The IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) outline has been recommended and suggested as the minimum outline for writing empirical/scientific papers/manuscripts. However, there appears not to be such generally agreed upon outline for position papers (papers not based on hypotheses testing). What outline would you suggest based on practices in your discipline?
The only recommendation that could be universally agreed upon, IMHO, is beginning with Introduction (likely containing the thesis statement somewhere) and ending with Conclusions, or Conclusions + Future Perspectives in some cases. The headings in between will always depend on the preference of the author(s) and on the problem they are dealing with. Even if we explicitly asked for claims and counterclaims, evidence, alternatives, etc., we could not impose a certain sequence.
Maybe something like this as recommendation? But clarifying that authors are free to choose their own outline:
-Intro
-Current state
-Position / Thesis
-Alternatives / Counterclaims
-Conclusions
Just a vague approach. There may be some journal that is more explicit on this.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers