Writing a Scientific Paper As some point when you achieve a research result significant enough to warrant publication (usually in consultation with your advisor and/or collaborators), it is necessary to write up your results in a format that other scientists expect, and can quickly assimilate and appreciate. While each peer-reviewed journal has their own instructions for authors and standard formats (e.g., http://aas.org/authors/manuscript-preparation-aj-apj-author-instructions), there are guidelines that can be applied more generally. Each paper usually has the following parts, or variations on the following parts: TITLE: Try to use keywords that will help potential readers quickly figure out if the paper is of interest to them, and if they should read the abstract. Authors: Everyone who contributed to making the paper possible. In astronomy, the first-author usually gets more credit, but in the world of expanding teams, this is less so today. Discuss who should be co-authors with your advisor, and recognize that there are differences of opinion and different standards among fields. Abstract: This is critically important as it is sometimes all someone reads, and uses to determine if the entire paper is worth examination. The abstract should be a summary of the entire paper and explicitly include all noteworthy results. Introduction: The background information and motivation for the current work should be provided, usually keeping in mind a first-year graduate student interested in the subfield as the reader. Methods: Depending on the general approach, this section can include sample selection, observations/experimental details, measurements, computational approach, etc. Experimental physics, observational astronomy, theory, and computational approaches will all need different information. The basic thing here is to describe what you did well enough that others can replicate the work. Analysis: It is often useful to split analysis of the observations/experiment/measurements/model/calculation into a different section. Sometimes the analysis is simple, sometimes more complex than the original experiment. Results: This is where you explain what the analysis has turned up. Are there statistically significant correlations? What is the general behavior of the new model? What are the properties of the new material? Discussion: This is where you put the new results in context of existing theory and observations. Do the results fit in with expectations, or are they inconsistent requiring new understanding? What is the significance of the new results compared to the problems posed in the introduction? Conclusions or Summary: This is useful for long papers that have many results, perhaps spread among several sections. Acknowledgements: Say who funded you, or gave you good advice but aren't listed as co-authors. References: Be complete! If you state anything that is not a well-known general fact, you usually need to justify those statements with a citation. It is also important to cite sources of more information or to credit instrument builders, etc. Make sure your advisor and co-authors get their chance to provide input, or even write their own sections as appropriate. Every author should have their say. Figures and tables are an excellent way of providing information and communicating it to readers. It's sometimes best to start by creating the figures and tables, and outlining the paper around them. Many readers will focus on just a figure or two, so make sure they are well considered and show your results clearly. Follow the instructions and submit when ready. The refereeing process can take from days to months, so be patient, and understand that the goal of the process is to improve the final published paper and to help you to avoid making mistakes in print! For more reading: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+write+a+science+paper&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a http://www.amazon.com/How-Write-Publish-Scientific-Paper/dp/1573561657