1 / 7
Whose advice is this?
Writing advice circulates faster than its evidence. Before repeating a rule, you should be able to name who states it, in what document, and for what kind of paper. This deck uses two sources and labels every principle.
Whitesides (2004)
George M. Whitesides, “Whitesides’ Group: Writing a Paper,” Advanced Materials.1
Scope, from the document itself: the text is based on a group handout created October 4, 1989, and assumes “we will write all papers using the style of the American Chemical Society.” It is chemistry-group practice, now 37 years old.
Weitz lab (rev. 10/4/2012)
Harvard Weitz lab, Guide to Good Paper Writing.2
Scope, from the document itself: written for “Science, Nature, PRL or other letters journal” soft-matter letters. Fourteen years old. Its Harvard URLs now return 404.
Each of these documents describes one group’s practice, written by a senior author for their own trainees, in one subfield, at one time. Neither is a journal requirement, a field standard, or a finding. Advice inherits the authority of its source and no more.
2 / 7
The outline is the instrument — Whitesides
“A paper is not just an archival device for storing a completed research program; it is also a structure for planning your research in progress.” Whitesides 20041
“An outline is a written plan of the organization of a paper, including the data on which it rests.” Whitesides 20041
The claim is not that outlining is tidy. It is that the outline is where you discover which experiments you have not done — which is why Whitesides tells his group to “start writing possible outlines for papers early in a project. Do not wait until the ‘end’.”
“Organize in order of importance, not in chronological order.” The order in which you did the work is rarely the order in which a reader needs it.
Before drafting, write what the paper says in “one sentence, two at most.” Weitz adds that you should “never be afraid to change these sentences… this will invariably lead to a better paper.”
3 / 7
Where the two sources disagree: tense
This deck previously reported a single rule here. Both sources address the same question and give opposite answers.
“Describe experimental results uniformly in the past tense.”
Not: Addition of water gives product.
But: Addition of water gave product.
“Generally use the present tense… You can also use the past tense for things that you did in the past… It is simpler to use the present tense for everything.”
- Both authors are eminent. Both are describing good practice. What differs — the field, the genre, the era, or the underlying claim about readers?
- Whitesides is writing for ACS-style chemistry papers reporting synthesis; Weitz for short letters in Science, Nature, and PRL. Does that account for it?
- Open three recent papers from your own field. Which convention do they follow? Bring a count, not an impression.
A deck that silently resolves a disagreement between its own named sources teaches students that a contested convention is settled. Where sources conflict, say so and name the scope condition — that is the transferable skill.
4 / 7
The abstract: both sources agree, and it is not first
Whitesides
“Abstract — Do not write an abstract. That can be done when the paper is complete.”
Weitz
“The abstract should be written last, after the rest of the paper is complete.”
The 2-2-1 heuristic — Weitz, quoted in full
“It should consist roughly, not literally, of: 2 sentences from the Introduction / 2 sentences from the Conclusion / 1 sentence about the importance of the paper.” Weitz lab guide, rev. 10/4/20122
The source states this as an approximate shape and says so in the same sentence. It is a heuristic, not a formula, and a deck that calls it “the 2-2-1 Formula” and drops the qualifier has changed what the source claims.
“It is often also the main paragraph that determines whether or not a paper is accepted.” Note “often.” Preserve it.
5 / 7
Figures — and the exception that gets deleted
“Discuss the figures in the text… The reader should not have to stop and read the caption to understand what is in the figure and why it is important. Note that this is not a universal rule: both Science and Nature prefer to have a very detailed caption, with very little discussion of the figure in the text.” Weitz lab guide, rev. 10/4/20122
The bolded sentence is part of the same bullet. Quoting the first half alone produces a “golden rule” that is wrong at exactly the journals this cohort is most likely to target.
“The interface toughens as the network is anchored covalently, as shown in Fig. 3.”
The point comes first; the figure is the evidence for it.
“In Fig. 3, we show the interfacial toughness as a function of anchoring density.”
The reader is told where to look before being told why.
Where the figure discussion lives is a venue decision. Check the target journal's author instructions, then write to that. Neither pattern is universally correct.
6 / 7
Guidelines that get quoted as laws
“Please remember that, like all cases with the English language, these are not rules, but are guidelines, and there will certainly be times that they do not apply or that they should be changed.” Weitz lab guide, opening paragraph2
That sentence opens the source document. It is routinely dropped when the list is re-circulated, and the list then hardens into prohibitions.
| As usually repeated | What the source says |
|---|---|
| “Never begin a sentence with This.” | Whitesides: “The word ‘this’ must always be followed by a noun, so that its reference is explicit” — and his own correct examples begin with it: “This reaction is fast”; “This observation leads us to conclude.” Weitz: a problem only if you do it “frequently.” |
| “Never name living people.” | Weitz: “The only personal names you should include in the text of a paper (not counting article references or citations) are names of people who are dead.” The parenthetical is the whole point — citations are unaffected. |
| “No parentheses. No i.e. Forbidden phrases.” | These appear in the Weitz list, under the document's own “not rules, but guidelines” framing. They are style preferences for short letters, not prohibitions. |
| “Don’t be historical.” | Weitz: “don’t be historical, be as clear as possible.” Accurately quoted — and note it is a clarity claim, not a prohibition on narrative. |
That writing quality determines whether a paper is accepted. Review outcomes turn on novelty, correctness, scope fit, venue tier, and which referees were assigned. Neither source claims otherwise, and no evidence here supports it.
7 / 7
Test a rule yourself
The instructor supplies three short excerpts and one operational definition of an observable feature — for example, parentheses per sentence, passive constructions under a stated coding rule, or whether a discussion opens with its principal finding. Count only that feature.
| Excerpt | Conforming | Non-conforming | Denominator | Did non-conformance hurt clarity? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||
| 2 | ||||
| 3 |
Not a verdict that the rule is right or wrong. A one-sentence restatement of the rule with its scope condition — the field, genre, and venue in which you observed it holding or failing.
Only whether the defined feature appears in this small corpus and how it functions in context. A finished passage cannot reveal an unobserved drafting process, and three excerpts cannot establish a field-wide convention.
One rule with its scope condition, and one thing your Draft 1 still cannot support.