when the resistivity measurements are taken at
the scale of phase separation, i.e., in the micrometer scale, and requires further
investigation.
REU Physics Writing Workshop 10
Combined Discussion and Results
Results are combined with Discussion when the research is too complex to present as a single, whole
entity. This is usually because the method included many different experimental procedures, many
different materials, or several separate outcomes. Combining Results and Discussion isn't a choice based
on whether the research itself was complex; most research is, or feels that way while it's being done. Nor
is it simply a matter of the experiment having many steps -- this is pretty normal, too. It's a writing
decision that is made because the information will make more sense to the reader when presented as
individual "mini-units" within the research report. This is a particularly good strategy when the reader
must understand disparate facets of the experiment before putting them together into a whole picture.
Think of it like creating a mosaic -- if your work has lots of little pieces, each of which makes a critical
contribution, but which then have to be combined to see the overall result, then joining Results and
Discussion is useful. It helps the writer organize the text and helps the reader comprehend what it is going
on.
I. Introduction
II. Experimental Details
III. Results and Discussion
A. Structure and transport (1 para. + 2 figures)
B. Magnetic properties (1 para. + 1 figure)
C. Variation of coercive field with temperature (4 para. + 3 figures)
D. Strain induced magnetic anistropy (5 para. + 4 figures)
IV. Conclusions
One final note about organization: the order of Results when they are combined with Discussion may be
different from what is normally recommended for Results section. Recall that in the Results, you should
organize the text from strongest to weakest outcomes. This changes when Results and Discussion are
combined because the reader's task is more complicated; there is more information to understand in each
unit of text. In this case, you have two options: 1) strongest to weakest if the length of each unit is about
the same; 2) shortest to longest in length. Long sections usually happen because there is more to say about
the results, often because those results are the "final" outcome -- that is, the main big result the paper is
presenting. You have to write all the other points first because they are necessary to understanding that
final section.
Conclusions
Finally, a word about concluding paragraphs. It is commonly advised that a paper should begin by
stating what will be said, continue by saying what is to be said, and then conclude by summarizing
what has been said. This is bad advice that recommends lazy composition. Conclusions are not
mandatory, and those that merely summarize the preceding results and discussion are
unnecessary (and, for publication in Nature Physics, will be edited out). Rather, the concluding
paragraphs should offer something new to the reader. The point is well put by computer scientist
Jonathan Shewchuk (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jrs/sins.html):
REU Physics Writing Workshop 11
"Here's a simple test: if somebody reads your conclusions before reading the rest of your paper,
will they fully understand them? If the answer is 'yes', there's probably something wrong. A good
conclusion says things that become significant after the paper has been read. A good conclusion
gives perspective to sights that haven't yet been seen at the introduction. A conclusion is about
the implications of what the reader has learned. Elements of Style, Nature Physics (emphasis added)
Conclusions do not serve the same function as Discussions. Discussions discuss -- there is a conversation
of sorts, albeit a highly formalized and restricted one! Conclusions offer final thoughts that take the reader
through the story again, but only using the main points, and concentrating on the overall findings of the
research (in contrast to Results or Discussion, which point out specific data points). Conclusions lead to
final thoughts, usually with broad application to the field. Research reports should contain some kind of
Discussion, whether as its own section or written with Results. Not all papers will have conclusions,
though always check the journal for what is standard. If Results and Discussion are combined, then there
is usually a Conclusion to finish the paper.
Note: Concluding thoughts are similar to results in that they are written in the present tense to indicate
their timeless quality. Speculation is careful, thoughtful, and often applies to the field broadly in terms of
research potential or application.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
In-plane anisotropic stress leads to uniaxial magnetic anisotropy in manganite thin films.
We have shown that when such magnetic anisotropy is induced in phase-separated
manganites, it leads to a single domain to multidomain transition as a function of
temperature. The domain transition is similar to that observed in ferromagnetic fine
particles as a function of particle size. In phase-separated manganites the size of the
ferromagnetic metallic regions embedded in a nonferromagnetic (charge-ordered
antiferromagnetic or paramagnetic) matrix increases as the temperature is decreased. Due
to the stress-induced uniaxial magnetic anisotropy, the increase in size of the
ferromagnetic regions results in the temperature-dependent domain transition. The
variation of the coercive field with temperature is a signature of the domain transition.
The temperature dependence of the coercive field is a feature which could make it possible
to use manganites as cryogenic magnetic memory, since magnetic information can be
written at a temperature with low coercive field and stored at a lower temperature with
higher coercive field.
Front/End Matter
Research reports have typical material that gets them started and finishes them off: titles and abstracts at
the front, and acknowledgments, appendices, and references at the end.
Abstracts
The primary purpose of the abstract is to help readers decide whether to read the rest of the paper. For this
reason, abstracts should be complete, with some mention of each of the primary parts of the paper. The
abstract should reveal what the research is about and why it is interesting, the research question itself, the
method (with more detail here if the method was original), major results, and what you think the results
mean for the field.
REU Physics Writing Workshop 12
Abstracts are usually short, though the actual journal-specification will vary. Some journals allow longer
abstracts, up to 500 words (which is nearly a whole page single spaced using a 12 pt. font), particularly if
it's likely the journal has readers who will not (or cannot) read beyond the abstract. Write the abstract for
the widest audience possible because the readership for abstracts is quite broad -- it is where everyone
from experts to novices will first encounter your work. Use language that can be widely understood while
still using the technical terms of your field. Abstracts are also used for indexing so should contain any
major terms that would help the appropriate readers find your work.
Phase-separated perovskite manganites have competing phases with different crystal
structures, and magnetic and electronic properties. Hence, strain effects play a critical role
in determining the magnetic properties of manganite thin films.[topic/significance] Here we
report the effect of anisotropic stress on the magnetic properties of the phase-separated
manganite
(La0.4Pr0.6)0.67Ca0.33MnO3.[research
question]
Thin
films
of
(La0.4Pr0.6)0.67Ca0.33MnO3 grown under anisotropic in-plane stress on (110) NdGaO3
substrates [method] display in-plane magnetic anisotropy and single domain to multidomain
transition as a function of temperature. Angle-dependent magnetization measurements also
show that the magnetization reversal occurs mainly through the nucleation and propagation
mechanism.[results] By comparing the results with (La0.4Pr0.6)0.67Ca0.33MnO3 thin films
grown on (001) SrLaGaO4 substrates, we have confirmed that the magnetic anisotropy is
mainly due to substrate-induced anisotropic stress.[result + primary conclusion] Our results
suggest avenues for storing magnetic information in nanoscale magnetic media. [implication
of research for field]
Titles –
"A succinct, informative but also tempting title is essential, and is the first of the key features
in a manuscript to come under editorial scrutiny" Elements of Style, Nature Physics
Since the title is the first thing the reader sees, it is also the first level of decision making. Titles succeed
best at this task when they inform the reader about the topic of study and the major result. This
immediately helps the reader find your work, which is the point of writing it in the first place!
Single domain to multidomain transition due to in-plane magnetic anisotropy in phase-separated
(La0.4Pr0.6)0.67Ca0.33MnO3 thin films
Acknowledgments
According to the Physics Review Style Guide: "The acknowledgment section follows the main body ofthe
paper and precedes any appendixes. One paragraph is suggested, with acknowledgment of financial
support listed at the end. A principal heading [level (1)] is used for this section, but the section is not
numbered. Dedications, as contrasted to acknowledgments, are not permitted."
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by NSF DMR-0804452.
REU Physics Writing Workshop 13
Appendix
Appendices come after the Acknowledgments. They are labeled using primary headings (see the Physics
Review Style Guide for how headings should be formatted). Supplemental material should be placed in the
appendix -- this includes additional method/experimental details, data, figures, or other material important
to getting the research done but not so central to the main story that they should take up space in the body
of the paper.
References and Footnotes
References are listed in the order they appear in the text. Use the correct journal abbreviation and
remember to bold the volume number of the journal. Physics is interesting in that references contain the
initials + last names of the authors and journal publication information only; there are no titles of articles
included: J. M. Smith, Phys. Rev. B 26, 1 (1982) or J. M. Smith and R. Brown, Phys. Rev. B
26, 1 (1982). Note that initials are followed by periods, initials precede the last (family) name, and that
the last author in a list with multiple authors is preceded by the word "and". If the paper being cited has
more than 4 authors, you may use "et al." following the first author's name, e.g. "J.M. Smith et al.,
Phys. Rev. B 26, 1 (1982)".
According to the Physics Review Style Guide, footnotes should occur in the references, in the numerical
order that they appear in the text -- so they are integrated into the reference list rather than being a
separate unit.
11 Y. Murakami, H. Kasai, J. J. Kim, S.Mamishin, D. Shindo, S. Mori,
and A. Tonomura, Nat. Nanotechnol. 5, 37 (2010).
12 A.Biswas, M. Rajeswari, R. C. Srivastava,Y.H. Li, T. Venkatesan,
R. L. Greene, and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B 61, 9665 (2000).
13 T. Z. Ward, J. D. Budai, Z. Gai, J. Z. Tischler, L. Yin, and J. Shen,
Nat. Phys. 5, 885 (2009).
14 N. D. Mathur, M. H. Jo, J. E. Evetts, and M. G. Blamire, J. Appl.
Phys. 89, 3388 (2001).
15 For thickness measurement, the thin films were partially dipped in
the etching solution (H2O + KI + 10% HCl) for 10–40 seconds.
And then, the steps, created by the etching solution, were measured
with an atomic force microscope.
16 J. A. Collado, C. Frontera, J. L. Garc´ıa-Mu˜noz, C. Ritter,
M. Brunelli, and M. A. G. Aranda, Chem. Mater. 15, 167 (2003).
17 L. Vasylechko, L. Akselrud, W. Morgenroth, U. Bismayer,
A. Matkovskii, and D. Savytskii, J. Alloys Compd. 297, 46
(2000).
18 P. A. Sharma, S. B. Kim, T. Y. Koo, S. Guha, and S.-W. Cheong,
Phys. Rev. B 71, 224416 (2005).
19 TIM and TMI were defined as the maximum or minmum change of
resistivity as a function of temperature.
20L. Ghivelder and F. Parisi, Phys. Rev. B 71, 184425 (2005).
Using Figures
Figures have three parts: 1) the figure itself; 2) the figure's caption; 3) the text reference to the figure.
REU Physics Writing Workshop 14
Creating Figures
The AIP Manual has a lot to say about creating figures -- read here for the whole set of instructions. We'll
look at a couple of specific suggestions that are "common sense" when seen from the perspective of the
publisher, but may not be so obvious to the researcher creating the figure in the first place.
These are reasonable suggestions when imagined from the publisher's perspective. They need to get your
images into a readable format according to the column width of the journal. But writers do not always
think from the publisher's POV. Given that most papers are submitted electronically, it is now required
that researchers think this way in order to publish.
For your REU paper, you'll be incorporating the figures into the text in a "camera-ready" fashion. But you
still need to use space wisely. Figures that belong together should be close to one another in the text.
Figures should be dispersed throughout the Results section, not simply huddled together on one page.
Figures should be consistent in size throughout the paper -- do not create 1/8 page figures on one page
and 1/2 page figures on another.
REU Physics Writing Workshop 15
Caption and Text for Figures
REU Physics Writing Workshop 16
The caption information and the text information are not exactly the same, although they can have shared
information. In the text, you are explaining “what happened,” so you are writing about the result itself and
pointing to the figure for more information/detail. In the caption, you are explaining the figure in detail -the reader should know exactly what the figure is showing, using more detail than is in the body
text. While the figure is part of the story in the results, it also needs to stand alone, a kind of selfexplanatory particle.
Use a smaller font size for caption text -- 10 pt. serif is good for your paper.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Structure and transport
The surfaces of our LPCMO thin films on both NGO and SLGO substrates are smooth on an atomic scale
[insets of Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)]. The rms roughness of the LPCMO//NGO films is about 2 A° . The films on
NGO usually show step-flow growth mode with unit-cell step heights as shown for the 20-nm-thick film
[inset of Fig. 1(a)]. The step height is about 4 A°...whereas the LPCMO//SLGO thin films show a more
gradual transition and narrower thermal hysteresis [Fig. 1(b)].19
Science Style
Style in scientific prose covers a few different areas. First, we'll consider the use of citations and why they
are there. Second, we'll examine writing qualities of that readers expect. Finally, we'll cover some basic
formatting issues.
Attribution: Part of Science Culture
You have doubtlessly noticed while reading science articles that many of the sentences are followed by
in-text citations. In-text citations (hereafter "citations") are how the writer of an article tells the reader
where to find the sources the writer used -- citations provide the intellectual history supporting a
particular piece of research. In science writing, the credibility and authority of an article is partly
established through the use of citations; if there are no citations, then the article is an editorial (though
many of those use citations, too) or is plagiarized.
The use of citations in science writing -- how they are actually incorporated into text -- is the first cultural
convention governing communication to trip up most young scientific writers. We all know that we are
supposed to use sources and to cite them properly, but the humanities-oriented education received in high
school did not prepare most of us for how to cite correctly in science. Ideologically, the process is
explained as "joining the great scientific conversation" -- this is wonderful, and true, but doesn't help you
make the correct choices when having to add citations to text and avoid being accused of plagiarism,
intentional or unintentional.
Here's a more practical means of understanding citations in scientific prose:
In science, every sentence has intellectual history.
Intellectual history is tied to each and every claim being made in a sentence.
Citation is the behavior that makes the intellectual history explicit/known.
If every sentence has intellectual history associated with it, then every sentence gets cited. There are only
2 ways that a sentence can end --> either with or without an explicit citation. The presence or absence of
REU Physics Writing Workshop 17
an actual citation is the clue that tells the reader about the source. So, a sentence either has a citation
written after it or does not:
If the sentence a has citation
If a sentence does NOT have a citation written
at the end, then one of 3 conditions are true:
• The writer is attributing the information to the
source/s indicated in the citation.
1) the sentence is common knowledge and
requires no citation;
• Because intellectual history must be made
immediately following the sentence, citations are
provided after first mention in a text and for
EVERY sentence presenting new information that
is not clearly and unambiguously connected to the
previous sentence.
2) the sentence is a clear and unambiguous
continuation of the previous sentence (common
when discussing methods and results of studies);
3) the sentence is an original contribution by the
writer, and subsquent to publication, all references
to this piece of information must be attributed to
the writer of the paper.
How are claims identified? The first way to identify claims is to look for
verbs and the nouns they co-occur with. This can include subjects and
objects. The second way is to look for modifying words or phrases -- these
can include adjectives, adverbs, and sentential modifiers. One of my
favorite examples comes from the first sentence of a review paper on
headaches: "Headache is a common disorder in the population1-3." Some of
the claims in this sentence include headache is a disorder, headache is
common disorder, and headache is a disorder in the population. All 3 of
those claims could have sources to support them.
Another practical application of attribution is achieving ethical writing -- that is, avoiding plagiarism.
Plagiarism in the sciences is a different business from the humanities. For an excellent guide on the topic,
see Miguel Roiq's work, Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices:
a guide to ethical writing. For now, we'll extract just a portion of what Roiq advises and offer specific
suggestions to tackle this issue -- Synthesizing Sources.
One more practical concern stymies many beginning writers: where should citations be placed? The
default strategy is to put all sources at the end of the sentence. And yes, this does obey the letter of the
law, but rather ignores the spirit. Let's look at an example of a sentence with all the sources removed.
In recent years, interest has turned from Kondo physics in single dots to similar phenomena in
more complex structures such as double-dot devices where quantum phase transitions (QPTs) have
been predicted and possibly observed.
(from Signatures of quantum phase transitions in parallel quantum dots: Crossover from local-moment to
underscreened spin-1 Kondo physics -- Arturo Wong, W. Brian Lane, Luis G. G. V. Dias da Silva, Kevin
Ingersent, Nancy Sandler, and Sergio E. Ulloa -- ARXIV http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.3696.pdf)
REU Physics Writing Workshop 18
The sentence is certainly understandable from a "reading" point of view; even if you don't know the
meanings of the words, you recognize that the grammatical structure is correct and that the content
probably makes sense to someone. But to a reader of science, the sentence fails in that several claims are
made, yet there is no way to trace the intellectual history -- the sources for the claims. Here is a list of the
claims that could be potential candidates for citation:




In recent years
interest has turned from Kondo physics in single dots to similar phenomena in more
complex structures such as double-dot devices
where quantum phase transitions (QPTs) have been predicted
and possibly observed
Each of those claims is a candidate for a citation. Imagine that the writers chose solely to list the citations
at the end of the sentence -- what problem does the reader have with this approach? Since the claims
themselves are distributed throughout the sentence, a single clump of sources at the end does not help the
reader distinguish which sources belong to which claim. Thus, when you cite, you should also distribute
sources so that the in-text citations occur directly after the information they support.
Of course, the original sentence does provide citations for the above claims. Further, the citations are
distributed throughout the sentence and provide the reader very important information about which claims
have support in which particular papers.
In recent years, interest has turned from Kondo physics in single dots to similar phenomena in
more complex structures such as double-dot devices,2,3 where quantum phase transitions (QPTs)
have been predicted4–10 and possibly observed.3
Writing Qualities
Suggestions for writing science well abound -- what these sources have in common are certain approaches
to writing with which few scientists readily agree. First is that science is a "narrative". Second is that
scientific prose should be clear, concise, and comprehensible (the 3 Cs -- some add a fourth: compelling).
Is science a narrative? Let's start with science as an activity. Most would agree that we experience
science while we are conducting it as a kind of story: strings of actions have consequences to which
people react some more. This is the basis of a story: something happened --> something was done about it
--> more things happened. When a scientist looks back on a project and talks about it, it usually has this
narrative form because we humans are largely driven by narrative structure (okay, this is my personal
belief based on years of studying language: sentence grammar seems to be a cognitively hard-wired
system for communicating strings of actions and consequences).
But is writing a science paper like writing a narrative? At this point, we really must say "NO". Why?
Because all the stylistic decisions that make narrative compelling are exactly the decisions that would get
a paper rejected immediately! Can you imagine the editors of Nature happily passing the following
abstract to reviewers...
It was a dark and stormy day outside, but the lab was alight with the phosphorescent glow of
particles XYZ, twinkly merrily from the mashed brains on the slide like tiny LED bulbs on the
family Christmas tree. Through weary hours spent mincing maternal mouse hyppocampi, tortured
by months of no-glow-at-all, the lab had finally triumphed! Cool as the plate we'd used to freeze
REU Physics Writing Workshop 19
the rats toes, our long hours of drinking alone in the dark, waiting for the hopped-up mamas to do
their crazy dance, had rewarded us with positive images of brains gone wild as girls on Spring
Break.
Clearly, scientific prose is not a narrative.
So, why the frequent call for writing more narratively? This editorial suggests the reason nicely:
Before you even begin, ask yourself the question, "Why should anyone care to read past the
title of my paper?"...it is vital that [the first] paragraph tells the central story of the
paper, and makes clear why this story deserves to be told. Don't launch into technical
details, or merely list what you did. Set the scene, explain the background — that will give the
non-specialist reader a context in which to understand the significance of the work, but fellow
specialists will also appreciate your telling them what you consider to be the relevant questions
in the field.. (Editorial, Elements of Style, Nature Physics)
Aah -- it isn't that scientific prose is a species of narrative, then, but that readers comprehend better when
story elements are used to convey the message. In the case of reporting research, the "story" elements
provide the "...context in which to understand the significance of the work". In other words, the structure
of the scientific paper creates a mini-world in which a problem is posed (the research topic with its pesky
unanswered questions), an action is proposed (your experiment), a consequence is had (the results), new
knowledge is formed (results + discussion) and more action is suggested (speculation in discussion). This
is not necessarily the story of how the scientist experienced the work; it is the story of how the reader
can best experience the research. Perhaps this is why the second person (you, you're, etc) is not used at
all in science -- the research is not about the reader and only quietly about the writer.
Scientific prose should be clear, concise, comprehensible (and perhaps, compelling).
The Physics Review Style Guide would like to see the following characteristics in your writing: "Good
grammar and clear punctuation are essential to successful technical writing. Clear, simple sentence
structure best presents scientific ideas and mathematical formulas." That seems straightforward enough,
though some clarification for what defines "good grammar" and "clear, simple sentences" would help.
The AIP guide goes a bit further and adds "concise" and "complete".
The 3 Cs is the antidote to edict #1 (that scientific prose should be a narrative construction). Yes, taking
advantage of narrative structure will help the reader understand the research, but it is the ideas themselves
that have to be written clearly, concisely, and comprehensibly. The best treatment of science prose is
found in the Scientific American article "The Science of Scientific Writing". This is not necessarily an
easy read, but here is a summary of the main points they recommend to keep the writing clear and
successful:
1. Follow a grammatical subject with its verb, as soon as possible. In other words, do not add bunches of
words between the subject and verb.
2. Place in the position of importance the “new information” you want the reader to emphasize in his
or her mind. This is called the "stress position" -- grammatically, this is usually the object of the verb or the
latter half of the sentence.
3. Place the person or thing whose story is being told at the beginning of a sentence
in the topic position. Grammatically, this is the subject of the sentence and usually in the front half, before
the verb.
4. Place appropriate “old information” (material discussed earlier) in the topic position
to provide linkage with what has gone before and context for what is to come later. This is also the
REU Physics Writing Workshop 20
grammatical subject of the sentence and in the first half of the sentence.
5. Make the verb convey the action of every clause or sentence. Whenever possible, use verbs and
adverbs to show actions rather than string together nominalizations connected by vague verbs (especially
“be” verbs).
6. Provide context for your reader before asking him or her to consider anything new.
7. Match the emphasis conveyed by the substance with the emphasis anticipated by
the reader from the structure. This means "do not bury the main idea in a parenthetical statement or hide it
in subject clause" -- this works for speaking, but not for writing.
Note: Use these seven steps to REVISE your writing. Do not use them to compose or you may create a
colossal case of writer’s block!
A final quote on science style (Editorial, Elements of Style, Nature Physics):
Avoid clichés like the plague. Unless you are an archaeologist, it is unlikely that you've found
the Holy Grail. Similarly, avoid hollow generalities. It may be that your work will open up new
avenues of exploration in your field — but surely that is the point of most novel research? Instead,
you might want to offer specific problems that could be addressed or new capabilities that might
be enabled by your work.
Adjectives are best used sparingly and only when justified. Avoid using the word 'very' — it
doesn't add information, only syllables. Similarly, it is better to be specific about the scales
reached than to invoke vague superlative prefixes, such as 'ultra': with the duration of laser
pulses increasingly measured in attoseconds, it's less and less meaningful to describe hundreds
of femtoseconds as 'ultrashort'. Neither does the use of 'quantum', 'nano' or 'bio' score points:
perhaps the paper does discuss phenomena that involve quantized energy levels, happen at the
nanoscale or are seen in molecules that are also found in living organisms, but unless these
aspects are at the heart of the reported research such prefixes should not be emphasized.
Formatting Requirements
Your paper needs to include the basic formatting requirements common to your discipline. The two style
guides, AIP Style Guide and Physics Review Style Guide, are linked at the left side bar (the pdf is linked
for the Physics Review Style Guide); you should use these. The links in the previous sentence will take
you to the web pages for each. Become accustomed to using the online versions as they are accessible
everywhere you have a web connection and have the most updated information for your field. If you stay
in physics, then it's worth downloading the pdfs, since you will make frequent reference to them.
For the REU research report, you can use bracketed in-text citations or superscripts, e.g. [1-5] or 1-5.
Please double-space the paper. Also, the title, authors, affiliation, and abstract may be on the same page.
REU Physics Writing Workshop 21
SCIENTIFIC WRITING
ADAPTED IN PART FROM THE REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS STYLE GUIDE
and the AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS STYLE MANUAL
Report Format
 The report should be roughly five to ten pages long (when printed in double-spaced format). For
general guidance on style and format, please refer to the AIP Style Manual and the Physics
Review Style Guide, both of which can be found linked to the workshop website:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/msscha/reuphysics/reuphysics_main.html. In addition, refer to the
handouts distributed during the written communications workshop.

Your final report should be prepared in an electronic format that is readily converted to PDF
(Microsoft Word or LaTeX, for instance) so that it can be archived on the REU Web pages. The
review draft of your work (the one you submit to Dr. Schafer) should be in Word or Open Office
format so that it can be edited electronically.

The report should contain the conventional front matter: a title, the authors and their affiliations,
and an abstract.

The main body of the text should begin with an introduction (perhaps 20% to 35% of the total
text) which outlines the "big picture": why your research area is interesting and important, and
how your specific project fits into the larger scheme of things.

The bulk of the report should focus on your research project. What did you actually do? What
were your results—both successes and failures? If you were to continue with the project, what
would the next steps be?

Citations to the appropriate literature should be included throughout the report. Follow the
citation format in Table II of the AIP Style Manual with the following exceptions: (1) items
which would be underlined in a typed manuscript should be italicised in your word-processed
document; (2) journal volume numbers should be in bold face.

You should feel free to document technical details (computer codes, circuit designs, data, etc.) in
appendices. The appendices will not count towards the 5-10 page length guidelines.

One of the major traps to avoid is writing at a level suitable only for the experts in your research
area. If you do this, the majority of your readers will quickly be lost. As a general principle, you
should target the greater part of your report to the least expert members of your potential
audience. In this case, you should aim to be understood by one of your peers (an intelligent
undergraduate physics major) who has no specialist knowledge of your project.
GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR WRITING IN THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES
REU Physics Writing Workshop 22
1. Be clear. Don’t discount the efficiency of the simple declarative sentence as a medium for
communicating scientific information. Use it freely, but not exclusively. Simple sentences are
especially effective for communicating your major points.
Avoid long, meandering sentences in which the meaning may be obscured by complicated or
unclear constructions.
2. Be concise. Avoid vague and inexact word usage. Be as quantitative as possible
in your descriptions. Avoid unnecessary words; make every word count.
3. Be complete. Do not assume that your reader has all the background information
that you have on your subject matter. Make sure your argument is complete, logical, and
continuous.
Define all nonstandard symbols and abbreviations when you introduce them. On the other hand,
omit information unnecessary for a complete understanding of your message.
4. Put yourself constantly in the place of your reader. Be rigorously self-critical
as you review your first drafts, and ask yourself, “Is there any way in which this passage could be
misunderstood by anyone reading it for the first time?”
Your target audience for your REU project description is a non-expert peer. (An undergraduate
physics major who has no specialist knowledge of your topic.)
ELEMENTS OF GOOD STYLE IN SCIENTIFIC WRITING
1. Use active rather than passive voice when it makes sense to do so.
Using active voice means that the subject of the sentence does the action described by the verb.
The sentence, “Science is done by people,” is an example of passive voice. The active
equivalent is “People do science.”
In the example,
“It was thought that the magnetoresistance could provide an answer,”
there is no actor doing the action. This passive construction is grammatically weak.
Furthermore, it shields the writer from the critical gaze of his or her audience and is vague
enough to spread credit or blame, implying that the writer was not alone in having this idea.
By naming an actor in the example above, the author eliminates confusion about who had the
thought. By rewriting the sentence as follows:
“McCray believed that magnetoresistance could provide an answer,”
REU Physics Writing Workshop 23
the reader knows who had the idea, and the writer sets the work within the context of human
endeavor. This creates a stronger grammatical construction which more clearly communicates
the information.
Furthermore, the active voice is always more concise (less wordy) than its passive counterpart,
thereby supporting one of the characteristics of effective writing: economy.
Passive Voice is also Necessary
Occasionally, passive voice is appropriate, for example when there is no particular actor:
“This problem has been the subject of intensive study since 1968.”
In other cases, use of first person (I, we) doesn’t make sense, so passive must be used. Also,
some journals discourage the use of first person in certain parts of research articles, though in
general, neither the AIP or Physics Review Style Guide discourage use of the first person.
Finally, the passive is used quite regularly when repeating the actor over and over again would be
intrusive, such as in procedural sections. Also, passive is the norm when the object of the activity
is the main topic of the paragraph – again, this is common in procedural sections:
“Since the substrate-induced strain on LPCMO//SLGO thin films is negligible due to wellmatched in-plane lattice parameters of SLGO (d = 3.842 A° ), the films grown on the two
different substrates can be used to isolate the effect of anisotropic strain on the magnetism and
transport of LPCMO. The structure of the films was characterized by conventional θ − 2θ x-ray
diffraction using a Philips APD 3720 diffractometer. Magnetic properties were measured using a
Quantum Design 5 T superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometer.”
In this example, the text is about the thin films and properties of thin films (signaled by the dotted
underline) – it is not about who is coming up with the measurements. In fact, the meaning of this
sentence changes if the active voice is used – rather than being facts or processes belonging to
physics as a field, the sentence becomes about novel processes created by the researchers: “Since
we found the substrate-induced strain on LPCMO//SLGO thin films to be negligible due to wellmatched in-plane lattice parameters of SLGO (d = 3.842 A° ), we grew the films on the two
different substrates which we used to isolate the effect of anisotropic strain on the magnetism and
transport of LPCMO.”
Thus, the choice between passive and active voice is also one of accuracy as well as clear writing.
2. Be economical: Eliminate wordiness.
Replace verb-noun phrases with simple verbs:
make a decision
experience a failure
place under consideration
perform an experiment
present a discussion
make an attempt
decide
fail
consider
experiment
discuss
attempt (or try)
REU Physics Writing Workshop 24
Avoid “the fact that” phrases:
due to the fact that
despite the fact that
he was unaware of the fact that
because
although
he was unaware that
Avoid “the reason. . . .is that” and variants of this pattern:
The reason for solving the Cauchy problem first is that. . .
becomes
We solve the Couchy problem first because. . .
The main theme of this section is to tell why we have chosen to generalize.
becomes
This section presents our reason for generalizing.
Combine ideas to achieve conciseness:
The physicist’s report contained 50 pages, and it was carefully illustrated.
becomes
The physicist carefully illustrated her 50-page report.
Use strong verbs rather than “There is” and ”There are” constructions:
There are clear advantages to our mapping regarding the strong-coupling regime.
becomes
Clear advantages to our mapping exist regarding the strong-coupling regime.
3. Provide forward momentum.
A. Consider order and use repetition.
Place general information before specific information, and old (familiar) information
before new (unfamiliar) information. Readers use information they’ve already encountered to
project forward and begin to process new information as they encounter it. Therefore, by placing
old information before new, you’re providing readers with a familiar context first before you
move them into the unknown.
REU Physics Writing Workshop 25
Example:
The development of nanofabrication techniques for thin metallic wires has renewed
interest in one-dimensional electron systems. Such systems differ fundamentally from those in
three dimensions, where electron-electron interactions can be absorbed into a local Fermi-liquid
description of weakly interacting quasiparticles.
In this example, the general, more familiar, idea in the first sentence is followed by more specific
and perhaps unfamiliar information in the second sentence.
Also, the repetition of the word “systems” in the second sentence provides continuity and forward
momentum for the reader.
The repetition of a word or the use of a synonym (as in the example below) is an effective way to
link ideas in a paragraph:
Silicon wafers coated in Shipley 1813 Photoresist (PR) were cleaved in acetone for five
minutes. This process ensured that any particles generated by the cleaving did not remain on the
silicon surface.
B. Use transitions.
To link ideas, sentences, and paragraphs, use transitional words and phrases (however, first, next,
finally, for example, therefore, similarly, in contrast, etc.).
These words show relationships between ideas and can also draw attention and give emphasis.
The following passage contains effective transitions:
A significant disadvantage of the 125-H CRT is its high power consumption. This tube
requires substantial power to produce the high voltages and currents that are necessary to drive
and deflect the electron beam. In addition, the 125-H is inefficient—only about 10% to 20% of
the power used by the tube is converted into visible light at the surface of the screen. Thus, the
125-H is poorly suited for portable display devices that run on batteries, where lower power
consumption is necessary. Because of this drawback, we should consider other options before
committing to purchase the 125-H.
Note: Scientific writers should be aware that some transition words and phrases can bias readers
toward a certain processing of the information (unfortunately, allegedly). Scientific writing
should be free of bias.
C. Shorten sentence and paragraph length.
Generally, short sentences quicken the pace, and long ones slow it down. Use a variety of
sentence structures in your report (simple, compound, complex), and remember to use the simple
sentence for your most important ideas.
REU Physics Writing Workshop 26
Long paragraphs can also slow down the pace for the reader. A paragraph break allows the
reader to take a breath and refocus. Provide enough paragraph breaks to keep your audience fresh
and keep your reader moving through your report.
REU Peer Review
Your name: ________________________________________________
Writer’s name: _____________________________________________
1. Has the writer identified the topic of the paper in the first few sentences? What is the
general topic? Is significance of the topic mentioned?
2. Has the writer given sufficient background information about the general area? If not,
what do you suggest? If so, is the information documented correctly?
3. Is the specific purpose of the project clear? What is the specific purpose or focus?
4. Has the writer lead to a gap in the literature that motivates his/her project? What is it?
How might the results be used, for example?
5. Is the writing clear, precise, and concise? For example, do you note use of passive
constructions where they are unnecessary, overuse of “to be” verbs or empty “there
is/there are” phrases? Are sentences confusing?
6. Has the writer adhered to the conventions of AIP and the Physics Review Style
Guide?
REU Physics Writing Workshop 27
Planning Outline
Introduction
 Topic Statement

Significance

Background + Literature (for Attribution)

Research Statement

Major Findings
Experimental Details/Method
 Materials

Instruments

Procedures
Results (as many results as you need!)
 Result #1

Result #2
REU Physics Writing Workshop 28

Result #3

Result #4

Figures (brief mention of what figures should be in Results section)
Discussion (Relationship  Corroborate, Clarify, or Conflict; Source is from the
literature)
 Relationship + Source for Result #1

Relationship + Source for Result #2

Relationship + Source for Result #3

Relationship + Source for Result #4

Suggestions for further research
Conclusion
 Main Outcome/s

Application to Field OR Suggestion for further research
Your paper may have differently labeled subheadings. It may include a Discussion
section, combine Results and Discussion, or only have something like Results and a
Conclusion.