Checklist for scientific papers (before sending them to your supervisor)

Feel free to drop me a line (at zhenyu_liao at hust.edu.cn) with your options and if you wish to add something to this list :)

Check the spelling

• Both with a spell-checker and by yourself!

Logic and general

• Is the flow of logic clear from paragraph to paragraph? From your draft, you should be able to (re)write the outline of the paper.
• Do you repeat key points in several sections to emphasize them?
• is every paragraph in the right section?
• avoid long and complicated sentences
• Did you make several revisions of the entire manuscript (after completing a first draft)?
• Did you check journal-specific formatting – section order; figures; references?

English

• Are the style of headings consistent?
• A, B, and C
• space before comma
• Capitalize Theorem, Lemma, Corollary, etc.
• how to use the word “respectively”: https://lib.xust.edu.cn/info/5880/3657.htm

Latex, math and equations

• debug all Latex warning on overleaf (except for those related to bib)
• Are math formulas and notations used consistently?
• Use \left( and \right) when necessary
• Equations should end with , or .

Abstract

• Does the abstract avoid distracting technical details?
• Is it clear from the abstract why the work is new and worthy of publication? Introduction
• Did you clearly explain the reason why the work was done – the existing problem?
• Did you clearly and briefly explain what you did to make progress – what’s new?
• Did you cite pertinent work done before? Even by people you may not like?
• Did you read the introductions of several related papers to be sure you explained the ideas properly and cited the important work?

Methods

• Did you remind your readers why a new/old method was used? You can write a mini-introduction for the Methods section.
• Did you provide enough information so a reader could exactly reproduce your results? The whole procedure should be outlined, even if some details must be found in other work or Supplemental Information.

Results

• Did you make sure the main results are not buried? Again, use mini-introductions.
• Did you save commentary and speculation for the Discussion section?

Discussion

• Did you clearly explain what’s new, as compared to previous work?
• Did you avoid repeating information from the Results section?
• Did you admit the limitations of your work?
• Did you describe future applications, improvements, and generalizations?

Conclusions

• Could a reader in a rush read just the Conclusions and learn just about everything (including acronyms)?
• Did you avoid exaggeration and let the data speak for itself?
• Did you acknowledge everyone who helped, including funding agencies?

Figures

• Do figure titles describe the main point of each figure?
• Have you put labels/arrows in the graphic to minimize effort for the reader?