From procrastination to publication: Writing my first first-author research paper
Created: 12/16/2025, 7:13:35 AM · Updated: 12/16/2025, 7:13:35 AM
Writing your first research paper is often one of the most intimidating steps in a researcher’s journey. Even with strong results and positive feedback, the fear of criticism or not being “good enough” can create a barrier that delays progress. This note shares a practical, experience-based approach to overcoming that initial hesitation. By starting with simple, concrete tasks (like preparing figures) and gradually building the manuscript section by section, the writing process becomes clearer, more structured, and far less overwhelming. The goal is to show that with the right strategy, supportive feedback, and a step-by-step mindset, any researcher can navigate the challenges of scientific writing with confidence.
Let us be honest: writing your first research paper is intimidating. I remember clearly the moment I realized I had results worthy of publication during my PhD. I had shared my work at seminars and conferences and had encouraging feedback. Still, I stalled for months before writing a single sentence.
1. The procrastination phase
At first, I kept telling myself I would start ‘soon.’ I felt nervous! What if my work wasn’t good enough? What if other researchers, including our competitors, picked it apart? These thoughts led to serious procrastination. But procrastination turned out to be even more stressful than writing.
It took a long meeting with my PhD advisors to finally break the deadlock. They didn’t ask me to start with the introduction or a polished first draft. Instead, they nudged me to begin with something concrete: the figures.
2. Getting started: Figures first
This was the turning point. I already had experience making publication-quality figures, so I started there. Then I wrote the figure legends. Next, I used those to build out the results section. Slowly, the paper began to take shape.
Surprisingly, this part flowed more easier than I expected. Once I started citing relevant studies that informed my experiments, the introduction became clearer too. It became a matter of laying out the background, identifying the knowledge gap, and showing how my work fit in.
3. Writing the Discussion (Yes, the Scary part)
The discussion section is where many people struggle. I know this from my experience as an editor working on research manuscripts. It’s easy to write it like an extended literature review but it should instead highlight your contribution to the research field. If the introduction is about past work and knowledge gaps, the discussion is where you explain how your findings move the research field forward.
Fortunately, this part came more naturally to me. I enjoyed making connections and seeing the bigger picture emerge. Once I had a complete draft, my advisors stepped in. Their suggestions were eye-opening. They reworded paragraphs to improve flow and introduced what I now recognize as power words (concise, strong terms that say a lot with few words).
After about 8–9 rounds of feedback (with my advisors and a colleague who helped with data analysis), we had a full draft.
4. Save the Abstract for the last
Abstract ? That came last. It always amuses me that the section at the top of a paper was the last one to be written. But this makes sense because it requires a clear view of the full story, something you only really have after everything else is in place.
5. A few practical tips that helped me
Here are some things I learned that may help you too:
- Start with figures and legends to overcome blank-page anxiety (begin with what is easy) .
- Create an outline (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion). Add bullet points or headings (outline the structure).
- Reviewers often ask for more. So, keep some data in reserve (don’t include all your data in the first submission).
- You’ll only know the full story once you have written the rest (write the abstract last).
- Tools like Zotero, EndNote, or Mendeley save time and reduce formatting errors (use reference management software).
- The intro sets the stage using existing literature; the discussion builds on it using your findings (know the difference between Introduction and Discussion).
- Make use of phrases that signal cautious claims such as “the data suggests…” and adverbs like “possibly” or “likely” (use hedging language).
- Advisors, colleagues, or even scientific editors (like the services we provide) can help you find the right tone and tighten the narrative (get feedback).
6. Final thoughts
Once I had the full draft, we finalized our choice of target journals (with backups in case of rejection), formatted the manuscript according to their guidelines, and submitted it. Writing the paper went from being a mental block to something I actually began to enjoy, especially after seeing how feedback helped shape it into something clear, strong, and publishable.
Now that my colleagues and I provide English polishing and scientific editing services, we often see how many researchers struggle with similar issues, especially with the discussion section or overly exhaustive introductions. You are not alone! The process is tough but manageable, especially when broken into smaller steps.