Dear Alexander,

a very spontaneous answer. Start with the theory and prove it with experimental results. Thats what I would prefer in a presentation. And if theory and experiment are contradicting or do only partially match, this work starts to develop highly interesting.

Dear Alexander,

a very spontaneous answer. Start with the theory and prove it with experimental results. Thats what I would prefer in a presentation. And if theory and experiment are contradicting or do only partially match, this work starts to develop highly interesting.

I agree with Hanno that the article should be started with the theory and background. However, if theory and experimental results are contradict each other or do only partially match, I think that the author is in trouble!.

You are the wise man, Hanno, have a great experience in Science. So, your advise is very valuable. On the other hand, some authors prefer to start with experimental part, to present basic measured results, then to support these results with Theoretical explanation. Let our peers make their preference known. 

Dear Alexander,

I want to give a short explanation of my posted behaviour. As a scientist I don´t start a research in the way like:  "lets look to some thing, never mind, what it is and look for an experimental result". No, you have developed some idea about nature, I call it model. And such a model must contain a theory. After this theory you are starting to prove by an experiment. And without theory you don´t know, what and how to ask.

Dear Hanno, I attach the example of the paper, where un-expected experimental facts were presented first, the theoretical model followed to explain the observed results. My impact into the paper was the theoretical model, so, my co-authors wished me to be the the first author. But I would never come to this model without seeing experimental facts first. So, I rejected their offer and insisted that the principle experementalist is the leading author. That is fair.

Dear Alexander,

thanks for the paper. Indeed I start to to be dubious about my spontaneous and direct proposal. I had a short look at your results. And if I did not misunderstand your results, you indeed had first your "bubbles" as normal scientific experience and then you tried to explain them and their behaviour, in your special case with only partial matching.

Sometimes things are more complicated in detail than at the first glance (coalence and diffusion).

Dear @Alexander, the presenter should do it plausible, reasonable, convincing...! Of course, in case where experimental results are present, I agree that someone should start with theoretical introduction..., as stated by @Hanno and @Behrouz. As different approaches exist to the issue, I have attached further reading!

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/agu/scientific_talk.html

Dear Ljubomir,

interesting appendix, and they ask for humor if possible. Quite sympathic. But I´m missing a clear statement in this text to Alexander´s direct question about the order of theory and experiment .

Yes, you are right dear @Hanno. I have stated in my previous answer that different approaches exist to the issue of scientific paper presentation! No clear statement on the order of theory and experiment!

Dear Ljubomir,

I´ve read your first statement, but tried to find some more help in your attached script.

The order of presentation of the theory and (experimental) results should be presented in an honest way. If the theory is the result from the experimental results, it should be presented in the discussion section.

Thank you dearest Profs and all, I'm presenting my paper next week. My baby project's first exposure... in the midst of preparing. Thank you for your question Dr. Babchin.

I had within my 50+ years of professional experience a tough case to write the paper, which belonged to Chemical Physics, but addressed community of Colloid Scientists. We had both, the theory and qualitative experiments available, but most of Colloid Scientist knew nothing about Electro-Acoustics in high frequency electric field. They, also, had restricted background in Fluid Mechanics to understand the theory. So, I decided to write a review article, providing all background information first, then following with original theoretical and experimental results. As paper attracted large number of citations, the form of presentation has been aknowleged and aprooved. I attach the file with the paper, in the case anyone is interested.

The most important goes first. Theory may have led to experimental results or experimental results to a theory. Which is more important? What do you want the reader or listener to know? You should not dilute the important message.

Equal importance? Split them up? Make two presentations: theory then experiment and experiment then theory. If restricted to one presentation make two sections with proper introductory remarks.

Theory and experiment while interesting to all audiences will split an audience into theorists and experimentalists. You want to ensure that each side gets a proper dose.

Dear Alexander,

I´m convinced from the structure of your review. It meets my expectation, when reading such an paper. And the favored order: Introduction, Theory, Experiments, Discussion similar to my first ideas.

Dear Joseph,

the decision, what is more important opens again the old and some times hated discussion between experimental and theoretical physics. But your statement, look where your ideas come from and than follow a logical way is the best general proposal for a choice of logical order.

It´s true, we know a lot of examples, where first you had some experimental statements and facts which had to be described by a following theory. But vice versa, a lot of further examples.

Example for the first situation: induced electrical field by moving of electrons in a circle - Maxwell equations and all the precursors.

Example for the second case: constance of speed of light in vacuum, Michelson experiment, etc.

I prefer: theoretical intro, experimental proove if ever possible.

I think your question is similar to teaching a subject in class. In most cases we present motivations and historical background of the concept (if there is one) and then we present the theory. To justify the theory with a sense of touch, present the experiment.  

Best way is how innovative is your new experiment 

what novel idea is coming out of it

what technology transfer you are suggesting to communities

Only the flow has to be sequential and the readers will find ease to read and understand and follow presentation

up-course we have to follow the journal format for publications

i believe if good publication is coming out the presentation is also good

In the special case you are presenting in your question, writing a series of articles could be another viable option.

The first article (part I) can deal with the experiments and data and the second one (part II) can describe the theoretical bases, or otherwise.

Here is an example of highly cited article which is written in series. it is interesting to note the part II has more citations.

Hallikainen, M. T., Ulaby, F. T., Dobson, M. C., El-Rayes, M. A., & Wu, L. K. (1985). Microwave dielectric behavior of wet soil-part 1: empirical models and experimental observations. Geoscience and Remote Sensing, IEEE Transactions on, (1), 25-34.

Cited 764 times in Google scholar

Dobson, M. C., Ulaby, F. T., Hallikainen, M. T., & El-Rayes, M. A. (1985). Microwave dielectric behavior of wet soil-Part II: Dielectric mixing models.Geoscience and Remote Sensing, IEEE Transactions on, (1), 35-46.

Cited 764 times in Google scholar

Hanno, after I posted I realized I had not closed with, "When in doubt it is theory followed by experiment." 

When presenting experiment first there is always a short introduction that is theory then experiment. One must tailor to the audience. It is OK to start with F = ma no matter the sophistication of the audience if it is necessary to set the stage.

I feel much more on the romantic said (these days). I distrust about techniques, in general. Dominating a number of techniques in general is important, and yet, at the end of the day completely irrelevant.

If the question is about the best way to present a science paper, then I'd say: be honest and trustful, and put a piece of your soul, or guts, or lungs, or whatever in what you do. If the audience can see that are truly committing with your research you will  communicate much better, even if some people may disagree.

Dear Alexander

If the the theory is really extensive and novel, put it at first and then explain experiments. I think it would be very interesting that the experimental observation confirms the developed theory, and more interesting when your theory improves over the previous ones. if so,  add another part for comparing your theory with previous theories. And if the experimental work is novel, you should emphasize it and bring it first. I think the theories now are used to support your experimental observations and confirm your methodology. and finally, if both parts are novel and extensive, Rzh Mehrvar's suggestion works well, and put them in two articles.   

The answer depends on the type of problem. A full model of a problem is depicted in the attached figure. If one wants to avoid a mathematical formulation, he can state the conjecture, and them compare with the experimental data, to see if it is validated or not.

In the mathematical model, one can see that "experiment and observation" corresponds to "axioms and theorems". Finally we shall have some "experimental data" and some "theoretical data". If they are incompatible then a modification of the model is needed. 

A famous quote of Albert Einstein that probably you have heard is "It is the theory that decides what can be observed". It is from a famous discussion between Einstein and Werner Heisenberg during Solvay physics conference.

Therefore Theory comes first :)

Dear Babak,

I would honestly claim the opposite: 'It is what can be observed that decides what will be the (science-based) theory' E.g. Why proposing theories/hypotheses/ideas than cannot be empirically verified? 

Dear Marcel,

because you never can know, if there will be a possibility to successfully do the experiment. A famous recent example is the Higgs Boson with a very old theoretical elaboration within the standard model.

So I think, like dear Costas had mentioned, it depends on the special problem.

But we are discussing here the paper representation and not the priority of theoretical or experimental approaches during research.

Dear Hanno,

You are right that it is important to focus on the question, but I can not prevent me by claiming that any human-produced theory has an empirical basis (e.g. historical facts) guiding its formulation. I cannot think about a theory where this has not been the case.

No language, no theory? 

Dear Marcel,

nice detour. But what about mathematics? Are you sure that higher mathematics has an empirical base or what about QM and GR?

Marcel, Hanno, Discovery proceeds from induction to deduction or observation to proof. Between induction and deduction we must form a logical argument. Part of that logical argument is theory. Structuring the argument and the structure of the argument defines the experiment. Part of the structuring is empirical evidence that forms the theory. 

Empirical evidence leads to induction of a theory. A proof needs the theory so the theory comes first. The documentation of the logical argument of the proof may contain empirical evidence supporting the induced theory. Nevertheless, it is the theory that leads.

QM and GR resulted from observations both empirical and mathematical. Purely mathematical evidence is highly suspect. There is no reason to believe a mathematical result that extends beyond physical evidence, but it might be reason to explore.

Higher mathematics (mathematics for the sake of mathematics) has no empirical basis and none is sought. 

Presentation of a scientific result requires a logical argument and proof. The logical argument comes first. How the logical argument is presented and documented may depend upon importance of the theory or the proof. The presentation of the argument and proof may depend upon the the audience. 

The argument (theory) comes first.

Dear Joseph,

a very helpful analysis and statement. Thanks

Dear Hanno,

thanks for your fruitful discussion, but I do not believe that the methodology of presenting ideas in a paper is that much different from research methodology performed by a scientist. How can we present experimental results without giving a  theoretical insight to the readers?

Thanks, my Dear Friends, for different opinions and answers to my question. Reading your answers and thinking more on the subject, I would advise to start with the strongest part, either this is a Theory, or Experimental data. 

Dear Babak,

there must be a misunderstandig. Just read my statement within the popular answers.

But I want to contradict. Research methodology is dominated by the process of understanding with doubts, errors etc.

A scientific paper , which shall be understood, has a also didactical purpose. You want to sell a result, an idea or a model. So you must try to guide your reader, not boring but using a typical systematic, which recalls existing knowledge to find an entrance.

What has been first: the chicken (e.g. theory) or the egg (e.g. empirical observation)?

Begin and/or start with theoretical introduction!

Close and/or end with experimental results!

Period!

Marcel

Induction requires the egg and proof a road for the chicken to cross.

Hanno

Exactly. You are selling a result. That is why the presentation must be tailored to the audience.

Tobias

Yes, but when experimental is more important (theory is well established) or the audience is interested in the experimental; hold the theoretical to the bare minimum to form the argument.

Alexander

Starting with the experimental means you must form the argument and the argument requires theory.

Dear Hanno,

Thanks for your extensive reply. My mistake, you are right. :)

It is supposed that we start from theory and then we present results that confirm that theory, so our paper is complete. But sometimes, depending on the subject and on how famous is the author, a reverse presentation is preferred: Start with experimental results to intrigue the audience.

Dear Demetris,

nice expression "intriguing". But you can be right, you must win attendance however you manage it. If you have success, your paper will be read, understood and possibly cited.

Folks, every one knows about Nobel Prize and Great Scientists, honored by this prize. But very little known, that USSR in 1945 - 1955 had equivalent prize monetary, in the case of Physics this Prize was probably equal in standing. Ya.I.Frenkel, Lev Landau, Peter Kapitsa, I. Tamm, Cherenkov, etc. were recipients of this prize. Short of Frenkel, who passed away in 1952, the rest of cahort were later Nobel Prize winners for exactly the same works.

Like in the case of Nobel Prize, no STATE funds were spent, instead the person whose name was attached to the prize, provided funds from the honorarium for his books, published in 100 languages. And here, on Internet I bumped into the Gold Medal, which came to the winner along with 200,000 Rubles. So, I attached the file. That is just the piece of History, no politics, less cult of personality is attempted.

Dear Alexander, this was really a new info for me. Thanks!

Thanks, Hanno, my very Dear Friend !

Alexander

Most interesting. 

Thanks, Joseph, in most cases Stalin Prize in Physics of 1st Class was shared by several scientists, Like Landau and Kapitsa for superconductivity, Cherenkov, Tamm and Frank for the Cherenkov Effect. But Jacob Frenkel was granted the prize and 200,000 rubles alone, for his book: "Kinetic Theory of Liquids". These money could but 12 Cars "Pobeda", the most expencive at the time in the USSR. Committee did not recommend Frenkel, on the basis, that he insulted Collective Farmers, by introducing or using term "Collectivized Electrones", which are Spiritles. Stalin asked from the negative Committe Members Frenkel's book on the Subject. Next day he told them: "So what": ? Our outstanding Physicist, Professor Frenkel, just provided the prove, that COLLECTIVIZATION is LAW of NATURE. I propose to grant him the PRIZE of First Class, and grunt to him alone". He called for another round of voting, no one voted against. That was in 1947. Shame to those Scientist in Committe, who tried to use political argument against his collegue in fundamenal branch of Science, like PHYSICS.

I recently bought this otstanding book in English over Internet for $400.

Thanks, HANNO, for your support. During 1930th, Jacob Frenkel have written monumental books on Electromagnetism and Statistical Physics, during his long stay in Germany, France and US as visiting Professor. Born highly recommended these books for PHYSICS students. Books were printed in German, English and Russian, still can be found in the Libraries.

Dear Alexander,

really great names and work.

I will continue with the little known epizod from the Science History, as the event had happened in the USSR, in 1939. Einstein came to Moscow for an International Congress in Physics. In his Intoductionary Speech, Einstein thanked Soviets for hospitality, stressed that the Counry, where such a Great Scienists, as Professor Frenkel lives, is strong in Physics. 

Soviet Physicists asked the Govermnent to offer Einstein position as Professor at Large,  Moscow State University. But, Stalin had idea on His own. He offered to Einstein to form his own Intitute, and assume Responcibility as the Head, Physics branch, USSR Academy of Sciences. That was highly bueroacratic position, which Eintein politely declined. That offer was well known in the USSR Physics community, but bareky mentioned  by Einstein Biographers, if at all. And, as the USSR was not a Democracy, but the System was officially and legally named the "Dictatorship of Proletariat", that alone would be enough for Einstein to decline the offer. 

Dear Hanno, in the case you wish to have this Classical Monograph by Jacob Frenkel, please provide your address, contacting me by E-mail at  [email protected]

That will be my gift to you.

Do you really believe that an article will be read by its own merit and not after any kind of political correctness (or not) process?

I think that your article will be read after you have become 'somebody' (Of course I write about Journals).

When exactly can you realize that you have a significant impact to your colleagues?

(So, you can play with the way you will write your article...)

PS Thanks Alexander for the valuable informations that you always provide us about former USSR. 

Thanks, Demetris, I am old enough to remember some Science Historical events in the former USSR. I was born there, raised and educated to PhD level. Whatever can be said about USSR, a young Scientist could not be offended by his Professor, like in your case. You could go to either local Party boss, or local Trade Union boss, or to both of them. Their task was the controll that higher ups, don't offend their subordinates, so, people worked and lived in dignity. Sure, in the case some one openly proclaimed his hatred to the idea of Communism, this person would be in deep troubles. But we knew the rules of the game, since childhood. When I felt that this idea does not work, I immigrated from USSR to Israel in 1973. 

Hanno, your e-mail came to my Junk box, when I tried to open, it ecaped altogether. That what Bill Gates does to people. But I have e-mail address within Russian system, it works perfectly. Please, re-direct to the address  [email protected]

Dear Prof Alex et al.  I have been following posts on your thread, looking for CLUES.  What is the best way to write my paper if I'm sending it to the journal with IF, and I haven't done that before?  I'm wondering if I can glean more clues from commentators here.  Thanks.

Miranda, what is IF ?

Could it be that you mean impact factor?

Yes dear friends, IF is impact factor.  Before I got on RG, I only thought of impact of research and how it would benefit students, farmers, patients etc.  Now it seems that many researchers on RG are very concerned about impact factor (IF) as well.  That's why I'm trying to get clues, thanks.

Miranda, in the case you have the manuscript in PDF, attach it as a file, ask people to look over, to provide advice. I, personally, will try my best in the editing of your paper.

Folks, Hanno Krieger and I developed a plan in sharing the classical book in Physics, 

"KINETIC THEORY OF LIQUIDS", by JACOB FRENKEL, OXFORD PRESS, 1946. The book is in my possession. I send the book to Hanno, who keeps the book for as long as he feel the comfort of reading. Then, Hanno sends the book to another Scientist with the same condition apply. In the case any one within our group is interested to have the book, let him/her to inform Hanno. But Hanno is not to be rushed in time for reading, he will just know who is the next person to read.

Thanks Prof Alex, Hanno and friends for kind encouragement.  I will wait for the reviews to be done by the journals.  At least, I have learned that we must have several papers in the pipe line because some of our papers may get rejected.  That's why I sent 6 papers to 4 journals this year.  The latest news is one has been accepted, after some minor modifications.  Thanks again to all dear friends and profs :)