Always the history behind things fascinate people. If the subject is for a general audience, I would prefer the historical background of the subject or topic be included.

But if the problem or topic is just a follow up and continuity of a result from an existing result  and is meant  for a specialized audience (audience of the field ) who already know the topic and where the subject stands, then it might be better to directly go to the results to reduce probably boredom . 

But you indicated in your question that it is a problem, what that means is you have an unsolved problem. In that case it is very important to start with the history behind the problem and the anecdotal reports on prior  attempts (if exist ) made by others to solve the problem. 

Present status of a subject highlighting its scope/ impact / justification/ utility facilitating the framing of objectives of the proposed study may be discussed under introduction. Relevant history may then follow as review of literature. History (brief and relevant) needs to be reviewed in order to avoid duplication of work and also to refine the proposed plan of action for tackling the shortcomings still remaining to be addressed. This much of a background information may be adequate to lead a reader into the main course of the paper. 

Always the history behind things fascinate people. If the subject is for a general audience, I would prefer the historical background of the subject or topic be included.

But if the problem or topic is just a follow up and continuity of a result from an existing result  and is meant  for a specialized audience (audience of the field ) who already know the topic and where the subject stands, then it might be better to directly go to the results to reduce probably boredom . 

But you indicated in your question that it is a problem, what that means is you have an unsolved problem. In that case it is very important to start with the history behind the problem and the anecdotal reports on prior  attempts (if exist ) made by others to solve the problem. 

The choice of method of presentation of the results depends on the specific subject and the problem addressed.

Better ways to present a subject  in Chronological Order (Historical) or simple narration of events (Problem).

This is analogous to designing Data Capture Screens in IT

• Category (from a Drop down) and Sub-Category (Combo Box) - Historical
• Legacy data (as a Attach File) or Incident narration (descriptive box) - Problem Narration

http://www.manageengine.com/products/service-desk/help/ManageEngine_ServiceDeskPlus_8_Help_UserGuide.pdf

If the chronological background is relevant to help understanding the nature and pending issues of the problem, it should be included. In most cases historical antecedents help to understand the evolution of the problem, but not its essence; unless it's a historical research work. Sometimes, including a historic background makes the introduction too long.

But, I believe a specific analysis must be done for each case.

In economy papers I always include an economic justification for the research work, and its impact on society or industry. Society need to know the possible economic impact of research.

My problems are with the size of an accepted article. Sometimes you have to fit your work in 7 pages only, so you cannot be so historically extended. If, however, there exists plenty of space, then I'd prefer to post other trials for solving the same problem, comparing them with my approach. Of course you can guess who will be the winner in such a comparison....

:)

The way of presentation is subject- and/or problem -specific. However, I personally feel that giving contemporary relevance of the historical part, status, scope and importance of the subject or problem in the beginning (Introduction) would be better that would clearly define the rationale. This should follow historical background consecutively, approach adopted for addressing the subject/ problem, pronouncement and wrapping up statements/recommendation.

Dear @Demetris, You should find a place for historically approach in your paper if relevant. I like the explanation of @Alejandro.

Of course, some exceptions may exist, which is the matter of specificity of problems (@Vladimir).

Good reading on this issue is attached. "Scientific papers typically have two audiences: first, the referees, who help the journal editor decide whether a paper is suitable for publication; and second, the journal readers themselves, who may be more or less knowledgeable about the topic addressed in the paper. To be accepted by referees and cited by readers, papers must do more than simply present a chronological account of the research work. Rather, they must convince their audience that the research presented is important, valid, and relevant to other scientists in the same field. To this end, they must emphasize both the motivation for the work and the outcome of it, and they must include just enough evidence to establish the validity of this outcome."

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/scientific-papers-13815490

Certainly one should include who's done what and how we end up to this problem. Other historical remarks should be included only if illuminate the problem at hand.

Dear All

As we know the definition of science i.e. to study in a systematic and serial wise way.

So it is necessary to given a brief description in  about the history so called literature review and then come over the pending problems and future tasks.

It depends on the problem you describe. If you will be boring with your repeats, because everybody knows the history, please omit it. If your historical repeats clarify your problem and subject, deliver what ever is needed, but don´t forget, your results and analysis are the motivation for your publication.

Historical review of a problem is always necessary for solving it;moreover, scientific discoveries should be continuous rather than discontinuous. Hence, for making a good sense of a discovery, the background history is very much essential to cite in a paper. This validates the work of a researcher.

It depends on the subject matter. If history will give induction-deduction to the subject then it is important.

Dear Professor Barbara

I am fully agreed with your nice opinion.

The state of art is necessary to identify the pending problem whose attempt of solution must represent the aim to design the study.

It depends from the paper's length, the subject issue and the journal's audience  to address. Generally a review 'even short' of the research subject is recommended to identify the statement of the  research. If the audience of the journal is close to the research topic and the paper's content is merely technical, experimental, or applied, no need of the problem history as most of the readers are close to it. If the content is theoretical or analytical and the paper's content is novel, the state of art is necessary, to fix and discuss the novelty .

@Brenda,

you are completely right within courses, but a paper is no course and the criteria for shortening are a little bit sharper. But my opinion and dear Faihrouz meaning are not so different.

Dear Professor Krishnan Umachandran

Thank you very much.

In my advanced age, I no longer need the credits just to publish a paper. So, I take on the Classical, but still unsolved problems. As an example I attach the paper on the Capillary Pressire Function, which was published in Sept. 2014. I knew about this problem more than 25 years, it was already old, was rated as not having analytical solution. I worked on this problem 20 years, found such a solution. I tried to find the History of the problem on Internet, no data available. So, I treated the problem as PENDING. After the paper was published, I found that the problem was formulated by BUCKINGHAM, National Bureau of Standards, US, in 1907. So, problem stayed unresolved for 107 years. 

Dear Alexander,

I think there are different motivations to publish. The younger scientist performs publishing to start or improve a carrier. The advanced and aged scientists do this work by convincement and "pure" interest for the field. I´ve missed such a hint like yours in the whole discussion.

Dear Hanno, sure, in the case solution of the problem comes to a person, collecting retirement benefits, he/she should publish results. There are no former scientists, like there are no former dogs. And I have never met a senile scientist, as they have robust and trained braines.  But you are correct, motivations are different. 

I must say, Alex, after reading your paper, that it is a "real stroke of genius!" Excellent work, the analytic solution adheres to experimental data quite closely, which implies all requisite forces have been accounted for... bravo.

Thanks, Luis, all these strokes came to me after age 70, so, this is the prime age for me. On the other hand no one pushes me to come with new result, so, this is the work done by a free man.