Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mahrer, K. D. Search for Related Content

Writing papers people remember

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, U.S.

Corresponding author: kmahrer@do.usbr.gov

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

Can you recall the papers you read last month? Probably not. You invested the time and have very little to show for it. It's not your fault. Chances are, from inception these papers were headed toward your personal recycle bin. Certainly not all published papers can be landmarks, but why are so many forgettable?

It's probably not for lack of effort. Most papers spawn from major research efforts. It's not because of poor language. Substandard manuscripts either get rejected or are reworked until they reach a minimal level of acceptability. Maybe a few substandard ones get through, but most are acceptably written. And it's not because of shoddy science. Reviewers are good at rejecting substandard science.

So, again, what makes published papers forgettable? Recently I found part of the answer. I was reading a paper, had come to the Conclusion section, and there was nothing to conclude. In place of a conclusion was a vague, generalized, five-sentence summary—something I didn't need, because I had just read the paper; in fact, it deflated the paper. That's when it hit me: Memorable papers build to memorable conclusions. Memorable conclusions explicitly show readers value, i.e., things worth remembering. The paper I read had nothing to conclude . . . [Full Text of this Article]