Introduction Group 3:Euis NurjannahMila MeifalistraSetyo Aji Purnomo Sidi

The key skills are needed when writing an Introduction

The Introduction presents the background knowledge that readers need so that they can appreciate how the findings of the paper are an advance on current knowledge in the field. A key skill is to be able to say the same things that have been said many times before but in a different, interesting, intriguing way.

Typical complaints of referees

The Introduction occupies too high a proportion of the entire paper and contains too many general statements that are already widely known. The rationale and objectives are not defined and the whole section is completely disorganized - it is not clear what problem the author is addressing or trying to solve and why they chose their particular methodology. Much of the initial part is essentially a cut and paste from the Abstract.

How should I structure the Introduction?

An Introduction generally answers the following questions. You can use the answers to these questions to structure your Introduction.

• What is the problem?• Are there any existing solutions (i.e. in the

literature)?• Which solution is the best?• What is its main limitation? (i.e. What gap

am I hoping to fill?)• What do I hope to achieve?• Have I achieved what I set out to do?

How should I begin my Introduction?

Every Introduction, irrespectively of the discipline, would incorporate those parts marked with an asterisk (*).

You could begin with one or more of the first four parts listed below.

1. Definition of the topic plus background2. Accepted state of the art plus problem

to be resolved (*)3. Authors’ objectives (*)4. Introduction to the literature

1. Definition of the topic plus background

This introductory phrase may not be necessary in your paper. This is the place to include notations, technical definitions, and explanations of key words.The second sentence gives information that readers should already be familiar with and suggests why the topic is important and of interest.

2. Accepted state of the art plus problem to be resolved (*)

This part should state in simple and clear language exactly what the problem is, why you chose it, why you claim it is important.

3. Authors’ objectives (*)

Here the authors outline their major objectives, i.e. how they intend to fill the gap. Parts 6 and 7 (see next page) could be incorporated here. This part also serves as a transition into the review of the literature.

4. Introduction to the literature

This introduces the background literature that the authors intend to refer to in order to motivate their particular research. It makes a reference to current insufficient knowledge of the topic.

How should I structure the rest of the Introduction?

The Introduction outlined the previous subsection continues as follows:

5. Survey of pertinent literature6. Authors’ contribution (*)7. Aim of the present work (*)8. Main results of the present work9. Future implications of the work10.Outline of structure

survey of pertinent literature

This part reviews the literature in the author’s precise field. As in the previous part, it often draws attention to problems that have still not been solved. You only need to describe what is necessary for the specific purposes of your paper.

authors’ contribution (*)

Here the authors make a very clear statement of how what they describe in the paper represents an advance on current knowledge

aim of the present work (*)

This statement of the goal to be reached is essential in any Introduction. It should be in a separate paragraph and expressed so that the referee (and readers) are 100% clear about the objectives of your research and the expected outcome. You will need to tell readers what method you used and possibly why you chose this method.

main results of the present work

Although your main results will be given in other sections of your paper (typically in your Abstract, Results, Discussion and Conclusions), many authors also announce them here to show how the background situation plus their contribution have led to particular results.

future implications of the work

Some authors prefer to delay mentioning implications to the Discussion or even to the Conclusions. However, mentioning implications here gives readers an instant idea of the possible importance of your work, which may be useful for them as they read the rest of the paper.

outline of structure

This may not be necessary if the structure of your paper is completely standard for your chosen journal, and thus readers will already know in what order the various elements of your research will be presented

Typical phrases should to avoid in my Introduction

Referees have to read a lot of papers. While this can be a very rewarding task, it can also be quite tedious when many Abstracts and Introductions seem to begin in the same way. Thus, some writing experts advise avoiding stock phrases (i.e. Typical phrases that everyone uses) at the beginning of the introduction.

For example: Recent advances in ... The last few years have seen ... Instead they recommended beginning in a more direct way.

A similar comparison between Abstracts and Introductionshow they are structured differentlywhat elements from the Abstract the

Introduction expands onhow sentences from the Abstract are

paraphrased in the Introductionwhat information is covered in the Abstract

but not in the Introduction, and vice versa the relative word counts. This will give you

an idea of the proportionate length of the Introduction compared to the Abstract. The Introduction is approximately twice as long. This is quite typical

What tenses should I use?The present simple is generally

used to begin the Introduction in order to describe the general background context,

The present perfect is then used to show how the problem has been approached from the past until the present day.

Summary: How can I assess the quality of my Introduction?

To make a self-assessment of your Introduction, you can ask yourself the following questions.

Is my research question clear? Does my Introduction act as a clear road map for

understanding my paper? Is it sufficiently different from the Abstract, without any

cut and pastes? (some overlap is fine) Have I mentioned only what my readers specifically need

to know and what I will subsequently refer to in the Discussion?

Have I been as concise as possible? Have I used tenses correctly? present simple (general

background context, description of what will be done in the paper), present perfect (past to present solutions), past simple (my contribution, though this may also be expressed using the present simple or future simple)