Our brains are evolutionarily designed to understand and retain information most effectively when it’s woven into compelling narratives or stories. Stories not only aid in comprehension but also foster deeper emotional connections and memory retention. Every piece of new information requires context, building upon what we already know. Therefore, weaving them into stories ignites curiosity, facilitates engagement, and simplifies complex data.
The art of scientific manuscript writing often parallels the intricate storytelling seen in the literature or the movies. Just as a gripping narrative captivates its audience, a well-written research paper should engage its readers, taking them on a journey of discovery. In fact, scientific manuscripts and grant outlines have a built-in structure to allow for scientific storytelling.
I was fortunate to learn the importance of storytelling and outlining early in my research journey from my mentors. This guidance transformed my writing process, making it not only more systematic but also highly efficient with minimal rewrites. Let’s delve into the scientific storytelling framework, drawing parallels between the structure of a scientific manuscript and the framework of Freytag’s Pyramid. We will use one of my favorite movies, “The Matrix” as an example.
In the world of literature and drama, Gustav Freytag, a renowned German playwright and novelist, introduced the concept of Freytag’s Pyramid. He presented this five-act plot structure in his work, ‘Die Technik des Dramas’ or ‘Technique of the Drama’, back in the 19th century. The structure of a scientific manuscript can also be thought of as something that is akin to the narrative structure described in Freytag’s Pyramid.
Figure. Freytag’s Pyramid by the German novelist Gustav Freytag describing the narrative structure
Since the 1970s, the majority of scientific papers have embraced the IMRAD model—Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion. This framework offers a systematic blueprint, guiding researchers in weaving their scientific narratives seamlessly. This structure very closely resembles the Freytag’s Pyramid, allowing an opportunity for packaging our research to tell compelling scientific stories.
This is where we are introduced to the characters and the setting. In “The Matrix,” we’re introduced to Neo, a hacker, and the mysterious world he inhabits. Similarly, in scientific writing, the introduction sets the stage. It presents the current state of scientific literature relevant to the central research question. Let’s examine this in the context of one of our manuscripts where we described the diagnostic delay in psoriatic arthritis using a population-based cohort. In the introduction paragraph, we first describe the problem and set the stage for our study:
Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic musculoskeletal disease, which can lead to progressive joint pain, joint destruction, and loss of function. The impact on quality of life and functional status is similar to rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is also increasing evidence that early diagnosis and treatment of PsA leads to improved long term outcomes for patients in terms of disease severity, and radiographic damage …………….. Despite this, the majority of patients have significant delays in diagnosis of PsA; up to 40% have not been previously identified in screening studies.
“The Matrix” is not just an action-packed sci-fi thriller; it’s a profound exploration of determinism versus free will. Despite the protagonist, Neo, being predestined to be “The One,” he still has to make a choice. At its heart lies the tension-filled choice Neo faces: the red pill, representing the harsh truth of reality, or the blue pill, symbolizing blissful ignorance. This pivotal moment is rife with conflict and tension, driving the narrative forward.
In clinical research, your research question or gap is akin to Neo’s red pill vs. blue pill dilemma. It’s the central tension that propels your study. In the same manuscript that we cited above, notice how the next paragraph, we describe the gap in knowledge as:
Only a few studies have examined delay in diagnosis of PsA, most of which relied on patient surveys or administrative data for ascertainment of the date of PsA diagnosis, which may be misleading. …………. trends in diagnostic delay of PsA in the US and factors associated with delay in diagnosis have not been well studied.
(REMEMBER that this research gap can be a gap in knowledge as above or a gap in thinking, i.e., we have been thinking about it all wrong).
NOTE: For more on how to use the problem-gap-hook-solution framework, get our manuscript writing template here.
Central Message of the Paper
Every narrative, be it in movies or research, revolves around a central theme. In “The Matrix,” it’s determinism vs. free will. In the context of the manuscript on PsA, the central message emerges from the key research findings (usually 2-3 in a manuscript):
The central message in the referenced manuscript is that there is a significant diagnostic delay in a majority of psoriatic arthritis patients and it is important to identify these patients at high risk of delayed diagnosis.
Key Findings: The Heart of the Manuscript
The climax of “The Matrix” is Neo’s realization of his potential. Similarly, the results section of a manuscript presents its climax, the key findings:
In the referenced paper, there are really 3 key findings:
The central message above was derived from these carefully chosen key findings (among the many research findings of the paper). The discussion section and the entire paper are then crafted around this central theme.
Post-climax, the narrative moves towards resolution. In “The Matrix,” Neo’s newfound understanding sets the stage for potential sequels. In a manuscript, the discussion and conclusion sections serve this purpose, discussing the clinical implications and conclusions. Then, paving a path with future directions (Are there still unanswered questions on the topic? If so, what would be an ideal study that could answer these questions? Do your findings open new research questions?).
For example, this section in the referenced manuscript outlines the clinical implications and future directions:
“Better understanding of factors associated with diagnostic delay may help in earlier diagnosis and management to improve outcomes in high risk PsA patients. As not all patients have severe or progressive disease, identifying high risk patient subgroup will be important to stratify those that will benefit from early, aggressive treatment.”
Drawing inspiration from cinematic masterpieces and structured narrative frameworks like Freytag’s Pyramid, researchers can craft compelling manuscripts that resonate with their audience. By viewing scientific writing as a form of storytelling (scientific storytelling), we can engage readers more effectively, making our research both accessible and memorable. Remember, every research paper is a story waiting to be told; it’s up to you to narrate it compellingly.
Download our manuscript writing template here to use storytelling and write compelling scientific manuscripts.
Referenced manuscript:
Karmacharya P, Wright K, Achenbach SJ, et al. Diagnostic Delay in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Population-based Study. J Rheumatol. 2021 Sep;48(9):1410-1416. Epub 2021 Feb 15. PMID: 33589556; PMCID: PMC8364557.