can i use we in a research paper

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

Can You Use First-Person Pronouns (I/we) in a Research Paper?

Research writers frequently wonder whether the first person can be used in academic and scientific writing. In truth, for generations, we’ve been discouraged from using “I” and “we” in academic writing simply due to old habits. That’s right—there’s no reason why you can’t use these words! In fact, the academic community used first-person pronouns until the 1920s, when the third person and passive-voice constructions (that is, “boring” writing) were adopted–prominently expressed, for example, in Strunk and White’s classic writing manual “Elements of Style” first published in 1918, that advised writers to place themselves “in the background” and not draw attention to themselves.

In recent decades, however, changing attitudes about the first person in academic writing has led to a paradigm shift, and we have, however, we’ve shifted back to producing active and engaging prose that incorporates the first person.

Can You Use “I” in a Research Paper?

However, “I” and “we” still have some generally accepted pronoun rules writers should follow. For example, the first person is more likely used in the abstract , Introduction section , Discussion section , and Conclusion section of an academic paper while the third person and passive constructions are found in the Methods section and Results section .

In this article, we discuss when you should avoid personal pronouns and when they may enhance your writing.

It’s Okay to Use First-Person Pronouns to:

• clarify meaning by eliminating passive voice constructions;
• establish authority and credibility (e.g., assert ethos, the Aristotelian rhetorical term referring to the personal character);
• express interest in a subject matter (typically found in rapid correspondence);
• establish personal connections with readers, particularly regarding anecdotal or hypothetical situations (common in philosophy, religion, and similar fields, particularly to explore how certain concepts might impact personal life. Additionally, artistic disciplines may also encourage personal perspectives more than other subjects);
• to emphasize or distinguish your perspective while discussing existing literature; and
• to create a conversational tone (rare in academic writing).

The First Person Should Be Avoided When:

• doing so would remove objectivity and give the impression that results or observations are unique to your perspective;
• you wish to maintain an objective tone that would suggest your study minimized biases as best as possible; and
• expressing your thoughts generally (phrases like “I think” are unnecessary because any statement that isn’t cited should be yours).

Usage Examples

The following examples compare the impact of using and avoiding first-person pronouns.

Example 1 (First Person Preferred):

To understand the effects of global warming on coastal regions,  changes in sea levels, storm surge occurrences and precipitation amounts  were examined .

[Note: When a long phrase acts as the subject of a passive-voice construction, the sentence becomes difficult to digest. Additionally, since the author(s) conducted the research, it would be clearer to specifically mention them when discussing the focus of a project.]

We examined  changes in sea levels, storm surge occurrences, and precipitation amounts to understand how global warming impacts coastal regions.

[Note: When describing the focus of a research project, authors often replace “we” with phrases such as “this study” or “this paper.” “We,” however, is acceptable in this context, including for scientific disciplines. In fact, papers published the vast majority of scientific journals these days use “we” to establish an active voice.   Be careful when using “this study” or “this paper” with verbs that clearly couldn’t have performed the action.   For example, “we attempt to demonstrate” works, but “the study attempts to demonstrate” does not; the study is not a person.]

Example 2 (First Person Discouraged):

From the various data points  we have received ,  we observed  that higher frequencies of runoffs from heavy rainfall have occurred in coastal regions where temperatures have increased by at least 0.9°C.

[Note: Introducing personal pronouns when discussing results raises questions regarding the reproducibility of a study. However, mathematics fields generally tolerate phrases such as “in X example, we see…”]

Coastal regions  with temperature increases averaging more than 0.9°C  experienced  higher frequencies of runoffs from heavy rainfall.

[Note: We removed the passive voice and maintained objectivity and assertiveness by specifically identifying the cause-and-effect elements as the actor and recipient of the main action verb. Additionally, in this version, the results appear independent of any person’s perspective.] 

Example 3 (First Person Preferred):

In contrast to the study by Jones et al. (2001), which suggests that milk consumption is safe for adults, the Miller study (2005) revealed the potential hazards of ingesting milk.  The authors confirm  this latter finding.

[Note: “Authors” in the last sentence above is unclear. Does the term refer to Jones et al., Miller, or the authors of the current paper?]

In contrast to the study by Jones et al. (2001), which suggests that milk consumption is safe for adults, the Miller study (2005) revealed the potential hazards of ingesting milk.  We confirm  this latter finding.

[Note: By using “we,” this sentence clarifies the actor and emphasizes the significance of the recent findings reported in this paper. Indeed, “I” and “we” are acceptable in most scientific fields to compare an author’s works with other researchers’ publications. The APA encourages using personal pronouns for this context. The social sciences broaden this scope to allow discussion of personal perspectives, irrespective of comparisons to other literature.]

Other Tips about Using Personal Pronouns

• Avoid starting a sentence with personal pronouns. The beginning of a sentence is a noticeable position that draws readers’ attention. Thus, using personal pronouns as the first one or two words of a sentence will draw unnecessary attention to them (unless, of course, that was your intent).
• Be careful how you define “we.” It should only refer to the authors and never the audience unless your intention is to write a conversational piece rather than a scholarly document! After all, the readers were not involved in analyzing or formulating the conclusions presented in your paper (although, we note that the point of your paper is to persuade readers to reach the same conclusions you did). While this is not a hard-and-fast rule, if you do want to use “we” to refer to a larger class of people, clearly define the term “we” in the sentence. For example, “As researchers, we frequently question…”
• First-person writing is becoming more acceptable under Modern English usage standards; however, the second-person pronoun “you” is still generally unacceptable because it is too casual for academic writing.
• Take all of the above notes with a grain of salt. That is,  double-check your institution or target journal’s author guidelines .  Some organizations may prohibit the use of personal pronouns.
• As an extra tip, before submission, you should always read through the most recent issues of a journal to get a better sense of the editors’ preferred writing styles and conventions.

Wordvice Resources

For more general advice on how to use active and passive voice in research papers, on how to paraphrase , or for a list of useful phrases for academic writing , head over to the Wordvice Academic Resources pages . And for more professional proofreading services , visit our Academic Editing and P aper Editing Services pages.

Is It Okay to Use "We" In a Research Paper? Here's What You Need to Know

Explore "we" in research papers: guidelines, alternatives, and considerations for effective academic writing.

Jun 25, 2024

When embarking on the journey of academic writing, particularly in research papers, one of the first questions that often arises is about pronoun usage. Specifically, many writers grapple with the question: Is it okay to use "we" in a research paper?

This seemingly simple grammatical choice carries significant weight in academic circles. Using pronouns, especially first-person pronouns like "we," can influence the tone, clarity, and perceived objectivity of your work. It's a topic that has sparked debates among scholars, with opinions evolving and varying across different disciplines.

The importance of pronoun usage in academic writing cannot be overstated, especially in contexts like thesis and scientific writing. It affects how your research is perceived, how you position yourself as an author, and how you engage with your readers using the first person or third person.

The choice between using "we," maintaining a more impersonal tone, or opting for alternatives can impact the overall effectiveness of your communication.

In this blog post, we'll explore the nuances of using "we" in research papers, examining both traditional and modern perspectives. We'll delve into the pros and cons, provide guidelines for appropriate usage, and offer alternatives to help you confidently navigate writing academic papers.

Traditional Stance on Using "We" in Research Papers

 historical preference for third-person perspective.

Academic writing traditionally favored a third-person perspective, especially in scientific fields. This preference emerged in the late 19th century as part of a push for objectivity in scientific communication. The goal was to present research as unbiased facts and observations.

Key aspects:

• Emphasis on passive voice versus active voice when choosing to use the first person or third person in writing a research paper.
• The use of impersonal constructions and passive voice can help avoid personal pronouns.
• Third-person references to authors

Reasons for avoiding first-person pronouns

Arguments against using "we" in research papers:

• Perceived lack of objectivity
• Ambiguity in meaning
• Concerns about formality
• Shift of focus from research to researchers
• Adherence to established conventions
• Avoid presumption in single-authored papers when you decide to use first-person pronouns or not. when you decide to use first-person pronouns or not.

This approach shaped academic writing for decades and still influences some disciplines, especially in the context of writing a research paper. However, attitudes toward pronoun usage have begun to change in recent years.

Changing Perspectives in Academic Writing

Shift towards more personal and engaging academic prose.

Recent years have seen a move towards more accessible academic writing. This shift aims to:

• Increase readability
• Engage readers more effectively by incorporating second-person narrative techniques.
• Acknowledge the researcher's role in the work
• Promote transparency in research processes

Key changes:

• More direct language
• Increased use of active voice can make your academic papers more engaging.
• Greater acceptance of narrative elements

Acceptance of first-person pronouns in some disciplines

Some fields now allow or encourage the use of "we" and other first-person pronouns. This varies by:

• Discipline: More common in humanities and social sciences
• Journal: Some publications explicitly permit or prefer first-person usage
• Type of paper: Often more accepted in qualitative research or opinion pieces

Reasons for acceptance:

• Clarity in describing methods and decisions
• Ownership of ideas and findings is crucial when writing a research paper.
• Improved reader engagement in scientific writing
• Recognition of researcher subjectivity in some fields

However, acceptance is not universal. Many disciplines and publications still prefer traditional, impersonal styles.

When It's Appropriate to Use "We" in Research Papers

Collaborative research with multiple authors

• Natural fit for papers with multiple contributors
• Accurately reflects joint effort and shared responsibility
• Examples: "We conducted experiments..." or "We conclude that..."

Describing methodology or procedures

• Clarifies who performed specific actions, helping to avoid personal pronouns that might otherwise confuse the audience.
• Adds transparency to the research process, particularly when first-person pronouns are used effectively.
• Example: "We collected data using..."

Presenting arguments or hypotheses

• Demonstrates ownership of ideas
• Can make complex concepts more accessible in a research report.
• Example: "We argue that..." or "We hypothesize..."

Discipline-specific conventions

• Usage varies widely between fields
• More common in Social sciences, Humanities, and Some STEM fields (e.g., computer science)
• Less common in Hard sciences, Medical research
• Always check journal guidelines and field norms, particularly regarding the use of the first person or third person.

Key point: Use "we" judiciously, balancing clarity and convention.

When to Avoid Using "We" in Research Papers

Single-authored papers

• Can seem odd or presumptuous
• Alternatives: Use "I" if appropriate, Use passive voice, and Refer to yourself as " the researcher " or "the author"

Presenting factual information or literature reviews

• Facts stand independently of the author
• Keep the focus on the information, not the presenter, when writing a research paper.
• Examples: "Previous studies have shown..." instead of "We know from previous studies..."  "The data indicate..." instead of "We see in the data..."

When trying to maintain an objective tone

• Some topics in research reports require a more detached approach.
• Avoid "we" when: Reporting widely accepted facts, Describing established theories, Presenting controversial findings
• Use impersonal constructions:  "It was observed that...", "The results suggest..."

Please remember: Always prioritize clarity and follow your field's conventions.

Alternatives to Using "We"

Passive voice.

• Shifts focus to the action or result
• Examples: "The experiment was conducted..." (instead of "We experimented...")  "It was observed that..." (instead of "We observed that...")
• Use personal pronouns sparingly to avoid overly complex sentences.

Third-person perspective

• Refers to the research or study itself
• Examples: "This study examines..." (instead of "We examine...") "The results indicate..." (instead of "We found...")
• Can create a more objective tone

 Using "the researcher(s)" or "the author(s)"

• Useful for single- authored papers
• Maintains formality while acknowledging human involvement
• Examples: "The researchers collected data..." (instead of "We collected data...")  "The author argues..." (instead of "We argue...")
• Can become repetitive if overused in writing research papers.

Tips for using alternatives:

• Vary sentence structure to maintain reader interest
• Ensure clarity is not sacrificed for formality
• Choose the most appropriate alternative based on context
• Consider journal guidelines and field conventions when writing a research paper.

Remember: The goal is clear, effective communication of your research, whether you use first person or third person.

Tips for Effective Academic Writing

Consistency in pronoun usage.

• Choose a style and stick to it throughout
• Avoid mixing "we" with impersonal constructions
• Exceptions:  Different sections may require different approaches, Clearly mark any intentional shifts in perspective

Balancing formality with clarity and engagement

• Prioritize clear communication
• Use simple, direct language where possible when writing research papers, and try to use the term that best fits the context.
• Engage readers without sacrificing academic rigor
• Techniques:  Use active voice judiciously, Vary sentence structure, Incorporate relevant examples or analogies

Seeking feedback from peers or mentors

• Share drafts with colleagues in your field to improve your research report.
• Ask for specific feedback on writing style
• Consider perspectives from Senior researchers , Peers at similar career stages, Potential target audience members, and how they prefer the use of the first person or third person in research.
• Be open to constructive criticism

Additional tips:

• Read widely in your field to understand style norms when writing research papers.
• Practice different writing styles to find your voice
• Revise and edit multiple times
• Use style guides relevant to your discipline
• Consider the reader's perspective while writing

Remember: Effective academic writing communicates complex ideas while meeting field-specific expectations.

Recap of key points

• The use of "we" in research papers is evolving
• Appropriateness depends on Discipline, Journal guidelines, Research type, Personal preference
• Alternatives include passive voice and third-person perspective, while the increased use of passive voice can sometimes create ambiguity.
• Consider audience, field norms, and clarity when choosing a style
• Consistency and balance in the use of first person or third person are crucial.

Encouragement to make informed choices in academic writing

• Understand the context of your work
• Stay informed about current trends in your field
• Prioritize clear communication of your research
• Be confident in your choices, but remain flexible
• Remember: No universal rule fits all situations, Effective writing adapts to its purpose and audience
• Continually refine your writing skills, including the appropriate use of personal pronouns in APA format.

Final thoughts:

• Writing style impacts how your research is received
• Make deliberate choices to enhance your paper's impact by using appropriate personal pronouns.
• Balance tradition with evolving norms in academic writing
• Your unique voice can contribute to advancing your field, particularly in writing a research paper.

Ultimately, choose a style that best serves your research and readers while adhering to relevant guidelines of scientific writing and thesis format. It may also be acceptable to use first-person pronouns where appropriate.

Easily pronounces technical words in any field

Writing Style

Pronoun Usage

Research Papers

Academic Writing

Recent articles

What is an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)?

Aug 1, 2024

Individualized Education Plan

Special Education

IEP Process

Learning Disabilities

Assistive Technology

Noam Chomsky's Theory of Language Acquisition

Aug 5, 2024

What are the Responsibilities of a Cosigner in a Student Loan?

Aug 6, 2024

Financial Aid

College Funding

Cosigner Responsibilities

Student Loans

10 Best Productivity Books

Aug 13, 2024

Productivity Books

Time Management

Efficiency Tips

Self Improvement

Goal Setting

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

Can You Use I or We in a Research Paper?

4-minute read

• 11th July 2023

Writing in the first person, or using I and we pronouns, has traditionally been frowned upon in academic writing . But despite this long-standing norm, writing in the first person isn’t actually prohibited. In fact, it’s becoming more acceptable – even in research papers.

 If you’re wondering whether you can use I (or we ) in your research paper, you should check with your institution first and foremost. Many schools have rules regarding first-person use. If it’s up to you, though, we still recommend some guidelines. Check out our tips below!

When Is It Most Acceptable to Write in the First Person?

Certain sections of your paper are more conducive to writing in the first person. Typically, the first person makes sense in the abstract, introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections. You should still limit your use of I and we , though, or your essay may start to sound like a personal narrative .

 Using first-person pronouns is most useful and acceptable in the following circumstances.

When doing so removes the passive voice and adds flow

Sometimes, writers have to bend over backward just to avoid using the first person, often producing clunky sentences and a lot of passive voice constructions. The first person can remedy this. For example: 

Both sentences are fine, but the second one flows better and is easier to read.

When doing so differentiates between your research and other literature

When discussing literature from other researchers and authors, you might be comparing it with your own findings or hypotheses . Using the first person can help clarify that you are engaging in such a comparison. For example: 

 In the first sentence, using “the author” to avoid the first person creates ambiguity. The second sentence prevents misinterpretation.

When doing so allows you to express your interest in the subject

In some instances, you may need to provide background for why you’re researching your topic. This information may include your personal interest in or experience with the subject, both of which are easier to express using first-person pronouns. For example:

Expressing personal experiences and viewpoints isn’t always a good idea in research papers. When it’s appropriate to do so, though, just make sure you don’t overuse the first person.

When to Avoid Writing in the First Person

It’s usually a good idea to stick to the third person in the methods and results sections of your research paper. Additionally, be careful not to use the first person when:

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

●  It makes your findings seem like personal observations rather than factual results.

●  It removes objectivity and implies that the writing may be biased .

●  It appears in phrases such as I think or I believe , which can weaken your writing.

Keeping Your Writing Formal and Objective

Using the first person while maintaining a formal tone can be tricky, but keeping a few tips in mind can help you strike a balance. The important thing is to make sure the tone isn’t too conversational.

 To achieve this, avoid referring to the readers, such as with the second-person you . Use we and us only when referring to yourself and the other authors/researchers involved in the paper, not the audience.

It’s becoming more acceptable in the academic world to use first-person pronouns such as we and I in research papers. But make sure you check with your instructor or institution first because they may have strict rules regarding this practice.

 If you do decide to use the first person, make sure you do so effectively by following the tips we’ve laid out in this guide. And once you’ve written a draft, send us a copy! Our expert proofreaders and editors will be happy to check your grammar, spelling, word choice, references, tone, and more. Submit a 500-word sample today!

Is it ever acceptable to use I or we in a research paper?

In some instances, using first-person pronouns can help you to establish credibility, add clarity, and make the writing easier to read.

How can I avoid using I in my writing?

Writing in the passive voice can help you to avoid using the first person.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

• Tips & Guides

How To Avoid Using “We,” “You,” And “I” in an Essay

• Posted on October 27, 2022 October 27, 2022

Maintaining a formal voice while writing academic essays and papers is essential to sound objective. 

One of the main rules of academic or formal writing is to avoid first-person pronouns like “we,” “you,” and “I.” These words pull focus away from the topic and shift it to the speaker – the opposite of your goal.

While it may seem difficult at first, some tricks can help you avoid personal language and keep a professional tone.

Let’s learn how to avoid using “we” in an essay.

What Is a Personal Pronoun?

Pronouns are words used to refer to a noun indirectly. Examples include “he,” “his,” “her,” and “hers.” Any time you refer to a noun – whether a person, object, or animal – without using its name, you use a pronoun.

Personal pronouns are a type of pronoun. A personal pronoun is a pronoun you use whenever you directly refer to the subject of the sentence. 

Take the following short paragraph as an example:

“Mr. Smith told the class yesterday to work on our essays. Mr. Smith also said that Mr. Smith lost Mr. Smith’s laptop in the lunchroom.”

The above sentence contains no pronouns at all. There are three places where you would insert a pronoun, but only two where you would put a personal pronoun. See the revised sentence below:

“Mr. Smith told the class yesterday to work on our essays. He also said that he lost his laptop in the lunchroom.”

“He” is a personal pronoun because we are talking directly about Mr. Smith. “His” is not a personal pronoun (it’s a possessive pronoun) because we are not speaking directly about Mr. Smith. Rather, we are talking about Mr. Smith’s laptop.

If later on you talk about Mr. Smith’s laptop, you may say:

“Mr. Smith found it in his car, not the lunchroom!” 

In this case, “it” is a personal pronoun because in this point of view we are making a reference to the laptop directly and not as something owned by Mr. Smith.

Why Avoid Personal Pronouns in Essay Writing

We’re teaching you how to avoid using “I” in writing, but why is this necessary? Academic writing aims to focus on a clear topic, sound objective, and paint the writer as a source of authority. Word choice can significantly impact your success in achieving these goals.

Writing that uses personal pronouns can unintentionally shift the reader’s focus onto the writer, pulling their focus away from the topic at hand.

Personal pronouns may also make your work seem less objective. 

One of the most challenging parts of essay writing is learning which words to avoid and how to avoid them. Fortunately, following a few simple tricks, you can master the English Language and write like a pro in no time.

Alternatives To Using Personal Pronouns

How to not use “I” in a paper? What are the alternatives? There are many ways to avoid the use of personal pronouns in academic writing. By shifting your word choice and sentence structure, you can keep the overall meaning of your sentences while re-shaping your tone.

Utilize Passive Voice

In conventional writing, students are taught to avoid the passive voice as much as possible, but it can be an excellent way to avoid first-person pronouns in academic writing.

You can use the passive voice to avoid using pronouns. Take this sentence, for example:

“ We used 150 ml of HCl for the experiment.”

Instead of using “we” and the active voice, you can use a passive voice without a pronoun. The sentence above becomes:

“150 ml of HCl were used for the experiment.” 

Using the passive voice removes your team from the experiment and makes your work sound more objective.

Take a Third-Person Perspective

Another answer to “how to avoid using ‘we’ in an essay?” is the use of a third-person perspective. Changing the perspective is a good way to take first-person pronouns out of a sentence. A third-person point of view will not use any first-person pronouns because the information is not given from the speaker’s perspective.

A third-person sentence is spoken entirely about the subject where the speaker is outside of the sentence.

Take a look at the sentence below:

“In this article you will learn about formal writing.”

The perspective in that sentence is second person, and it uses the personal pronoun “you.” You can change this sentence to sound more objective by using third-person pronouns:

“In this article the reader will learn about formal writing.”

The use of a third-person point of view makes the second sentence sound more academic and confident. Second-person pronouns, like those used in the first sentence, sound less formal and objective.

Be Specific With Word Choice

You can avoid first-personal pronouns by choosing your words carefully. Often, you may find that you are inserting unnecessary nouns into your work. 

Take the following sentence as an example:

“ My research shows the students did poorly on the test.”

In this case, the first-person pronoun ‘my’ can be entirely cut out from the sentence. It then becomes:

“Research shows the students did poorly on the test.”

The second sentence is more succinct and sounds more authoritative without changing the sentence structure.

You should also make sure to watch out for the improper use of adverbs and nouns. Being careful with your word choice regarding nouns, adverbs, verbs, and adjectives can help mitigate your use of personal pronouns. 

“They bravely started the French revolution in 1789.” 

While this sentence might be fine in a story about the revolution, an essay or academic piece should only focus on the facts. The world ‘bravely’ is a good indicator that you are inserting unnecessary personal pronouns into your work.

We can revise this sentence into:

“The French revolution started in 1789.” 

Avoid adverbs (adjectives that describe verbs), and you will find that you avoid personal pronouns by default.

Closing Thoughts

In academic writing, It is crucial to sound objective and focus on the topic. Using personal pronouns pulls the focus away from the subject and makes writing sound subjective.

Hopefully, this article has helped you learn how to avoid using “we” in an essay.

When working on any formal writing assignment, avoid personal pronouns and informal language as much as possible.

While getting the hang of academic writing, you will likely make some mistakes, so revising is vital. Always double-check for personal pronouns, plagiarism , spelling mistakes, and correctly cited pieces. 

 You can prevent and correct mistakes using a plagiarism checker at any time, completely for free.

Quetext is a platform that helps you with all those tasks. Check out all resources that are available to you today.

Sign Up for Quetext Today!

Click below to find a pricing plan that fits your needs.

You May Also Like

How Accurate Are AI Content Detectors? (+ How They Work)

• Posted on September 6, 2024 September 12, 2024

The 9 Best AI Detector Tools to Uncover AI Content

• Posted on August 22, 2024

The Importance of Proofreading: Techniques for Catching Errors and Polishing Your Writing

• Posted on August 16, 2024 August 19, 2024

The Benefits of Peer Review: How to Give and Receive Constructive Feedback on Your Writing

• Posted on August 9, 2024

Teaching Students About Plagiarism: Strategies for Promoting Academic Integrity

• Posted on August 2, 2024

Encouraging Proper Citation Practices: Tips for Teaching Students How to Cite Sources Correctly and Ethically

• Posted on July 22, 2024

A Guide to Paraphrasing Poetry, With Examples

• Posted on July 12, 2024

Preparing Students for the Future: AI Literacy and Digital Citizenship

• Posted on July 5, 2024

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

First-Person Pronouns

Use first-person pronouns in APA Style to describe your work as well as your personal reactions.

• If you are writing a paper by yourself, use the pronoun “I” to refer to yourself.
• If you are writing a paper with coauthors, use the pronoun “we” to refer yourself and your coauthors together.

Referring to yourself in the third person

Do not use the third person to refer to yourself. Writers are often tempted to do this as a way to sound more formal or scholarly; however, it can create ambiguity for readers about whether you or someone else performed an action.

Correct: I explored treatments for social anxiety.

Incorrect: The author explored treatments for social anxiety.

First-person pronouns are covered in the seventh edition APA Style manuals in the Publication Manual Section 4.16 and the Concise Guide Section 2.16

Editorial “we”

Also avoid the editorial “we” to refer to people in general.

Incorrect: We often worry about what other people think of us.

Instead, specify the meaning of “we”—do you mean other people in general, other people of your age, other students, other psychologists, other nurses, or some other group? The previous sentence can be clarified as follows:

Correct: As young adults, we often worry about what other people think of us. I explored my own experience of social anxiety...

When you use the first person to describe your own actions, readers clearly understand when you are writing about your own work and reactions versus those of other researchers.

We Vs. They: Using the First & Third Person in Research Papers

Writing in the first , second , or third person is referred to as the author’s point of view . When we write, our tendency is to personalize the text by writing in the first person . That is, we use pronouns such as “I” and “we”. This is acceptable when writing personal information, a journal, or a book. However, it is not common in academic writing.

Some writers find the use of first , second , or third person point of view a bit confusing while writing research papers. Since second person is avoided while writing in academic or scientific papers, the main confusion remains within first or third person.

In the following sections, we will discuss the usage and examples of the first , second , and third person point of view.

First Person Pronouns

The first person point of view simply means that we use the pronouns that refer to ourselves in the text. These are as follows:

Can we use I or We In the Scientific Paper?

Using these, we present the information based on what “we” found. In science and mathematics, this point of view is rarely used. It is often considered to be somewhat self-serving and arrogant . It is important to remember that when writing your research results, the focus of the communication is the research and not the persons who conducted the research. When you want to persuade the reader, it is best to avoid personal pronouns in academic writing even when it is personal opinion from the authors of the study. In addition to sounding somewhat arrogant, the strength of your findings might be underestimated.

For example:

Based on my results, I concluded that A and B did not equal to C.

In this example, the entire meaning of the research could be misconstrued. The results discussed are not those of the author ; they are generated from the experiment. To refer to the results in this context is incorrect and should be avoided. To make it more appropriate, the above sentence can be revised as follows:

Based on the results of the assay, A and B did not equal to C.

Second Person Pronouns

The second person point of view uses pronouns that refer to the reader. These are as follows:

This point of view is usually used in the context of providing instructions or advice , such as in “how to” manuals or recipe books. The reason behind using the second person is to engage the reader.

You will want to buy a turkey that is large enough to feed your extended family. Before cooking it, you must wash it first thoroughly with cold water.

Although this is a good technique for giving instructions, it is not appropriate in academic or scientific writing.

Third Person Pronouns

The third person point of view uses both proper nouns, such as a person’s name, and pronouns that refer to individuals or groups (e.g., doctors, researchers) but not directly to the reader. The ones that refer to individuals are as follows:

• Hers (possessive form)
• His (possessive form)
• Its (possessive form)
• One’s (possessive form)

The third person point of view that refers to groups include the following:

• Their (possessive form)
• Theirs (plural possessive form)

Everyone at the convention was interested in what Dr. Johnson presented. The instructors decided that the students should help pay for lab supplies. The researchers determined that there was not enough sample material to conduct the assay.

The third person point of view is generally used in scientific papers but, at times, the format can be difficult. We use indefinite pronouns to refer back to the subject but must avoid using masculine or feminine terminology. For example:

A researcher must ensure that he has enough material for his experiment. The nurse must ensure that she has a large enough blood sample for her assay.

Many authors attempt to resolve this issue by using “he or she” or “him or her,” but this gets cumbersome and too many of these can distract the reader. For example:

A researcher must ensure that he or she has enough material for his or her experiment. The nurse must ensure that he or she has a large enough blood sample for his or her assay.

These issues can easily be resolved by making the subjects plural as follows:

Researchers must ensure that they have enough material for their experiment. Nurses must ensure that they have large enough blood samples for their assay.

Exceptions to the Rules

As mentioned earlier, the third person is generally used in scientific writing, but the rules are not quite as stringent anymore. It is now acceptable to use both the first and third person pronouns  in some contexts, but this is still under controversy.  

In a February 2011 blog on Eloquent Science , Professor David M. Schultz presented several opinions on whether the author viewpoints differed. However, there appeared to be no consensus. Some believed that the old rules should stand to avoid subjectivity, while others believed that if the facts were valid, it didn’t matter which point of view was used.

First or Third Person: What Do The Journals Say

In general, it is acceptable in to use the first person point of view in abstracts, introductions, discussions, and conclusions, in some journals. Even then, avoid using “I” in these sections. Instead, use “we” to refer to the group of researchers that were part of the study. The third person point of view is used for writing methods and results sections. Consistency is the key and switching from one point of view to another within sections of a manuscript can be distracting and is discouraged. It is best to always check your author guidelines for that particular journal. Once that is done, make sure your manuscript is free from the above-mentioned or any other grammatical error.

You are the only researcher involved in your thesis project. You want to avoid using the first person point of view throughout, but there are no other researchers on the project so the pronoun “we” would not be appropriate. What do you do and why? Please let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

I am writing the history of an engineering company for which I worked. How do I relate a significant incident that involved me?

Hi Roger, Thank you for your question. If you are narrating the history for the company that you worked at, you would have to refer to it from an employee’s perspective (third person). If you are writing the history as an account of your experiences with the company (including the significant incident), you could refer to yourself as ”I” or ”My.” (first person) You could go through other articles related to language and grammar on Enago Academy’s website https://enago.com/academy/ to help you with your document drafting. Did you get a chance to install our free Mobile App? https://www.enago.com/academy/mobile-app/ . Make sure you subscribe to our weekly newsletter: https://www.enago.com/academy/subscribe-now/ .

Good day , i am writing a research paper and m y setting is a company . is it ethical to put the name of the company in the research paper . i the management has allowed me to conduct my research in thir company .

thanks docarlene diaz

Generally authors do not mention the names of the organization separately within the research paper. The name of the educational institution the researcher or the PhD student is working in needs to be mentioned along with the name in the list of authors. However, if the research has been carried out in a company, it might not be mandatory to mention the name after the name in the list of authors. You can check with the author guidelines of your target journal and if needed confirm with the editor of the journal. Also check with the mangement of the company whether they want the name of the company to be mentioned in the research paper.

Finishing up my dissertation the information is clear and concise.

How to write the right first person pronoun if there is a single researcher? Thanks

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Reporting Research
• Industry News
• Publishing Research
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

Which among these features would you prefer the most in a peer review assistant?

Should I Use “I”?

What this handout is about.

This handout is about determining when to use first person pronouns (“I”, “we,” “me,” “us,” “my,” and “our”) and personal experience in academic writing. “First person” and “personal experience” might sound like two ways of saying the same thing, but first person and personal experience can work in very different ways in your writing. You might choose to use “I” but not make any reference to your individual experiences in a particular paper. Or you might include a brief description of an experience that could help illustrate a point you’re making without ever using the word “I.” So whether or not you should use first person and personal experience are really two separate questions, both of which this handout addresses. It also offers some alternatives if you decide that either “I” or personal experience isn’t appropriate for your project. If you’ve decided that you do want to use one of them, this handout offers some ideas about how to do so effectively, because in many cases using one or the other might strengthen your writing.

Expectations about academic writing

Students often arrive at college with strict lists of writing rules in mind. Often these are rather strict lists of absolutes, including rules both stated and unstated:

• Each essay should have exactly five paragraphs.
• Don’t begin a sentence with “and” or “because.”
• Never include personal opinion.
• Never use “I” in essays.

We get these ideas primarily from teachers and other students. Often these ideas are derived from good advice but have been turned into unnecessarily strict rules in our minds. The problem is that overly strict rules about writing can prevent us, as writers, from being flexible enough to learn to adapt to the writing styles of different fields, ranging from the sciences to the humanities, and different kinds of writing projects, ranging from reviews to research.

So when it suits your purpose as a scholar, you will probably need to break some of the old rules, particularly the rules that prohibit first person pronouns and personal experience. Although there are certainly some instructors who think that these rules should be followed (so it is a good idea to ask directly), many instructors in all kinds of fields are finding reason to depart from these rules. Avoiding “I” can lead to awkwardness and vagueness, whereas using it in your writing can improve style and clarity. Using personal experience, when relevant, can add concreteness and even authority to writing that might otherwise be vague and impersonal. Because college writing situations vary widely in terms of stylistic conventions, tone, audience, and purpose, the trick is deciphering the conventions of your writing context and determining how your purpose and audience affect the way you write. The rest of this handout is devoted to strategies for figuring out when to use “I” and personal experience.

Effective uses of “I”:

In many cases, using the first person pronoun can improve your writing, by offering the following benefits:

• Assertiveness: In some cases you might wish to emphasize agency (who is doing what), as for instance if you need to point out how valuable your particular project is to an academic discipline or to claim your unique perspective or argument.
• Clarity: Because trying to avoid the first person can lead to awkward constructions and vagueness, using the first person can improve your writing style.
• Positioning yourself in the essay: In some projects, you need to explain how your research or ideas build on or depart from the work of others, in which case you’ll need to say “I,” “we,” “my,” or “our”; if you wish to claim some kind of authority on the topic, first person may help you do so.

Deciding whether “I” will help your style

Here is an example of how using the first person can make the writing clearer and more assertive:

Original example:

In studying American popular culture of the 1980s, the question of to what degree materialism was a major characteristic of the cultural milieu was explored.

Better example using first person:

In our study of American popular culture of the 1980s, we explored the degree to which materialism characterized the cultural milieu.

The original example sounds less emphatic and direct than the revised version; using “I” allows the writers to avoid the convoluted construction of the original and clarifies who did what.

Here is an example in which alternatives to the first person would be more appropriate:

As I observed the communication styles of first-year Carolina women, I noticed frequent use of non-verbal cues.

Better example:

A study of the communication styles of first-year Carolina women revealed frequent use of non-verbal cues.

In the original example, using the first person grounds the experience heavily in the writer’s subjective, individual perspective, but the writer’s purpose is to describe a phenomenon that is in fact objective or independent of that perspective. Avoiding the first person here creates the desired impression of an observed phenomenon that could be reproduced and also creates a stronger, clearer statement.

Here’s another example in which an alternative to first person works better:

As I was reading this study of medieval village life, I noticed that social class tended to be clearly defined.

This study of medieval village life reveals that social class tended to be clearly defined.

Although you may run across instructors who find the casual style of the original example refreshing, they are probably rare. The revised version sounds more academic and renders the statement more assertive and direct.

Here’s a final example:

I think that Aristotle’s ethical arguments are logical and readily applicable to contemporary cases, or at least it seems that way to me.

Better example

Aristotle’s ethical arguments are logical and readily applicable to contemporary cases.

In this example, there is no real need to announce that that statement about Aristotle is your thought; this is your paper, so readers will assume that the ideas in it are yours.

Determining whether to use “I” according to the conventions of the academic field

Which fields allow “I”?

The rules for this are changing, so it’s always best to ask your instructor if you’re not sure about using first person. But here are some general guidelines.

Sciences: In the past, scientific writers avoided the use of “I” because scientists often view the first person as interfering with the impression of objectivity and impersonality they are seeking to create. But conventions seem to be changing in some cases—for instance, when a scientific writer is describing a project she is working on or positioning that project within the existing research on the topic. Check with your science instructor to find out whether it’s o.k. to use “I” in their class.

Social Sciences: Some social scientists try to avoid “I” for the same reasons that other scientists do. But first person is becoming more commonly accepted, especially when the writer is describing their project or perspective.

Humanities: Ask your instructor whether you should use “I.” The purpose of writing in the humanities is generally to offer your own analysis of language, ideas, or a work of art. Writers in these fields tend to value assertiveness and to emphasize agency (who’s doing what), so the first person is often—but not always—appropriate. Sometimes writers use the first person in a less effective way, preceding an assertion with “I think,” “I feel,” or “I believe” as if such a phrase could replace a real defense of an argument. While your audience is generally interested in your perspective in the humanities fields, readers do expect you to fully argue, support, and illustrate your assertions. Personal belief or opinion is generally not sufficient in itself; you will need evidence of some kind to convince your reader.

Other writing situations: If you’re writing a speech, use of the first and even the second person (“you”) is generally encouraged because these personal pronouns can create a desirable sense of connection between speaker and listener and can contribute to the sense that the speaker is sincere and involved in the issue. If you’re writing a resume, though, avoid the first person; describe your experience, education, and skills without using a personal pronoun (for example, under “Experience” you might write “Volunteered as a peer counselor”).

A note on the second person “you”:

In situations where your intention is to sound conversational and friendly because it suits your purpose, as it does in this handout intended to offer helpful advice, or in a letter or speech, “you” might help to create just the sense of familiarity you’re after. But in most academic writing situations, “you” sounds overly conversational, as for instance in a claim like “when you read the poem ‘The Wasteland,’ you feel a sense of emptiness.” In this case, the “you” sounds overly conversational. The statement would read better as “The poem ‘The Wasteland’ creates a sense of emptiness.” Academic writers almost always use alternatives to the second person pronoun, such as “one,” “the reader,” or “people.”

Personal experience in academic writing

The question of whether personal experience has a place in academic writing depends on context and purpose. In papers that seek to analyze an objective principle or data as in science papers, or in papers for a field that explicitly tries to minimize the effect of the researcher’s presence such as anthropology, personal experience would probably distract from your purpose. But sometimes you might need to explicitly situate your position as researcher in relation to your subject of study. Or if your purpose is to present your individual response to a work of art, to offer examples of how an idea or theory might apply to life, or to use experience as evidence or a demonstration of an abstract principle, personal experience might have a legitimate role to play in your academic writing. Using personal experience effectively usually means keeping it in the service of your argument, as opposed to letting it become an end in itself or take over the paper.

It’s also usually best to keep your real or hypothetical stories brief, but they can strengthen arguments in need of concrete illustrations or even just a little more vitality.

Here are some examples of effective ways to incorporate personal experience in academic writing:

• Anecdotes: In some cases, brief examples of experiences you’ve had or witnessed may serve as useful illustrations of a point you’re arguing or a theory you’re evaluating. For instance, in philosophical arguments, writers often use a real or hypothetical situation to illustrate abstract ideas and principles.
• References to your own experience can explain your interest in an issue or even help to establish your authority on a topic.
• Some specific writing situations, such as application essays, explicitly call for discussion of personal experience.

Here are some suggestions about including personal experience in writing for specific fields:

Philosophy: In philosophical writing, your purpose is generally to reconstruct or evaluate an existing argument, and/or to generate your own. Sometimes, doing this effectively may involve offering a hypothetical example or an illustration. In these cases, you might find that inventing or recounting a scenario that you’ve experienced or witnessed could help demonstrate your point. Personal experience can play a very useful role in your philosophy papers, as long as you always explain to the reader how the experience is related to your argument. (See our handout on writing in philosophy for more information.)

Religion: Religion courses might seem like a place where personal experience would be welcomed. But most religion courses take a cultural, historical, or textual approach, and these generally require objectivity and impersonality. So although you probably have very strong beliefs or powerful experiences in this area that might motivate your interest in the field, they shouldn’t supplant scholarly analysis. But ask your instructor, as it is possible that they are interested in your personal experiences with religion, especially in less formal assignments such as response papers. (See our handout on writing in religious studies for more information.)

Literature, Music, Fine Arts, and Film: Writing projects in these fields can sometimes benefit from the inclusion of personal experience, as long as it isn’t tangential. For instance, your annoyance over your roommate’s habits might not add much to an analysis of “Citizen Kane.” However, if you’re writing about Ridley Scott’s treatment of relationships between women in the movie “Thelma and Louise,” some reference your own observations about these relationships might be relevant if it adds to your analysis of the film. Personal experience can be especially appropriate in a response paper, or in any kind of assignment that asks about your experience of the work as a reader or viewer. Some film and literature scholars are interested in how a film or literary text is received by different audiences, so a discussion of how a particular viewer or reader experiences or identifies with the piece would probably be appropriate. (See our handouts on writing about fiction , art history , and drama for more information.)

Women’s Studies: Women’s Studies classes tend to be taught from a feminist perspective, a perspective which is generally interested in the ways in which individuals experience gender roles. So personal experience can often serve as evidence for your analytical and argumentative papers in this field. This field is also one in which you might be asked to keep a journal, a kind of writing that requires you to apply theoretical concepts to your experiences.

History: If you’re analyzing a historical period or issue, personal experience is less likely to advance your purpose of objectivity. However, some kinds of historical scholarship do involve the exploration of personal histories. So although you might not be referencing your own experience, you might very well be discussing other people’s experiences as illustrations of their historical contexts. (See our handout on writing in history for more information.)

Sciences: Because the primary purpose is to study data and fixed principles in an objective way, personal experience is less likely to have a place in this kind of writing. Often, as in a lab report, your goal is to describe observations in such a way that a reader could duplicate the experiment, so the less extra information, the better. Of course, if you’re working in the social sciences, case studies—accounts of the personal experiences of other people—are a crucial part of your scholarship. (See our handout on  writing in the sciences for more information.)

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Is it acceptable to use “we” in scientific papers?

Some of us were taught in school that the use of first-person personal pronouns makes scientific writing subjective. But it’s not true. Using we or I in a research paper does not always shift the spotlight away from the research. And writing in the third person or using passive voice does not make a piece of research writing objective. So, if a reviewer or thesis advisor tells you to remove all first-person references from your manuscript, know that it is not incorrect to use I or we in a paper, despite what many people believe.

So, the short answer to the question in the title is yes. It is acceptable to use we in your paper to refer to you and your co-authors. Whether you use first person pronouns or not is a writing style choice.

Of course, if your publisher’s guidelines for authors say “don’t use I or we in your manuscript”, avoid using I or we when there are valid alternatives. When the publication of your paper is at stake, don’t argue with the journal editor on matters of writing style. It’s not worth the candle. The good news is that most peer-reviewed journals allow the use of first-person pronouns.

The authorial we (or I ) in scientific papers is not only acceptable but also effective in some cases—for example, when passive voice may introduce ambiguity . For example, compare these two sentences:

Three analyses were conducted by the researchers.

We conducted three analyses.

In the first sentence, it is not clear who the researchers are. Are they the authors of the study or other researchers? However, there is no ambiguity in the second sentence.

Also, it’s natural to write in the first person about a research you and your co-authors personally conducted. Compare

We found an old manuscript

The authors of this paper found an old manuscript

an old manuscript was found .

Finally, writing in the first person is more persuasive than writing impersonal prose, as Helen Sword says in Stylish Academic Writing :

“When we muzzle the personal voice, we risk subverting our whole purpose as researchers, which is to foster change by communicating new knowledge to our intended audience in the most effective and persuasive way possible.”

If you’re not sure whether you should use we in scientific writing, write in a way you’re comfortable with. But avoid awkward expressions such as to the best knowledge of the authors of this paper or the analysis conducted by the authors of this study . Sometimes there is no better option than using first-person pronouns in academic writing. Finally, if you still have doubts, get other people’s opinion.

Do you need a freelance editor for a scientific paper? Send me a message at [email protected].

About Cristina N.

A freelance editor and writer with a keen interest in science, nature, and communication, I love to craft articles that help and inspire people.

How do you refer to a company in third person: it or they?

Aim: help and inspire people to improve their written communications.

Neagu Raluca-Cristina | VAT Registration Number: IT04535070264

© 2015–2024 Neagu Raluca-Cristina

• PROOFREADING
• TERMS OF SERVICE
• PRIVACY POLICY
• TESTIMONIALS

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Single author scientific paper, 'we' or 'I'?

I am authoring a single author paper. Usually when referring to oneself in a paper, 'we' is used. In single author papers I found both 'we' and 'I' (e.g., 'here we/I report xyz').

Which one is stylistically better? To me 'we' seems odd when I read a single author paper.

• scientific-publishing

• 5 Already answered here: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2945/… –  Dan Romik Commented Nov 23, 2016 at 16:58
• I think your question has more to do with the fact that it's a scientific paper than the appropriateness of writing style. –  user6035379 Commented Nov 23, 2016 at 19:17
• @DanRomik thank you for that link, this basically answered my question. –  Dahlai Commented Nov 24, 2016 at 10:28
• What did you use finally? We or I? I think I am encountering the same problem here. –  Lin Cheng Commented Aug 3, 2020 at 21:27
• I followed @DanRomik's and Monical Cellio's suggestions –  Dahlai Commented Aug 5, 2020 at 7:55

5 Answers 5

The convention in scientific writing, at least in the hard sciences, is to avoid "I" even for single-author papers. I suspect (but can't prove) that this is why you see so much passive voice in such papers ("the doohickey was then frobitzed to induce a somethingorother reaction").

According to this well-received answer on Academia , you can view use of "we" as an editorial "we" or "we, as in the author and the readers". The latter approach works better for descriptive writing ("we see the following results...") than reporting ("we did X").

Ultimately you should base your decision on the submission requirements of the institution where you intend to publish the paper. But in general, "I" is uncommon, "we" is used even for single-author papers, and you can use "we" in a way that doesn't have to seem weird.

If it's a single author, use I. I is for singular, and if you are doing the research and all that stuff by yourself, then take credit, unless someone's helped you. If you use "we", then there must be more people other than you doing the research, or someone has been helping you.

Check here for more information.

If you are the only one behind the research and the writing behind the paper, I is a singular term and should therefore should be used instead of we. There is no "we" behind the paper if there was only one person masterminding the project. Although, If this was a formal Scientific paper, It Usually is incorrect to refer to ones self during the script; the point is to present your point, not the fact that you found it(although if you found something completely unique and incredibly interesting, by all means, announce the fact of your hand behind the discovery-outside of the paper.)

I would like to add to this debate (and maybe introduce some updated information) by pointing out that the American Psychological Association (APA) appears to recommend the first-person singular for works authored by a single person.

Furthermore, they problematize the use of third-person constructions (e.g., "The author ...").

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/first-person-pronouns

So most scientific papers are written with multiple voices. In the introduction the problem is discussed and the writing will refer to "This Study" or "This experiment" if it must refer to narrative person.

The second part describes the steps taken to get the results which will be discussed further in the paper. As this section is written as a set of instructions, the second person imperative voice is used, often with an implied "you" as the subject of the sentance (you do not write "you" but skip the subject and write the imperative verb.).

The next section is the results which is written in the form of a third person objective voice. In Third Person Objective, the writer should describe only the information that can be observed with the sense. This is often refered to as "Third Person Roving Camera" as most audio-visual media rely on Third Person Objective.

Finally, the conclusion should return to the same voice as the introduction. The conclusion should refer to the conclusion of the experiment and rely soley on the results as the basis of any statements made. The narrator should not speculate but merely states that the result sets do not support a conclusion to any questions or that the question asked is outside of the scope of the experiment or study.

Your Answer

Reminder: Answers generated by artificial intelligence tools are not allowed on Writing Stack Exchange. Learn more

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest.

Required, but never shown

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy .

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged style scientific-publishing or ask your own question .

• Featured on Meta
• Site maintenance - Mon, Sept 16 2024, 21:00 UTC to Tue, Sept 17 2024, 2:00...
• User activation: Learnings and opportunities
• Join Stack Overflow’s CEO and me for the first Stack IRL Community Event in...

Hot Network Questions

• How did NASA figure out when and where the Apollo capsule would touch down on the ocean?
• If Act A repeals another Act B, and Act A is repealed, what happens to the Act B?
• What is a natural-sounding verb form for the word dorveille?
• Calculating probability of offspring having dominant phenotype given a random mating - Mendel's First Law
• In this page of Ein Yaakov on Sotah, near the bottom of the page, appears the word "Piska" in bold lettering. What does it signify?
• Philosophical dogma hindering scientific progress?
• Why do I often see bunches of medical helicopters hovering in clusters in various locations
• What was the main implementation programming language of old 16-bit Windows versions (Windows 1 - Windows 3.11)?
• Help updating 34 year old document to run with modern LaTeX
• O(nloglogn) Sorting Algorithm?
• What would the natural diet of Bigfoot be?
• Why was Panama Railroad in poor condition when US decided to build Panama Canal in 1904?
• Is it possible for one wing to stall due to icing while the other wing doesn't ice?
• Taylor Swift - Use of "them" in her text "she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them"
• Subject verb agreement - I as well as he is/am the culprit
• Should I write an email to a Latino teacher working in the US in English or Spanish?
• What came of the Trump campaign's complaint to the FEC that Harris 'stole' (or at least illegally received) Biden's funding?
• Does my employer contributions count towards the Roth limit of $7k?Roth contributions
• Is it safe to use the dnd 3.5 skill system in pathfinder 1e?
• Priming Motor that sat for 6 months. Did I screw up?
• Analog of Birkhoff's HSP theorem regarding ultraproducts and elementary sublattices
• Trying to match building(s) to lot(s) when data has margin of error in QGIS
• How can I stop the noise from updating its position when I adjust the spline?
• Can Cantrip Connection be used with innate cantrips?

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

What to use instead of academic 'we' when describing an experiment?

My research is in software engineering, but in a sub-field which is very close to social science. My papers normally contain sentences like "We conducted a study with 56 participants." and "Our previous study showed that [some assumptions are true]" and "We chose to use Cramer's V as the association measure, because [explanation why we thought it is better than other association measures]".

Now that I am close to my Ph.D. thesis, I am writing more texts alone, and the thesis is legally required to be my own work. So "we" is factually wrong. But using "I" feels immodest, and it is certainly unusual. But I don't know how to change my texts to avoid it.

I can't imagine how to apply the advice from that other answer to my case. "One conducted a study with 56 participants"? "The conducted study had 56 participants"? "A study was conducted, with 56 participants"? Unlike describing a mathematical proof, these sentences sound terrible. And how to explain my decision to use Cramer's V, when it is based on personal opinion?

Any advice how to deal with the matter outside of the world of mathematical proofs?

Another example why "I" might be needed. It is not only vanity; in the not-so-exact sciences there is sometimes lots of leeway involved. Say that I code some data. This is a very subjective process, and can be error prone. It is important for the readers to know that a coding was done by a single person, as this is considered less reliable than having somebody else repeat it and discuss any differences, and also because the coder has to take responsibility for any unusual decisions or errors.

There is a more general question on the same topic. But the accepted and highly-upvoted answer is from the point of view of a mathematician, it says that the writing style is best constrained to declarative sentences such as "Since p, it follows that q.".

• publications

• I am almost sure this is duplicate of academia.stackexchange.com/q/2945/546 . The only difference I can tell is that you're working on PhD thesis. Have you talked to your advisor yet? –  Nobody Commented Jan 4, 2014 at 11:07
• 1 @scaaahu it is a dupe, thank you for pointing it out. But the answers there don't help me, as the highly upvoted one assumes that I am making a proof. I can't say "One performed a study with 56 participants", etc. :( Maybe I will think of ways to re-write my question. –  rumtscho Commented Jan 4, 2014 at 11:15
• 4 @scaahu I rewrote it completely, to point out how it differs from the situation to which the answer of the other question applies –  rumtscho Commented Jan 4, 2014 at 11:31
• The study included 56 participants. For each sentence, identify the key verb. You are off track because you have focused on conducted as the key verb. Maybe you can aso avoid mentioning a person if you make the subject the study or the paper. –  Dawn Commented Feb 8, 2019 at 3:13

9 Answers 9

The use of the authorial 'we' is very common in academia even for single-author papers, as argued by many and properly referenced in the other question that you mention.

Personally, I would keep 'we' also for the thesis without bothering. I doubt anyone would misunderstand, but if you wish you can include a quick remark in the introduction: something like Despite the use of the 'authorial we', common in academia, this thesis is the sole work of its author . In many cases you are required to state that you are the only author anyway in some boilerplate forms in the front matter.

This looks much better to my eye than changing every sentence to a contorted passive form. Readability matters.

• Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1305775/… –  Pacerier Commented Sep 19, 2015 at 14:22

There are customs and habits that differ between disciplines, between research groups and between individuals. I would endeavour to claim that the trend is away from passive phrased (e.g. "was made" etc.) to active we and I but perhaps also from royal we's and expressions such as "this author" in favour for being to the point using "I". The key, however, lies in how the "I" is used. (in fact, "this author" may even be confused by the author of the latest referenced paper)

If you write a paper you can safely use I whenever you report on things you in particular have done. In methods sections, it concerns the choices of methods you (and nobody else) has made and in the results section it concerns the results you (and nobody else) has obtained and your choice which ones to highlight. In the discussion section you can use "I" whenever you make a point that you stand by, you can use we in parts where you perform a discussion with the reader; we meaning you and the reader. In short, the "I" signals your contributions and puts you (and nobody else) on the spot for criticism. So as I see it "I" is not a way to brag (which seems to scare many), it is exposing the fact that you alone stand for what is written.

I suggest you try to find good (recommended by peers) papers written in different styles and think about the styles with the aim of finding your own comfort zone. It is a matter of style, not right and wrong.

To cap off I want to highlight a couple of books that I personally, being a non-native English speaker, have found very useful:

Glasman-Deal, H., 2012. Science research writing for non-native speakers of English. Imperial College Press, London

Day, R.A. & Sakaduski, N., 2011. Scientific English. A guide for scientists and other professionals. Greenwood, Santa Barbara CA

I'm not sure about the conventions in social science, but the problem seems to be very close to what natural scientists face when writing a methods section, i.e., how an experiment was performed. If you look into the publications, you will see that these sections are almost exclusively written in the passive voice. The idea behind it is to take away the focus from the subject performing the experiment, putting more emphasis on tthe process instead. So you examples would become:

• A study with 56 participants was conducted.
• Cramer's V was chosen as the association measure, because...

"Our previous study" is still fine, when the previous study has several authors.

• Yes, that is, "passive voice" in verbs avoids first-person pronouns altogether. –  paul garrett Commented Jan 4, 2014 at 14:42
• Interestingly there is a parallel debate(?) in screenwriting, whether it is appropriate or proper or not to use "we see [character] suddenly jump back." in action text or screen direction. –  DuckMaestro Commented Feb 8 at 11:05

I am in cognitive psychology and frequently use, "In the present investigation." There are sometimes workarounds you can use to avoid passive voice such as, "56 adults participated in this study."

I want to add two thoughts based on APA style . While the passive voice may help in some circumstances (as demonstrated in other answers), overuse of the passive is sometimes considered bad style. The Publication Manual of the APA (6th) even says on page 77:

Prefer the active voice.

Furthermore, the APA manual contains something about attribution on page 69.

Inappropriately or illogically attributing action in an effort to be objective can be misleading.

Thus, if you did something, it may even be misleading if this information is hidden using some stilted writing. And APA explicitly mentions the usage of I for single-author pieces on page 69:

For clarity, restrict your use of we to refer only to yourself and your coauthors (use I if you are the sole author of the paper).

In summary, I think a good balance of passive and active is considered good style, and the usage of I (where appropriate) is slowly becoming acceptable.

If any co-authors, you need to use we since the readers don't know who the I is.

Use I, as needed for sole author pubs. I like I because it is a strong statement--there is a definite person to hold responsible. Don't use "we" if there are no co-authors (what you got a mouse in your pocket?) If you feel too hesitant about a bold I (or get static) than go to passive voice. But a "we" for a sole article is distracting.

Do not use I when it makes more sense to make the objects of the research, the subject of the sentences. For example NOT "I observed pitching as the stall angle was approached", but "the model started pitching near the listed stall angle, about 35 degrees". The reason is not for modesty but because (a) it is tighter writing and (b) the proper attention is on the model in the wind tunnel--your observation is not the point, here.

I recommend to avoid the passive voice, but some people will recommend it or expect it. Certainly if an editor requires it, just do it, don't argue. "The reactants were combined in a boiling flask..." Note, it does have the benefit of putting the attention on the science, not on you as an actor.

Some math writing uses we because the reader is included as an observer in a derivation, "after completing the square, we see...blabla".

I asked my supervisor directly. She said that she is OK with using "I" in the dissertation, but that it is "uncommon" to use it in articles. As she is always a co-author on our papers, I guess none of her students had to deal with the problem in the context of an article anyway :) And because she did not mention internal reports even though I specifically asked about them, I think that she doesn't care what I use in them.

This is just the opinion of one professor, and the answers here show me that there doesn't seem to be a good convention. So, my take-home message from the whole problem would be: ask your professor, he will probably have a position on it and it is wise for you as a student to follow it.

I'm facing the same problem, though in German language/natural science (conventions may vary somewhat).

The main problem with the passive construction is that it doesn't say at all who did it. Consider:

The algorithm was implemented.

How can the reader be sure it was you as opposed to your colleague giving you his code (particulary, if the corresponding paper is authored by multiple coauthors)? I'm told I cannot expect the reader to look up the source where the author is explicitly stated.

So for some (ver key points where I need to make really sure everyone gets the fact that I actually did work myself that is fairly common (e.g. in other groups in my field) to be done by colleagues, collaboration partners, students or technicians I use "I" even though is so uncommon that I get comments about the use of "I".

Assuming that commonly studies like the one with 56 participants have someone planning it, someone (else) doing the experiments/collecting the data, and someone (yet else) analyzing the data: make sure you properly acknowledge the contributions of your collaborators in the acknowledgements.

You can also use constructions like:

A study with 56 participants was conducted [ref]. This thesis focuses on [whichever part you did]

Otherwise, "This thesis shows that..." or

Throughout this thesis, Cramer's V is used as the association measure, because ...

get you a long way.

• For disciplines where passive voice is used, there's an English grammar convention that tells whether you or somebody else performed the work. You: The algorithm was implemented. Somebody else (or you, in a previous paper): The algorithm has been implemented. And of course, if you reference other people's work properly, this will also answer the question. –  Peter Shor Commented Apr 13, 2016 at 14:51
• @PeterShor: good to know. Not knowing this, I've produced papers for a decade that may be misleading... That being said, I'll try to remember this, but considering how many non-native English speakers publish (and not knowing which native languages have a similar concept of using time to denote contributions) I will not rely on this convention when reading papers. I'm anyways a big fan of a "contributions" paragraph at the end of the paper. –  cbeleites Commented Apr 13, 2016 at 15:42

We in PhD thesis typically mean: I am as an author and you as the reader . It is used in the sense that we together explore the topic . And it is just a kind of writing style to incorporate the reader.

Writing "We conducted a study with 56 participants" or "our previous study" can be considered as a bad writing style. Since it has not the same meaning and could be easily transferred in passive voice.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged publications writing thesis grammar ..

• Featured on Meta
• Site maintenance - Mon, Sept 16 2024, 21:00 UTC to Tue, Sept 17 2024, 2:00...
• User activation: Learnings and opportunities
• Join Stack Overflow’s CEO and me for the first Stack IRL Community Event in...

Hot Network Questions

• Does hydrogen peroxide work as a rocket fuel oxidizer by itself?
• How did NASA figure out when and where the Apollo capsule would touch down on the ocean?
• How did people know that the war against the mimics was over?
• Trying to match building(s) to lot(s) when data has margin of error in QGIS
• The meaning of an implication in an existential quantifier
• Emacs calc: Apply function to vector
• Basic question - will "universal" SMPS work at any voltage in the range, even DC?
• 4/4 time change to 6/8 time
• In this page of Ein Yaakov on Sotah, near the bottom of the page, appears the word "Piska" in bold lettering. What does it signify?
• How can I remove this towel rail mount from my wall?
• Parity of the wave function
• Is it possible for one wing to stall due to icing while the other wing doesn't ice?
• If Act A repeals another Act B, and Act A is repealed, what happens to the Act B?
• What is the shortest viable hmac for non-critical applications?
• What is a natural-sounding verb form for the word dorveille?
• How can I verify integrity of the document types?
• What is this stats overlay that's appeared?
• What came of the Trump campaign's complaint to the FEC that Harris 'stole' (or at least illegally received) Biden's funding?
• The consequence of a good letter of recommendation when things do not work out
• Can I repeat link labels several times on a web page without hurting SEO by using meta attributes?
• Can Cantrip Connection be used with innate cantrips?
• Numerical precision of keys in Merge function
• Subject verb agreement - I as well as he is/am the culprit
• Why is resonance such a widespread phenomenon?

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Do I have to use "I" or "we" when orally presenting my scientific thesis written by a single author? [closed]

I know that in a scientific paper or thesis made by a single author, it is common to use we . (This is also recommended at our university.)

But what about when you alone are presenting a thesis work orally?

At first glance, it is quite odd to use we when the work is written only by you yourself and you are presenting it alone.

For example, saying:

We will present you my machine learning model...

while at the same time you stand alone in front of the examiners seems very strange to me.

Is this style of presentation expected, tolerated, or forbidden?

• scientific-language

• 1 If there's only one of you on stage, I would find "We will present..." a little odd but whether it's "my machine learning model..." or "our machine learning model..." will depend on who is being represented. –  KillingTime Commented Jun 17, 2019 at 9:41
• Is it the product of a single researcher or a group? –  zeroone Commented Jun 17, 2019 at 11:30
• I'd say it depends on how many authors there are. "We" if there are multiple, even if you are presenting on your own. Alternatively it can be "I'll now present OUR machine learning model" to point out that you are presenting results of a group. –  M i ech Commented Jun 17, 2019 at 11:40
• I used “I” in my Oxford D Phil thesis, and that was 50 years ago! When you write “it is recommended”, you are avoiding telling us who advocated this antiquated convention. More to the point, you present your model to someone, and in English-speaking countries they are examiners, not a jury. –  David Commented Jun 17, 2019 at 19:51
• 1 Note that you may get a more suitable audience for your question on Academia . Just make sure to distinguish it from this one . –  Wrzlprmft Commented Jun 22, 2019 at 15:56

2 Answers 2

We will be presenting my machine learning model,

is completely wrong. When you are writing a thesis, you would use we instead of I and our instead of my . The we combined with the my doesn't work. Similarly, this combination doesn't work when giving an single-presenter oral presentation. It implies that several people are speaking, but somehow that only one person came up with the machine learning model.

In an oral presentation, you should use I when you want to refer to yourself as the person giving the presentation. For your work, you can either use I/me/my or we/us/our . If it was joint work with somebody else, definitely use we/us/our . If it's your own single-authored work, I think using I/me/my is more common, but I don't think anything is wrong with using the scientific we/us/our .

So in an oral presentation, you should say one of:

I will be presenting my machine learning model, I will be presenting our machine learning model.

I suspect you are getting up on the rule that, traditionally, scientific theses were written in the passive voice and avoided any kind of personal pronoun.

For example:

The results of experiment X are compared to the results from experiment Y.

Not " I compared the results from experiment X..... "

Apparently though, thoughts on this have changed in more recent times and it is more common to use personal pronouns in research writing.

This article by Professor of Statistics and Head of the Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics at Monash University Rob J Hyndman suggests:

• Write in the most natural way. It is ok if that means using “I”.
• Use “we” if you mean “the reader and I”, or if you are writing a co-authored paper.
• Don’t use “we” if you only mean yourself.

Not only does it seems logical that you would use the same approach when presenting a thesis as when writing it, but it would also be very odd to present something orally in the passive voice. At the very least it would be very dry and un-engaging.

• 2 Has there ever been a time when oral scientific presentations (which is what the OP is asking about) were delivered in the passive voice? –  Peter Shor Commented Jun 17, 2019 at 10:39
• @PeterShor No, good point - I got a bit lost making my point halfway through. I have edited to try and make that stand out. –  Astralbee Commented Jun 17, 2019 at 11:31
• Using passive voice is an option, thank you for your suggestion. Although it sounds "boring" to me to use it constantly. Also, it is not recommended by my university to use passive voice for the same reason, but that applies only when writing a thesis, for a presentation, no guidelines were given. If I understand correctly, you advise in this situation to use "I" since this is a product of one author? –  user3183052 Commented Jun 17, 2019 at 21:31

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged speech academia register scientific-language or ask your own question .

• Featured on Meta
• User activation: Learnings and opportunities
• Site maintenance - Mon, Sept 16 2024, 21:00 UTC to Tue, Sept 17 2024, 2:00...

Hot Network Questions

• How can a microcontroller (such as an Arduino Uno) that requires 7-21V input voltage be powered via USB-B which can only run 5V?
• Are data in the real world "sampled" in the statistical sense?
• Why was Panama Railroad in poor condition when US decided to build Panama Canal in 1904?
• How to avoid bringing paper silverfish home from a vacation place?
• How would platypus evolve some sort of digestive acid?
• Is it a correct rendering of Acts 1,24 when the New World Translation puts in „Jehovah“ instead of Lord?
• "Tail -f" on symlink that points to a file on another drive has interval stops, but not when tailing the original file
• The meaning of an implication in an existential quantifier
• How did people know that the war against the mimics was over?
• How to prove that the Greek cross tiles the plane?
• Analog of Birkhoff's HSP theorem regarding ultraproducts and elementary sublattices
• How did NASA figure out when and where the Apollo capsule would touch down on the ocean?
• 'of' in 'What has become of him? and "It is kind of you to say so."
• How can I verify integrity of the document types?
• Why are some Cloudflare challenges CPU intensive?
• How can I support a closet rod where there's no shelf?
• Numerical precision of keys in Merge function
• In this page of Ein Yaakov on Sotah, near the bottom of the page, appears the word "Piska" in bold lettering. What does it signify?
• 4/4 time change to 6/8 time
• How can I remove this towel rail mount from my wall?
• Is it safe to use the dnd 3.5 skill system in pathfinder 1e?
• Should I write an email to a Latino teacher working in the US in English or Spanish?
• Were the PS5 disk version console just regular digital version consoles with a pre-installed disk module?
• Definition of annuity

Is it recommended to use "we" in research papers?

1 expert answer.

Megan H. answered • 03/22/19

Professional, Energetic Writing Teacher with 9 Years of Experience

Generally speaking, it is frowned upon to use any first- or second-person pronouns in academic writing (i.e. I, me, my, myself, you, your, yours, yourself, we, us, our, ourselves). That's because in truly scientific writing, your personal identity should play no role in the validity or framing of your research and reporting.

Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.

Get a free answer to a quick problem. Most questions answered within 4 hours.

Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.

RELATED TOPICS

Related questions, can i end a sentence with a preposition.

Answers · 41

When do I use which or that in a sentence?

Answers · 18

Is there any proof that Shakespeare wrote his plays?

Answers · 17

Is it wrong to write in passive voice?

Answers · 46

How do I know when to use affect vs effect?

Answers · 38

RECOMMENDED TUTORS

Elizabeth P.

find an online tutor

• Language Arts tutors
• Grammar tutors
• Speech tutors
• English tutors
• SAT Writing tutors
• ACT English tutors
• Linguistics tutors

related lessons

• Need help with something else? Try one of our lessons.
• Need help with something else? Try searching for a tutor.

Can You Use "I" or "We" in Research Paper

Quick Navigation

What is a research paper?

Work on the research paper is one of the most important forms of the educational process. It is aimed primarily at practical training and is carried out in accordance with the curriculum.

In accordance with the Regulation on the organization of the educational process of higher educational institutions of almost all countries of the world, the research paper is carried out in order to consolidate, deepen and summarize the knowledge gained by students during the study, and their application to a comprehensive solution to a specific task.

New requirements for the quality of training specialists that meet the needs of the modern stage of scientific and technical and socio-economic development of the country, make the research work of students an important factor in improving the entire system of training specialists.

Students must constantly increase their knowledge, respond promptly to the demands of the progress of science and technology. In connection with this, the issues related to the functions of the research work of the students in higher education are of particular relevance, and the education of specialists must be organically linked with the enhancement of their creative potential.

There are many ways of starting the research paper . It can be a quote, a question, information from a blog or any other source, and right now, we’ll provide you with the information on whether you can start it with the story.

Can I use “I” in a research paper.

During writing a research paper, we are faced with many questions we need to find answers to. This article is devoted to giving you the best answers for questions: can I say “I” in a research paper, can you use I in a research paper MLA, can you say We in a research paper and can you use I or We in a research paper.

Let’s start from can you use “I” in a research paper.

• The answer for the question can a research paper use i is the next: the use of the first person varies considerably between disciplines – most common in the humanities, least common in the physical sciences, with social sciences coming, as you’d expect, in the middle. However, the only field, where no use of the first person in (admittedly small) sample wasn’t found was accountancy. Draw your own conclusions.
• Use of the first person was most common in the introductions of papers; e.g., “I shall argue that …” Interestingly, conclusions, where students love to write things like “in my opinion ….” or “I strongly believe …” were relatively free of first-person usage.
• Where phrases like “I think” and “in my opinion” are used, it is often used to make the opinion weaker, not stronger. “I think” means, “I think, but I’m not sure”; “in my opinion” means “this is only my opinion – it’s not the only conclusion you can draw.” (This contrasts with some kinds of business and technical writing, where your opinion is central).

To sum up, the answer for the question can I write I in a research paper is the next: use “I” carefully, bearing in mind your audience, the field in which you are writing and what you are doing in that particular part of the essay, and use “in my opinion” rarely, if at all.

Use “i” in the MLA research paper.

The answer to the question can I use “i” in the MLA research paper is the same as can you use I in a research paper. The general writing style of the research paper is slightly more formal than that of a regular essay. You should avoid all contractions like don’t or won’t; instead, write out the phrases do not and will not. Do not begin any sentences with, and, or, but; instead, use slightly more formal words like Also and However.

If your topic is something scientific or medical, be sure to explain and “break down” any technical words or medical terms. Re-define them in your own words so that the reader can easily understand them. Doing this will also help you to understand the terms by yourself.

Usually, you should try to “set up” the reader for a long story before typing it. In other words, tell the reader what the point of the story is supposed to be. What is the reader supposed to get out of the story? Why do you include it in your paper? What does the story show or prove?

Can I say “we”

There are many discussions about whether we can use I in research papers, as well as can you use “we” in a research paper. There is no clear answer to this question, as you can do both. It’s not prohibited in the rules of academic writing not to use first-person pronouns.

However, the use of “I” and “we” still has some generally accepted rules we ought to follow. For example, the first person is more likely used in the abstract, introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections of an academic paper while the third person and passive constructions are found in the methods and results sections.

It’s not easy to write a good research paper. We need to break the mountain of textbooks, periodical literature, read the works of eminent scientists. As a result, the original text should be obtained, with the same success based on both existing developments and new student ideas.

Also, students often look for information about a psychological research paper.

Check what your teacher thinks about that issue. Do not neglect the help of your instructor, he/she can suggest interesting directions, help to find the right literature. Consultations will allow you to write a qualitative, interesting, and unique research paper.

Can you use “i” or “we” in a research paper?

As far as you can see, the research paper is a journalistic work in which the author sets the task of analyzing an existing scientific problem or certain phenomena from the point of view, first of all, of the regularities lying on their basis. The research paper has a certain composition; its contents should be deployed in a definite sequence.

In particular, the author must first explain the relevance of choosing one or another problem, the degree of its elaboration in the scientific literature, and the practical activities of the industry; define the purpose of the publication, present your thoughts and substantiate them, summarize briefly.

You should decide, can I say “we” in a research paper or can you use the word “i” in a research paper, as in modern academic writing, both ways are popular. Your paperwork should contribute to the profound learning of the lecture course and the acquisition of skills in solving practical problems.

It requires from the student not only the knowledge of the general and special literature on the subject but also the ability to conduct economic, mathematical, expert and other research, to link theory with practice, to generalize, to formulate conclusions and suggestions on improving the efficiency of the service sector and international economic relationships.

Save Time On Research and Writing

Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free

It will be useful to read

It's possible to submit essay on time.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper

Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide

Published on September 24, 2022 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on September 5, 2024.

The introduction to a research paper is where you set up your topic and approach for the reader. It has several key goals:

• Present your topic and get the reader interested
• Provide background or summarize existing research
• Position your own approach
• Detail your specific research problem and problem statement
• Give an overview of the paper’s structure

The introduction looks slightly different depending on whether your paper presents the results of original empirical research or constructs an argument by engaging with a variety of sources.

The five steps in this article will help you put together an effective introduction for either type of research paper.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Step 1: introduce your topic, step 2: describe the background, step 3: establish your research problem, step 4: specify your objective(s), step 5: map out your paper, research paper introduction examples, frequently asked questions about the research paper introduction.

The first job of the introduction is to tell the reader what your topic is and why it’s interesting or important. This is generally accomplished with a strong opening hook.

The hook is a striking opening sentence that clearly conveys the relevance of your topic. Think of an interesting fact or statistic, a strong statement, a question, or a brief anecdote that will get the reader wondering about your topic.

For example, the following could be an effective hook for an argumentative paper about the environmental impact of cattle farming:

A more empirical paper investigating the relationship of Instagram use with body image issues in adolescent girls might use the following hook:

Don’t feel that your hook necessarily has to be deeply impressive or creative. Clarity and relevance are still more important than catchiness. The key thing is to guide the reader into your topic and situate your ideas.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

This part of the introduction differs depending on what approach your paper is taking.

In a more argumentative paper, you’ll explore some general background here. In a more empirical paper, this is the place to review previous research and establish how yours fits in.

Argumentative paper: Background information

After you’ve caught your reader’s attention, specify a bit more, providing context and narrowing down your topic.

Provide only the most relevant background information. The introduction isn’t the place to get too in-depth; if more background is essential to your paper, it can appear in the body .

Empirical paper: Describing previous research

For a paper describing original research, you’ll instead provide an overview of the most relevant research that has already been conducted. This is a sort of miniature literature review —a sketch of the current state of research into your topic, boiled down to a few sentences.

This should be informed by genuine engagement with the literature. Your search can be less extensive than in a full literature review, but a clear sense of the relevant research is crucial to inform your own work.

Begin by establishing the kinds of research that have been done, and end with limitations or gaps in the research that you intend to respond to.

The next step is to clarify how your own research fits in and what problem it addresses.

Argumentative paper: Emphasize importance

In an argumentative research paper, you can simply state the problem you intend to discuss, and what is original or important about your argument.

Empirical paper: Relate to the literature

In an empirical research paper, try to lead into the problem on the basis of your discussion of the literature. Think in terms of these questions:

• What research gap is your work intended to fill?
• What limitations in previous work does it address?
• What contribution to knowledge does it make?

You can make the connection between your problem and the existing research using phrases like the following.

Now you’ll get into the specifics of what you intend to find out or express in your research paper.

The way you frame your research objectives varies. An argumentative paper presents a thesis statement, while an empirical paper generally poses a research question (sometimes with a hypothesis as to the answer).

Argumentative paper: Thesis statement

The thesis statement expresses the position that the rest of the paper will present evidence and arguments for. It can be presented in one or two sentences, and should state your position clearly and directly, without providing specific arguments for it at this point.

Empirical paper: Research question and hypothesis

The research question is the question you want to answer in an empirical research paper.

Present your research question clearly and directly, with a minimum of discussion at this point. The rest of the paper will be taken up with discussing and investigating this question; here you just need to express it.

A research question can be framed either directly or indirectly.

• This study set out to answer the following question: What effects does daily use of Instagram have on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls?
• We investigated the effects of daily Instagram use on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls.

If your research involved testing hypotheses , these should be stated along with your research question. They are usually presented in the past tense, since the hypothesis will already have been tested by the time you are writing up your paper.

For example, the following hypothesis might respond to the research question above:

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

The final part of the introduction is often dedicated to a brief overview of the rest of the paper.

In a paper structured using the standard scientific “introduction, methods, results, discussion” format, this isn’t always necessary. But if your paper is structured in a less predictable way, it’s important to describe the shape of it for the reader.

If included, the overview should be concise, direct, and written in the present tense.

• This paper will first discuss several examples of survey-based research into adolescent social media use, then will go on to …
• This paper first discusses several examples of survey-based research into adolescent social media use, then goes on to …

Scribbr’s paraphrasing tool can help you rephrase sentences to give a clear overview of your arguments.

Full examples of research paper introductions are shown in the tabs below: one for an argumentative paper, the other for an empirical paper.

• Argumentative paper
• Empirical paper

Are cows responsible for climate change? A recent study (RIVM, 2019) shows that cattle farmers account for two thirds of agricultural nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands. These emissions result from nitrogen in manure, which can degrade into ammonia and enter the atmosphere. The study’s calculations show that agriculture is the main source of nitrogen pollution, accounting for 46% of the country’s total emissions. By comparison, road traffic and households are responsible for 6.1% each, the industrial sector for 1%. While efforts are being made to mitigate these emissions, policymakers are reluctant to reckon with the scale of the problem. The approach presented here is a radical one, but commensurate with the issue. This paper argues that the Dutch government must stimulate and subsidize livestock farmers, especially cattle farmers, to transition to sustainable vegetable farming. It first establishes the inadequacy of current mitigation measures, then discusses the various advantages of the results proposed, and finally addresses potential objections to the plan on economic grounds.

The rise of social media has been accompanied by a sharp increase in the prevalence of body image issues among women and girls. This correlation has received significant academic attention: Various empirical studies have been conducted into Facebook usage among adolescent girls (Tiggermann & Slater, 2013; Meier & Gray, 2014). These studies have consistently found that the visual and interactive aspects of the platform have the greatest influence on body image issues. Despite this, highly visual social media (HVSM) such as Instagram have yet to be robustly researched. This paper sets out to address this research gap. We investigated the effects of daily Instagram use on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls. It was hypothesized that daily Instagram use would be associated with an increase in body image concerns and a decrease in self-esteem ratings.

The introduction of a research paper includes several key elements:

• A hook to catch the reader’s interest
• Relevant background on the topic
• Details of your research problem

and your problem statement

• A thesis statement or research question
• Sometimes an overview of the paper

Don’t feel that you have to write the introduction first. The introduction is often one of the last parts of the research paper you’ll write, along with the conclusion.

This is because it can be easier to introduce your paper once you’ve already written the body ; you may not have the clearest idea of your arguments until you’ve written them, and things can change during the writing process .

The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .

A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis —a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2024, September 05). Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved September 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-paper/research-paper-introduction/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, writing a research paper conclusion | step-by-step guide, research paper format | apa, mla, & chicago templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• About the Hub
• Announcements
• Faculty Experts Guide
• Subscribe to the newsletter

Explore by Topic

• Arts+Culture
• Politics+Society
• Science+Technology
• Student Life
• University News
• Voices+Opinion
• About Hub at Work
• Gazette Archive
• Benefits+Perks
• Health+Well-Being
• Current Issue
• About the Magazine
• Past Issues
• Support Johns Hopkins Magazine
• Subscribe to the Magazine

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Credit: Shout

Reimagining alternatives to animal testing

Artificial intelligence and organoid advances hold new promise for reducing the number of laboratory animals used in studies..

By Jack McGovan

A round 348 B.C., Aristotle took a two-year trip to the eastern Aegean island of Lesbos to study animals in a lagoon. Along with observing the creatures in their natural habitat and surmising, among other things, that dolphins were not fish, he dissected smaller animals to try and understand their internal workings. When he cut open eels, abundant in the lagoon, he was puzzled to find no evidence of reproductive tissue and made the false assumption that they generated spontaneously from the mud.

Aristotle's dissections were some of the first documented experiments on animals. Initially a practice aimed at understanding anatomy, these experiments evolved as biology and medicine progressed. For example, the Roman physician Galen of Pergamon developed techniques for dissection and vivisection of animals, which informed his treatises on medicine that remained canonical until the 14th century, when the Renaissance began in Italy.

It wasn't until the late 1930s that rigorous animal testing became a standard part of the drug development process . A U.S. pharmaceutical company had created an elixir with a raspberry aroma that promised to work as an antibiotic. The solution contained diethylene glycol. Unbeknownst to the company's chief chemist, the chemical proved poisonous to humans, and over 100 people died after the elixir hit store shelves. The resulting outcry led to the passage of the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which required that drugs be tested on animals before being marketed.

Without animal testing, many of the medicines and procedures we take for granted wouldn't exist today. Transplantation of skin, corneas, and internal organs became possible owing to knowledge acquired through experimentation on animals. And polio—the devastating, paralysis-causing virus that was once one of the most feared diseases in the world—has been nearly eradicated because of a vaccine that was developed through experiments on monkeys. The number of drugs failing to make it to market that have passed animal testing reached an all-time high of 95% in 2021.

Today, animals continue to be widely used in the biomedical sciences. One paper published in Sage Journals found that 79.9 million animals were used in scientific procedures in 2015, an estimated 37% increase from 2005. There have also been unprecedented levels of funding in drug development in the last decade. However, the number of drugs failing to make it to market that have passed animal testing reached an all-time high of 95% in 2021, according to a review paper in the journal Nature . Thomas Hartung , a professor of toxicology and director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, wants better science—and more options.

Sometimes the consequences of animal experiments can go beyond a couple of failed experiments. In France in 2016, six people were hospitalized and one man died during a clinical trial. The drug in question had been tested in mice, rats, dogs, and monkeys with dosages 400 times stronger than those given to the human volunteers, and no ill effects were recorded.

Hartung's research has found that there are cases where animal models may no longer be necessary. In a paper published in a 2018 edition of the journal Toxicological Sciences , he and his team found they were able to predict—using a computer model that combed through a massive chemical hazard database—whether a particular chemical would be toxic to humans in more cases than animal models could. "The publication was a turning point," says the German-born Hartung, who has led the center since 2009.

The finding effectively put the center at the heart of a revolution in toxicology to move away from decades-old animal tests to the use of artificial intelligence and organoid cultures, 3D tissue models grown from stem cells programmed to mimic a specific organ. In the not-so-distant future, Hartung hopes, this emerging and quickly evolving technology and science could render many animal tests a remnant of the past.

T hat 2018 paper was a breakthrough in the use of machine learning to approach toxicology. One of Hartung's PhD students had built a database that could be used to predict—better than animal models could—how toxic a certain chemical would be to humans. More than 10,000 chemicals and their properties, provided by the European Chemical Agency, were reviewed.

The structure of a chemical determines whether it would be toxic to humans. So, when researchers want to determine the toxicology of a chemical, they can look at those with a similar structure known to produce a negative reaction. Manually assessing each chemical on a case-by-case basis would be time consuming, limiting its usefulness. What the researchers at the center, known as CAAT, did was to automate and accelerate that process, using big data to examine potential human interactions such as acute oral and dermal toxicity, eye and skin irritation, and mutagenicity (ability to induce a genetic mutation).

Computational tools are just one of the ways Hartung and other researchers at CAAT are attempting to move away from animal testing. The lab where Hartung is based is filled with brains, and that's not a reference to the staff located there. Little clumps of brain tissue, barely visible to the human eye, are grown in incubators every week by the thousands. Referred to as organoids, these clumps of tissue can't think or feel, but they can be used to see how brain cells respond to stimuli in a lab setting.

Brain organoids are made from pluripotent stem cells, which can produce any cell or tissue a body may need. The cells are placed in a matrix that helps them connect with each other and form larger tissues. They're then added to an incubator and allowed to grow for eight weeks, at which point they are essentially miniaturized, 3D versions of organs able to be used for testing. "Once you have mastered production, it is a very robust and reasonably cheap process," Hartung says.

By combining brain organoids with AI, Hartung hopes to develop what he calls organoid intelligence, a major step forward "to make brain cell cultures do what the [human] brain is supposed to." Although it is currently still science fiction, he says, the organoid intelligence project (running since January 2023) recently produced a technical paper describing how to build such a system.

Hartung moved to the United States in 2009 to take over from Alan Goldberg as director at CAAT. Founded in 1981 with a $1 million grant from the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, the center and its researchers for the next few decades worked to harness scientific advances, such as in vitro experiments using human cell lines, where once mice and rats were used. Advances in biostatistics and computer modeling of biological systems enabled researchers to construct experiments using only a fraction of the animals they would otherwise have needed.

When Hartung arrived, the center was "an information hub of six people" down by Baltimore's Inner Harbor. He promptly moved activities to the university, under the auspices of the Bloomberg School of Public Health, because he wanted to have a larger lab space and students to work with. Today, CAAT involves more than 30 researchers. His background, he says, has also helped bring some diversity to the center. "We have an unusual number of expats and people from all over the world," he says.

Alternatives to animal testing would get a real boost when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Scientists were desperate for answers, and fast, so they turned to nonanimal models to understand the virus . Similarly, researchers had to dramatically cut down the time it took to develop a vaccine, typically in the range of five to 10 years. "I'm not saying that animal studies don't give us good answers, but they're expensive and lengthy, and they're not for something that you need answers quickly on," says Suzanne Fitzpatrick, a toxicologist at the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

In the years since, there has been growing support for alternatives to animal testing. Maryland became the first state to require animal testing labs to contribute money to nonanimal research. Monica Bertagnolli, the director of the National Institutes of Health, announced in February that it would prioritize the development and use of combinatorial NAMs. NAMs refers to new approach methods, another term for alternatives to animal testing.

Image credit : Shout

In January 2023, the FDA Modernization Act took things a step further, declaring that animal testing was no longer required as evidence before clinical trials.

CAAT recently announced that it would collaborate with the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition to discuss and share the latest developments in the field of animal testing alternatives. "There's so many papers coming out now in this area, it's hard to keep up with the science," Fitzpatrick says. The collaboration, she says, makes it easier for scientists to keep up with advances while "we're still doing our regular jobs."

Soon, Fitzpatrick expects "more and more methods coming in that might be of use to the FDA" as nonanimal models mature. But, she cautions, "I don't think we're at the point where we're not going to have animal testing."

Of the $42 billion of funding the NIH awarded in 2020, 47% went to projects based on animal testing. But it should be pointed out that there are many laws, regulations, and policies that protect animals used in federally funded research. According to the National Institutes of Health, these protections include considering nonanimal alternatives to meet the scientific objectives and using the fewest subjects needed for thorough and repeatable results. They also outline standards that reflect a commitment to animal care.

In short, animals are still a vital part of science and public health. Reporting in Fast Company from earlier this year highlighted a shortage of long-tailed macaques during the COVID-19 pandemic. A panel assembled by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that a lack of nonhuman primates in research would "severely limit the ability of National Institutes of Health–supported research programs to respond adequately to public health emergencies, as well as to carry out high-impact biomedical research."

The panel also said: "While no model, animal or otherwise, can fully mimic the complexities of the human body, there remain research questions that currently cannot be answered outside of the context of a living organism."

"In an animal, you have the systemic interaction of multiple organs, says Eva-Maria Dehne, a senior scientist at [TissUse]https://www.tissuse.com/en/), a biotechnology company in Germany. "This is what you need to replace [animal models]." Her work focuses on organ-on-a-chip systems, small chips roughly the size of a computer memory stick. Organoids are added to chambers on the chips, lined with canals along which liquid can flow, mimicking blood vessels. Valves allow researchers to control the rate of flow.

Different chips can be connected so that a researcher could, for example, end up with a brain-heart-liver system. TissUse develops these organ-on-a-chip systems and sells them to researchers in the biomedical field.

Dehne, who was initially interested in the field owing to an ethical opposition to animal testing, has become more and more convinced by the scientific arguments to move away from the practice.

In making the case for nonanimal testing, Hartung thinks it's best to focus on arguments around efficiency. He adds that in his experience people tend not to respond positively to ethical arguments. When you highlight the efficiency of alternatives, that can open more doors. Data suggests that organ-on-a-chip systems could reduce research and development costs by 26%. "It is much more powerful than saying you have to protect these animals," he says.

Dehne worked with others on a brain-to-liver chip to test the blood-brain barrier permeation of the drugs atenolol and propranolol, the results of which were published in the journal Cells in 2022. Not only did the drugs match the results from human clinical trials, so, too, did the metabolites. In another [paper]https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2023.1076254/full), cosmetic ingredients were tested on a skin-liver-thyroid chip, with results predicting safe dosages within a fraction of current safety standards.

Researchers from Columbia University tested the cancer drug doxorubicin on a heart-liver-bone-skin chip , which matched the results found from clinical trials of the drug. Emulate, a spin­off from Harvard's Wyss Institute that is also developing organ-on-a-chip systems, works with top pharmaceutical companies, such as AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Roche.

Hartung says the main message he wants to get across is that today there are simply fewer reasons—scientifically, economically, and ethically—to keep experimenting on animals to the same degree as we have done historically. In his view, "it is time to complement and then to replace the animal tests where we can do better," he says.

There are, however, still a lot of technological hurdles to cross before nonanimal testing can become more prevalent. Unless organoid intelligence, or something similar, comes to fruition, running experiments that involve a conscious response may always have to be done on animals. For example, if testing the effects of a pain relief drug, you need a conscious being.

Organ-on-a-chip systems are also quite complex, and that limits their usefulness. Chengpeng Chen, an assistant professor of analytical chemistry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, has experienced that firsthand. He remembers setting up a chip system, but when it came to adding the cells, they were either contaminated or hadn't grown properly, and so he had to discard the whole configuration. "It takes days to have a setup ready," he says. "Any mistake or any problem in any of the steps can mess up the whole setup."

Chen himself is running a lab focused on organ-on-a-chip systems. One of his aims is to try and make the use of these alternatives to animal testing easier. "A lab has to have very well-trained personnel to fabricate and maintain such organs-on-a-chip," Chen says. If we want the technology to be more widely used, then it must become easier to handle. Focusing on gains in efficiency in lieu of accessibility, while still useful, will mean the technology remains largely in academia, he says.

W hen Hartung went to Germany's University of Tübingen in the 1980s, animal testing was the norm. "I really needed a big glass of whiskey in the evening when I had done an experiment on mice and rats," he says. Feeling uneasy with the prospect of a career in a field where he had to keep testing on animals, Hartung managed to convince his mentor at the time to let him run experiments on cell cultures instead.

"I got a lot of feedback from some fellow scientists who told me: 'How can you waste your beautiful career with this alternative nonsense?'" he says. Nevertheless, Hartung continued with his research into cell cultures until, in 1996, he made a breakthrough when he designed an in vitro version of a pyrogen test—a test, traditionally done on rabbits, to find out whether a product is clean of bacterial contamination.

Ecstatic to have made a contribution that could save animal lives, Hartung was disappointed when the test was finally approved in 2006 alongside a host of others with the same function. Almost nobody seemed interested in adopting them. "The appetite by both the regulators and the regulated industry to make changes is often not very big," Hartung says.

One moment that really highlighted this resistance to change for Hartung was when he was on a panel discussing his pyrogen test. An employee from a big pharmaceutical company opposed the test "harshly," yet away from the spotlight, in the safety of a private conversation, the employee said he thought the test was good; it's just that his company had taken the stance to oppose it as it might impact their profits.

A 2022 paper published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine noted that the beneficial effects of "tissue plasminogen activator for stroke had been well documented in animal models by 2001, but research using several thousand animals continued for several years afterward." An analysis published in BMJ Open in 2020 found that most stroke researchers recognized that animal models had not been successful in the field, yet they were reluctant to relinquish them. The analysis looked at opinion papers published in journals from 1979 to 2018 and found that only one author out of 80 had advocated for alternatives to animal testing.

Others, however, seem to be embracing alternatives. Last year, CAAT, together with TissUse, organized a conference in Berlin based on alternatives to animal testing. Hartung said that while they initially expected around 700–1,000 guests, the capacity of 1,300 was reached months before the conference occurred.

In situ with Thomas Hartung

Could ai put an end to animal testing, could the next blockbuster drug be lab-rat free, fda no longer needs to require animal tests before human drug trials.

CAAT recently received $17 million for a seven-year project called IMPACT. With the money, Hartung and his team hope to further refine the alternatives to animal testing they've developed and create the Human Exposome Project, a database cataloging chemical exposures a person might face over their lifetime, along with potential harmful side effects.

Dehne thinks the community building around nonanimal models is great, and she is happy that more companies and researchers are entering the space. "There will never be one system that can answer all the questions, and therefore there will always be a need for different systems," she says.

Hartung has a similar view. "We're trying to form communities, … hundreds of people ultimately collaborating because they buy in" to the mission, he says. "It's more important that things are being done than who does them."

Fitzpatrick from the FDA says that alternatives to animal testing will likely help reduce the number of animals used but not necessarily fully replace them. She suggests that alternatives could be used to study a particular chemical, so researchers would have a better understanding of what to look for in animal tests, meaning fewer overall tests, and therefore fewer test subjects, would be necessary. "Our responsibility is to put safe and effective products on the market—not ending animal testing," she said. "So, we have to do that however we can."

Almost three decades after Hartung designed his pyrogen test, the European Union finally decided to outlaw the industry standard rabbit pyrogen test by 2026. "If you would have told me as a young postdoc how long this might take, I probably would have gone into another field," he says. Though the U.S. is still lagging in that regard, Hartung is enjoying the moment of having finally pushed through a replacement that he says could save up to 170,000 rabbits from unnecessary suffering every year.

Jack McGovan is a freelance writer based in Berlin.

Posted in Science+Technology

Tagged organoids

You might also like

News network.

• Johns Hopkins Magazine
• Get Email Updates
• Submit an Announcement
• Submit an Event
• Privacy Statement
• Accessibility

Discover JHU

• About the University
• Schools & Divisions
• Academic Programs
• Plan a Visit
• my.JohnsHopkins.edu
• © 2024 Johns Hopkins University . All rights reserved.
• University Communications
• 3910 Keswick Rd., Suite N2600, Baltimore, MD
• X Facebook LinkedIn YouTube Instagram

An integrated indicator for evaluating scientific papers: considering academic impact and novelty

• Published: 13 September 2024

Cite this article

• Zhaoping Yan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8198-5574 1 &
• Kaiyu Fan   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0006-8884-4073 2  

The assessment of scientific papers has long been a challenging issue. Although numerous studies have proposed quantitative indicators for assessing scientific papers, these studies overlooked the citation characteristics and the novelty of scientific knowledge implied in the textual information of papers. Therefore, this paper constructs an integrated indicator to evaluate scientific papers from both citation and semantic perspectives. Firstly, we propose weighted citations to measure the academic impact of scientific papers, which takes time heterogeneity and citation sentiment factors into consideration. Secondly, we capture the novelty of scientific papers from a semantic perspective, utilizing FastText to represent papers as text embeddings and applying the local outlier factor to calculate it. To validate the performance of our approach, the bullwhip effect domain and the ACL Anthology corpus are used for case studies. The results demonstrate that our indicator can effectively identify outstanding papers, thus providing a more comprehensive evaluation method for evaluating academic research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Beltagy, I., Lo, K., & Cohan, A. (2019). SciBERT: A pretrained language model for scientific text. arXiv Preprint . https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.10676

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64 (1), 45–80.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bornmann, L., Tekles, A., Zhang, H. H., & Fred, Y. Y. (2019). Do we measure novelty when we analyze unusual combinations of cited references? A validation study of bibliometric novelty indicators based on F1000Prime data. Journal of Informetrics, 13 (4), 100979.

Breunig, M. M., Kriegel, H. P., Ng, R. T., & Sander, J. (2000, May). LOF: Identifying density-based local outliers. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (pp. 93–104).

Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30 (1–7), 107–117.

Chai, S., & Menon, A. (2019). Breakthrough recognition: Bias against novelty and competition for attention. Research Policy, 48 (3), 733–747.

Chan, H. F., Frey, B. S., Gallus, J., & Torgler, B. (2014). Academic honors and performance. Labour Economics, 31 , 188–204.

Dai, L., Xu, Q., Liang, L., Li, X., & Su, L. (2016). Quantitative measures of novelty in scientific publications. Journal of Informetrics, 10 (4), 969–982.

Google Scholar  

Dinh, T. N., Pham, P., Nguyen, G. L., & Vo, B. (2024). Enhancing local citation recommendation with recurrent highway networks and SciBERT-based embedding. Expert Systems with Applications, 243 , 122911.

Donovan, C. (2007). Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: Metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact. Science and Public Policy, 34 (8), 538–542.

Dunaiski, M., Visser, W., & Geldenhuys, J. (2016). Evaluating paper and author ranking algorithms using impact and contribution awards. Journal of Informetrics, 10 (2), 392–407.

Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69 (1), 131–152.

Farys, R., & Wolbring, T. (2017). Matched control groups for modeling events in citation data: An illustration of Nobel Prize effects in citation networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68 (9), 2201–2210.

Foster, J. G., Rzhetsky, A., & Evans, J. A. (2015). Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. American Sociological Review, 80 (5), 875–908.

Frandsen, T. F., & Nicolaisen, J. (2013). The ripple effect: Citation chain reactions of a Nobel Prize. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 (3), 437–447.

Funk, R. J., & Owen-Smith, J. (2017). A dynamic network measure of technological change. Management Science, 63 (3), 791–817.

Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122 (3159), 108–111.

Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation: Journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies. Science, 178 (4060), 471–479.

Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995). A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature. Journal of Information Science, 21 (1), 37–53.

Grave, E., Bojanowski, P., Gupta, P., Joulin, A., & Mikolov, T. (2018). Learning word vectors for 157 languages. In Proceedings of the international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC) .

He, X., & Liu, Y. (2024). Knowledge evolutionary process of artificial intelligence in E-commerce: Main path analysis and science mapping analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 238 , 121801.

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520 (7548), 429–431.

Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102 (46), 16569–16572.

Hirschberg, J., & Manning, C. D. (2015). Advances in natural language processing. Science, 349 (6245), 261–266.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Huang, Z., & Zhao, W. (2022). A semantic matching approach addressing multidimensional representations for web service discovery. Expert Systems with Applications, 210 , 118468.

Joulin, A., Grave, E., Bojanowski, P., & Mikolov, T. (2017). Bag of tricks for efficient text classification. arXiv Preprint . https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01759

Just, J., Ströhle, T., Füller, J., & Hutter, K. (2024). AI-based novelty detection in crowdsourced idea spaces. Innovation, 26 (3), 359–386.

Kammari, M. (2023). Time-stamp based network evolution model for citation networks. Scientometrics, 128 (6), 3723–3741.

Kazi, P., Patwardhan, M., & Joglekar, P. (2016). Towards a new perspective on context based citation index of research articles. Scientometrics, 107 , 103–121.

Lee, C., Kwon, O., Kim, M., & Kwon, D. (2018). Early identification of emerging technologies: A machine learning approach using multiple patent indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127 , 291–303.

Lee, Y. N., Walsh, J. P., & Wang, J. (2015). Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact. Research Policy, 44 (3), 684–697.

Lin, W., & Liao, L. C. (2024). Lexicon-based prompt for financial dimensional sentiment analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 244 , 122936.

Liu, J. S., Lu, L. Y., & Ho, M. H. C. (2019). A few notes on main path analysis. Scientometrics, 119 , 379–391.

Liu, Y., Wu, Q., Wu, S., & Gao, Y. (2021). Weighted citation based on ranking-related contribution: A new index for evaluating article impact. Scientometrics, 126 (10), 8653–8672.

Luo, Z., Lu, W., He, J., & Wang, Y. (2022). Combination of research questions and methods: A new measurement of scientific novelty. Journal of Informetrics, 16 (2), 101282.

Matsumoto, K., Shibayama, S., Kang, B., & Igami, M. (2021). Introducing a novelty indicator for scientific research: Validating the knowledge-based combinatorial approach. Scientometrics, 126 (8), 6891–6915.

Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2015). Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66 (10), 1988–2002.

Mukherjee, S., & Uzzi, B. (2021). A new method for identifying recombinant innovations reveals the role of collaboration networks. Science Advances, 7 (22), eabb2417.

Nassiri, I., Masoudi-Nejad, A., Jalili, M., & Moeini, A. (2013). Normalized Similarity Index: An adjusted index to prioritize article citations. Journal of Informetrics, 7 (1), 91–98.

Otter, D. W., Medina, J. R., & Kalita, J. K. (2020). A survey of the usages of deep learning for natural language processing. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 32 (2), 604–624.

Persson, O. (2010). Identifying research themes with weighted direct citation links. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (3), 415–422.

Peters, M. E., Neumann, M., Iyyer, M., Gardner, M., Clark, C., Lee, K., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018). Deep contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies (Vol. 1 (Long Papers), pp. 2227–2237). New Orleans, Louisiana: Association for Computational Linguistics.

Purkayastha, A., Palmaro, E., Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., & Baas, J. (2019). Comparison of two article-level, field-independent citation metrics: Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). Journal of Informetrics, 13 (2), 635–642.

Qu, G., Chen, J., Zhang, R., Wang, L., & Yang, Y. (2023). Technological search strategy and breakthrough innovation: An integrated approach based on main-path analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 196 , 122879.

Radev, D. R., Muthukrishnan, P., Qazvinian, V., & Abu-Jbara, A. (2013). The ACL anthology network corpus. Language Resources and Evaluation, 47 , 919–944.

Rahimmi, A. (2020). Drawbacks to h-index, as a factor assessing the scientific impact and the scientific credit of a researcher. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 14 (2), 331–333.

Ruan, X., Zhu, Y., Li, J., & Cheng, Y. (2020). Predicting the citation counts of individual papers via a BP neural network. Journal of Informetrics, 14 (3), 101039.

Song, B., Luan, C., & Liang, D. (2023). Identification of emerging technology topics (ETTs) using BERT-based model and sematic analysis: A perspective of multiple-field characteristics of patented inventions (MFCOPIs). Scientometrics, 128 (11), 5883–5904.

Stefan, S., Isabel, V., & Verhoef, P. C. (2007). The quest for citations: Drivers of article impact. Journal of Marketing, 71 (3), 171–193.

Stegehuis, C., Litvak, N., & Waltman, L. (2015). Predicting the long-term citation impact of recent publications. Journal of Informetrics, 9 (3), 642–657.

Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342 (6157), 468–472.

Veugelers, R., & Wang, J. (2019). Scientific novelty and technological impact. Research Policy, 48 (6), 1362–1372.

Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10 (2), 365–391.

Wang, J. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94 (3), 851–872.

Wang, R., Li, S., Yin, Q., Zhang, J., Yao, R., & Wu, O. (2024). Improved pagerank and new indices for academic impact evaluation using AI papers as case studies. Journal of Information Science, 50 (3), 690–702.

Wang, S., Ma, Y., Mao, J., Bai, Y., Liang, Z., & Li, G. (2023). Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74 (2), 150–167.

Wang, Y. (2024). Comparison of citation impact between pre-and post-publication peer-selected best papers: The case of Best Paper Awards recipients at computer science conferences. Scientometrics, 129 , 641–662.

Wu, L., Wang, D., & Evans, J. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566 (7744), 378–382.

Yang, A. J., Gong, H., Wang, Y., Zhang, C., & Deng, S. (2024). Rescaling the disruption index reveals the universality of disruption distributions in science. Scientometrics, 129 (1), 561–580.

Yu, D., & Pan, T. (2021). Tracing the main path of interdisciplinary research considering citation preference: A case from blockchain domain. Journal of Informetrics, 15 (2), 101136.

Yu, D., & Yan, Z. (2022). Combining machine learning and main path analysis to identify research front: From the perspective of science-technology linkage. Scientometrics, 127 (7), 4251–4274.

Yu, D., & Yan, Z. (2023). Main path analysis considering citation structure and content: Case studies in different domains. Journal of Informetrics, 17 (1), 101381.

Zhang, F. (2017). Evaluating journal impact based on weighted citations. Scientometrics, 113 , 1155–1169.

Zhu, X., Turney, P., Lemire, D., & Vellino, A. (2015). Measuring academic influence: Not all citations are equal. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66 (2), 408–427.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This manuscript was supported by the Postgraduate Reaserch & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (No. KYCX24_0108).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China

Zhaoping Yan

School of Data Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong - Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaiyu Fan .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yan, Z., Fan, K. An integrated indicator for evaluating scientific papers: considering academic impact and novelty. Scientometrics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05150-9

Download citation

Received : 10 March 2024

Accepted : 30 August 2024

Published : 13 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05150-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Paper assessment
• Academic impact
• Academic novelty
• Weighted citation count
• Citation sentiment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Physical Review Research

• Collections
• Editorial Team
• Open Access

Squeezing-induced quantum-enhanced multiphase estimation

Phys. rev. research 6 , 033292 – published 12 september 2024.

• No Citing Articles

Supplemental Material

• INTRODUCTION
• QUANTUM ENHANCED WITH A MULTI-GHZ PROBE…
• QUANTUM ENHANCED WITH A SINGLE GHZ PROBE…
• QUANTUM ENHANCED UNDER NOISE
• CONCLUSIONS
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We investigate how squeezing techniques can improve the measurement precision in multiphase quantum metrology. While these methods are well studied and effectively used in single-phase estimations, their usage in multiphase situations has yet to be examined. We fill this gap by investigating the mechanism of quantum enhancement in the multiphase scenarios. Our analysis provides theoretical and numerical insights into the optimal condition for achieving the quantum Cramér-Rao bound, helping us understand the potential and mechanism for quantum-enhanced multiphase estimations with squeezing. In this paper, we open possibilities for advancements in quantum metrology and sensing technologies.

• Received 20 May 2024
• Accepted 1 September 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.033292

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

• Research Areas

Authors & Affiliations

• Frontier Research Institute for Interdisciplinary Sciences, Tohoku University , Sendai 980-8578, Japan and Department of Applied Physics, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University , Sendai 980-8579, Japan
• * Contact author: [email protected]

Article Text

Vol. 6, Iss. 3 — September - November 2024

Subject Areas

• Quantum Physics

Authorization Required

Other options.

• Buy Article »
• Find an Institution with the Article »

Download & Share

(a) Plot of ∥ D ∥ F as a function of N for different ϕ , where ϕ = ϕ x = ϕ y = ϕ z . ∥ D ∥ F remains < 10 − 4 for N ≥ 35 . Inset: ∥ D ∥ F at N from 35 to 50. (b) The probability P ( m ) = | 〈 m | ψ 〉 | 2 , for | ψ 〉 ∈ { | ψ x 〉 , | ψ y 〉 , | ψ z 〉 , | Ψ 〉 } . The asymmetry is indicated by purple circuits, and it becomes negligible for large N . (c) (upper) Illustration of spin fluctuation for small and large N , where the fluctuation scales inversely with N . Here, only one component of each | ψ μ 〉 is depicted, where the full visualization is shown in the lower part of (c). (c) (lower) Visualization of the Husimi distribution function Q ( θ , φ ) = | 〈 Ψ | θ , φ 〉 | 2 for N = 15 , 16 , 40 , and 41. (d) Plot of total variance | Δ ϕ | 2 as a function of N compared with the standard quantum limit (SQL) and Heisenberg limit (HL).

(a) A metrology approach starts by preparing a GHZ state in the z direction | ψ z 〉 , followed by a squeezing transformation, phasing, and reverting transformations. This sequence yields a quantum state containing all necessary information for phase estimation. (b) Visualization of the Husimi distribution for one-axis twisting (OAT), two-axis twisting (TAT), and twist and turn (TNT). (c) Plot of | Δ ϕ | 2 as a function of χ t for OAT, TAT, and TNT cases. (d) Plot of ξ 2 (dB) as a function of χ t for OAT, TAT, and TNT cases. (e) Log-log plot of ∥ D ∥ F as a function of N for the optimal TAT case. The increasing value with N is merely a random fluctuation on this scale. (f) Log-log plot of optimal | Δ ϕ | 2 as a function of N for OAT, TAT, and TNT cases compared with the multi-GHZ case | Ψ 〉 , standard quantum limit (SQL), and Heisenberg limit (HL). N is fixed at 100 for (b)–(d).

(a) Plot of | Δ ϕ | 2 as a function of the noise probability ε for two cases of the correction and without correction. The corresponding enhancement ratio R is shown on the right column. For high noise levels, an increase of up to 3% is observed. Data represented for N = 40 . (b) Illustration demonstrating the squeezing correction.

Plot of P ( m ) = | 〈 m | Ψ 〉 | 2 for N from 15 to 18 and their corresponding ∥ D ∥ F from Fig.  1  for ϕ = 0.01 .

Visualization of a probe state undergoing different squeezing transformations. Initially, the probe state is prepared coherently along the x axis. The standard deviation of the estimated phase Δ ϕ is directly linked to the uncertainty Δ S y . With the one-axis-twisting (OAT) transformation [and similarly with two-axis twisting (TAT)], the uncertainty Δ S y reduces, consequently reducing Δ ϕ , which enhancing the sensitivity. Similarly, with the twist-and-turn (TNT) transformation, the coherent state extends along the y axis as indicated by the red arrows, resembling a GHZ state, thereby enhancing the sensitivity.

Top-bottom view of the quantum probe state | ψ z 〉 = ( | + z 〉 + | − z 〉 ) / 2 and its evolved states under various squeezing transformations.

Visualization the Husimi functions of | ψ z 〉 under the two-axis-twisting (TAT) transformation for different values of χ t as shown in the figure. We fixed N = 100 .

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

• Forgot your username/password?
• Create an account

Article Lookup

Paste a citation or doi, enter a citation.