This template, which we developed by working with scientists at partner institutions, helps you quickly break down the paper you're translating into the most important components. It's the first step of submitting an article to Massive, whether you plan to write it yourself or want us to find another scientists in your field to help write.
As you write, imagine you're telling a story to friends around a dinner table. Use simple, descriptive, active language and try to highlight the most important, interesting and impressive parts of the paper. Here are some additional tips if you need help getting started.
When you're done, share this document with nadja@massivesci.com and gabe@massivesci.com and we'll be in touch!

Paper Title

Paper DOI

Are you interested in writing, or do you want us to help find someone to write?

Intro

List five different reasons why this paper is important to scientists, to the public, and/or to you personally.

Why should your audience – whether it's other scientists, policymakers or the public – care about this paper? There are often multiple equally compelling reasons. Another way to think of this is as “headlines” for your paper.
  1.  
  2.  
  3.  
  4.  
  5.  

Write a plain language summary of the paper. (1-2 sentences)

Why should your audience – whether it's other scientists, policymakers or the public – care about this paper? There are often multiple equally compelling reasons. Another way to think of this is as “headlines” for your paper.

Describe the historical context of the paper. (1-2 sentences)

What previous research is this paper building on? Is it challenging, confirming or extending existing ideas, branching out in new directions, or something else?

Methods

We've surprisingly found that audiences love reading about methods if they're introduced properly. This is because methods sections often follow a story-like format that people naturally follow, even if the details are technical. Here's a framework that works well for most methods summaries.

What challenges did researchers face when they started answering their hypotheses? (1-3 sentences)

What tools and techniques did they use to try to address those challenges? (1-3 sentences)

Why and how did they decide on those tools and techniques? (1-3 sentences)

Is there anything new, unique or surprising about the methods they used? (1-3 sentences)

For example, did they have to invent new techniques, adapt existing ones in interesting ways, or discover that a counterintuitive approach worked best?

Do you see any holes or limitations in their methods? (1-3 sentences)

Conclusion

What open questions were left by the paper? Are there obvious next steps for researchers in the field? (1-3 sentences)

Optional: What open questions were left by the paper? Are there obvious next steps for researchers in the field? (1-3 sentences)

Optional: What's the personal story of how the paper came to be? Who thought of the study and what motivated them? (1-3 sentences)

Media

Provide links to any media that you think is absolutely necessary for a reader to see, hear or interact with (photo, video, audio, interactive, etc.).

We can only publish certain CC or open licensed material, but we can also create some of our own media based on existing work. See our style guide for common image sources.

Provide a link to an up-to-date profile photo of you.

Please provide a short (2-3 line) bio.