Science Declassified: What’s in a good Introduction?
If you’ve read the first part of this series you’ve taken the plunge into reading a research paper in an area of your choosing. You found a paper that seems interesting, dissected the abstract and opened to the first page. Now when you start reading, the intro seems to echo like the abstract. Why would the author be repeating himself? And where did all this jargon come from? In this article we will be delving into the hook of any body of work: the intro. What to look for in a good paper, how it’s structured and what’s to come.
Often the hardest part of any journey is the beginning, and writing is no different. While an abstract gives the reader an overview of the paper as a whole, the intro serves as the gateway into the meat of a paper, giving the reader the proper context needed to understand the literature ahead. For this reason, while an abstract can contain some of the same points as an intro, the brevity of an abstract leaves out much of the needed information about the paper that the intro can cover. While a good abstract shouldn’t contain references, an intro will often highlight past studies and research on the topic at hand, to give the reader information about the background needed to accomplish what the study set out to understand.
In an intro, an author needs to expose the reader to the topic of discussion in an engaging way, while also highlighting the biggest question any research paper has to answer: Why even care in the first place? As you’re making your way through the introduction, you should be on the lookout for the four big pillars of an intro that seek to answer that very question:
- Presentation of topic
- Give context/summarize existing research
- Introduce topic of research and why it’s important
- Conclude with specific objectives of your study (otherwise known as a research hypothesis)
Keep in mind that all this information has to be condensed into something around 500 words for brevity’s sake (academic papers are long enough already) while leading the reader along a chain of thought that ends with the central question of the study. What’s most important to look out for in an intro is an emphasis on substance rather than flashy statistics/results. While a paper may hit all the above points, a paper based on sound research should let the body of the essay convince you of its validity, rather than in the first two sentences. To mix things up, let’s take a look at a potentially misleading article.
Below is an excerpt from the website, Mercola, which is run by Dr. Mercola. Dr. Mercola is a doctor of osteopathy who has frequently been targeted by the FDA for promoting false, misleading and even dangerous medical advice. In a recent blog post, he promotes the magic of Vitamin D and it’s supposed benefits in relation to COVID-19.
Vitamin D plays an important role in most diseases, including infectious disease, which is why from the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, I suspected that optimizing vitamin D levels among the general population would significantly lower COVID-19 incidence and death. Since then, mounting evidence reveals this is indeed the case, as researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that higher vitamin D levels reduce rates of positive tests, hospitalizations and mortality related to this infection. Most recently, a Spanish study (which has yet to undergo peer-review) found giving supplemental vitamin D3 (calcifediol) to hospitalized patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 reduced ICU admissions by 82% and mortality by 64%. People who already had higher vitamin D at baseline were 60% less likely to die. The study included 930 patients, 551 of whom received vitamin D3–532 micrograms on the first day of admission followed by 266 mcg on days 3, 7, 15 and 30. The remaining 379 patients served as controls.
Topic Presentation
In this intro, we are presented with the topic of discussion, as well as given some surface level information about topic.
Vitamin D plays an important role in most diseases, including infectious disease, which is why from the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, I suspected that optimizing vitamin D levels among the general population would significantly lower COVID-19 incidence and death.
Here it is explained that vitamin D is the topic of discussion and how its use pertains to the COVID-19 pandemic. Included is a tease about the repercussions of the topic to come.
Context
Next, we need some context about the topic at hand.
Most recently, a Spanish study (which has yet to undergo peer-review) found giving supplemental Vitamin D3 (calcifediol) to hospitalized patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 reduced ICU admissions by 82% and mortality by 64%.
By referencing a current study on vitamin D3 that showed patient improvement with relation to COVID treatment, this gives weight to the claim of the paper.
Topic of Research and its Importance
After context is given, we can move onto stating the topic we are interested in investigating and providing the reader with the “why do I care” statement.
Since then, mounting evidence reveals this is indeed the case, as researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that higher vitamin D levels reduce rates of positive tests, hospitalizations and mortality related to this infection.
The topic given in Dr. Mercola’s blog post here is that the elevated vitamin D levels are important because it can aid in the world’s fight against the pandemic.
Objectives
In the few sentences of the intro, the objective of the paper should be clearly stated.
I suspected that optimizing vitamin D levels among the general population would significantly lower COVID-19 incidence and death.
Here we see Dr. Mercola making the claim that in using vitamin D, COVID-19 deaths would be lowered.
Cool. So this article does contain all the necessary information related to a proper introduction, I must be wrong. Maybe this isn’t such a bad article after all? Let’s pump the brakes for a few seconds however. While this introduction does check all the boxes, it is slightly misleading. A good intro should give contextual references, such as the Spanish study mentioned, but a diligent reader would check this study to find that it has been removed from publishing pending an investigation of the study. As a rule of thumb, it is usually unwise to include a reference to a study that has yet to be peer reviewed as part of your article. Simplicity is also key when writing an introduction, and while this intro provides a lot of information, it is bogged down with data that should most likely have been left in the body of the article. The hallmark of a good introduction is following the “inverted pyramid” shape in laying out your story, beginning with simple context and related research, incrementally narrowing the story until it ends at your research hypothesis. In the above example, the very first sentence was “I suspected that optimizing vitamin D levels among the general population would significantly lower COVID-19 incidence and death.” By starting the introduction paragraph with a research hypothesis, it interrupts the flow of the article.
What this article goes to show is that while some writing can check the right boxes, under a little scrutiny, you sometimes find some fallacies lurking below. If your chosen article hits the mark though, it’s time to move onto the real meat of a science-based article, the main body. Get ready for graphics, statistics and all the science you could ask for! It’ll be fun, I promise. In the meantime, I hope you’re finding more enriching articles to read other than my example today.
If you’re hungry for more cool science, check out these well written articles on health and space!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210223110435.htm
A list of scientific papers based off of the Mars rover Curiosity.
