In the past, I did not understand the art of writing a title. In fact, now that I gather, the title is the second most important factor for citations, right after being Open Access or not. It is the face of a paper.
A title should tell a story as much as possible. My past titles typically reflects the research goal and method, more descriptive, but then the real question is whether this is the story you want to convey? If your objective is to get people's attention on your novel techniques, then go for it. I am pretty sure this is important in the engineering field. But if you are telling a scientific story, while the methods are just tools for achieving this goal, then the title should be considered a headline for your story.
A title should be as short as possible. Now that if your title is not that technical, then you can shorten it much more easily. For example, you can cut off your data, approach, research scope/region (unless this detail is important).
A title should be as concrete as possible. Sure you want to have a short title, but you can't make it too general and vague. You need to select the most important message from probably 3 highlights and strike a good balance between being too broad and too specific.
It may be a good idea to come up a few titles throughout the writing process. You surely write a title at the beginning and may want to update the title after you have done your first draft. Then communicate with general audience and see their reactions: which one they can get your gist the quickest? which one they will have interest to read further? which one they will consider a good prompt to remember after several months/years?
No comments:
Post a Comment