101 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
101 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
# Section Patterns for Materials Papers
|
|
|
|
Use this file when drafting or revising a specific manuscript section.
|
|
|
|
## Title
|
|
|
|
Pattern:
|
|
|
|
`[Material/interface/architecture] enables [mechanism/property] for
|
|
[application]`
|
|
|
|
Good titles expose the material identity and the evidence-backed advance.
|
|
Avoid empty modifiers such as `novel`, `excellent`, `advanced`, or
|
|
`high-performance` unless the rest of the title says why.
|
|
|
|
## Abstract
|
|
|
|
Sentence jobs:
|
|
|
|
1. Application need or field bottleneck.
|
|
2. Specific materials limitation.
|
|
3. Design strategy.
|
|
4. Structural or interfacial evidence.
|
|
5. Key performance metric.
|
|
6. Mechanistic explanation or implication.
|
|
7. Boundary or application relevance.
|
|
|
|
Keep the abstract compact. Put numbers near the claims they support.
|
|
|
|
## Introduction
|
|
|
|
Paragraph jobs:
|
|
|
|
1. Why the application or field problem matters.
|
|
2. Why current materials or devices remain insufficient.
|
|
3. What prior strategies attempted and what they leave unresolved.
|
|
4. What design principle this paper uses.
|
|
5. What the paper demonstrates.
|
|
|
|
Do not write a literature list. Use mechanism-based grouping:
|
|
|
|
- composition engineering
|
|
- interface engineering
|
|
- defect or coordination control
|
|
- microstructure/morphology design
|
|
- device architecture
|
|
- processing/scalability
|
|
|
|
## Results
|
|
|
|
Subsection opening pattern:
|
|
|
|
`To test whether [design feature] can address [bottleneck], we prepared
|
|
[sample/device] and first examined [structure/property].`
|
|
|
|
Evidence pattern:
|
|
|
|
`[Technique] shows [observation], indicating [bounded interpretation]. In
|
|
comparison with [control], [sample] exhibits [quantitative difference], which
|
|
supports [claim].`
|
|
|
|
Mechanism pattern:
|
|
|
|
`Together, [evidence 1] and [evidence 2] suggest that [feature] promotes
|
|
[process]. This interpretation is supported by [control/diagnostic], although
|
|
[boundary] remains to be clarified.`
|
|
|
|
## Discussion
|
|
|
|
Use:
|
|
|
|
`central advance -> why the evidence matters -> relation to prior materials ->
|
|
practical limits -> next step`
|
|
|
|
Discussion can explain, compare, and limit. It should not repeat every figure in
|
|
the Results section.
|
|
|
|
## Conclusion
|
|
|
|
Use:
|
|
|
|
`We developed [material/design]. The key evidence is [structure/property/
|
|
performance]. These results show [bounded implication]. Further work is needed
|
|
to [limit].`
|
|
|
|
No new data. No unsupported application promises.
|
|
|
|
## Methods
|
|
|
|
Methods must make the work reproducible:
|
|
|
|
- precursor names and purity when needed
|
|
- ratios, concentrations, solvents, pH, temperatures, times
|
|
- substrate treatment, deposition, washing, drying, annealing
|
|
- instrument models and critical parameters
|
|
- sample dimensions and test conditions
|
|
- statistics, replicates, and software
|
|
|
|
Avoid vague phrases such as `standard method`, `appropriate amount`,
|
|
`optimized conditions`, and `good reproducibility`.
|