Coherence is key: common pitfalls in scientific research papers

By Claire Bacon, 24 February 2026

Many of us in SENSE work with academics whose native language is not English. This sometimes involves helping our clients get research papers ready for publication in scientific journals. Often, these texts have structural problems that need to be fixed before we can deal with more minor language errors like spelling, grammar and word choice. This is because a good overall structure gives the paper cohesion – it ensures that the paper tells a compelling story with a clear message. In this blog post, I explain the main structural problems that lead to poor coherence in scientific papers and how to manage them.

Wrong information in the wrong section

Research papers typically contain Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion sections. In theory this should make research papers easy to write – but scientists often put the wrong information in these sections. Here are the common mistakes:

• Abstract: The Abstract needs to summarize the entire research story. That means it needs to define the knowledge gap, state the research question, describe the main methods and results, answer the research question, and outline the main implications. Often, the author pays too much attention to one point at the expense of another. So they may give a lot of background information but neglect the results – or they may focus completely on their findings without giving any context. Encourage them to spend one or two sentences at the most on each point so that the Abstract is complete.
• Introduction: The Introduction needs to introduce the topic, explain the study rationale, describe the current state of the knowledge, specify the problem being addressed, and ask the research question. A common mistake is giving too much general background information that is not relevant to the study question. Ideally, the author will start off fairly broad, gradually narrowing the background information down to focus on the specific research question. Help the author by flagging any information that does not seem directly relevant to the research question. Another common problem is not specifying the research question. This is central to the focus of the paper so it must be included at the end of the Introduction.
• Methods: The Methods section needs to give the reader all the information they need to understand what was done and to repeat any experiments. A common mistake is leaving out experimental information or not giving enough details. So let the author know if they describe data without saying how they collected it. Another problem is describing results – here we can remind the author that the Methods section is for describing what we did, not what we found.
• Results: The Results section needs to present the findings in a logical order using narrative text, tables, and figures as appropriate. A common mistake is not referring to all tables and figures in the narrative text and in the right order. Something else to watch out for is interpretation of the data – the author should objectively describe their findings in this section and leave the interpretation for the Discussion section. Look out for verbs like suggesting and showing, which indicate the author has moved beyond a simple description of the findings.
• Discussion: This is where the author should answer the research question – preferably in the opening paragraph. A common mistake is starting the Discussion by going back to the beginning and repeating the background information. This is not necessary – advise the author that simply repeating the research question before answering it gives the reader enough of a reminder of what the study is about. Also watch out for excessive repetition of results in the Discussion. Here the author should be focusing on explaining and interpreting the findings, so a very brief reminder of the data is sufficient. Flag any sentences that contain specific data with P values and remind the author that these details are for the Results section.

Not asking or answering the research question

The research question is central to the cohesion of a research paper because each section centres around it: the Introduction asks the question, the Methods explains how the question was answered, the Results gives the information needed to answer the question, and the Discussion answers the question and justifies the answer. Not asking the research question at the end of the Introduction leaves the reader wondering what the purpose of the study is, so add a note for your author if they have left it out. Another problem is not providing a clear answer to the research question at the beginning of the Discussion. The author needs to answer the question in the opening paragraph of the Discussion to provide the basis for the justification of that answer that will follow. Something else to watch out for is that the research question is consistent throughout the paper – that the author actually answers the question they asked at the start rather than providing an answer to a completely new question (it happens more than you may think!).

Not structuring and linking paragraphs properly

Paragraphs are an essential tool for structuring ideas and arguments clearly and logically. Scientists struggle to structure and link their paragraphs properly in research papers and the result is that they often do not fully develop and conclude each topic before moving on to the next, which contributes to poor coherence. Checking that each paragraph deals with one topic is the best place to start, and explaining that each paragraph needs to introduce, develop and conclude one topic is also often helpful. Scientists sometimes need a lot of expert intervention to help them with this, so be prepared to restructure paragraphs and add helpful topic sentences where needed.

Help is at hand

Expert editors with a sound knowledge of how a research paper should be structured can help academic authors get their work published. Offering clear guidance on the issues outlined in this post will help academics communicate their research in a clear and compelling way.