Cell Writing

Main-Text Writing & Structure (cell-writing)

When to trigger

• Unsure how a Cell Article is structured.
• The main text is over length, or the Discussion repeats the Results.
• The Methods are written as a free-text section (Cell uses STAR Methods).
• Results wander instead of advancing the single narrative arc.

Cell Article structure (in order)

1. Summary — single paragraph, ≤ ~150 words (cell-summary).
2. Introduction — ≈3–4 short paragraphs setting up the hypothesis (cell-framing).
3. Results — the bulk; organized by the arc, with descriptive subheadings.
4. Discussion — concise interpretation, limitations, significance; does not re-list results.
5. STAR Methods — Structured, Transparent, Accessible Reporting (separate skill, cell-star-methods).
6. Figure legends — each stands alone (title + per-panel + statistics).
7. References — author–date style (cell-citation).
8. Supplemental information — supporting figures/tables/videos.

Cell does not use a free-text Methods section — methods live in STAR Methods with a Key Resources Table. This is non-negotiable for Cell Press.

Length and display-item budget

• Main text ≈ 45,000 characters including spaces (this typically counts Introduction, Results, Discussion, and figure legends, but not STAR Methods/references) — a working target; confirm the current cap.
• Display items: up to ~7–8 figures/tables typical for a Cell Article; additional supporting items go to Supplemental Information.
• STAR Methods and references are outside the main-text character budget but have their own expectations.

Numbers are working targets. The principle is fixed: Cell Articles are full stories but tightly written; supporting detail goes to Supplemental Information and STAR Methods.

Results: subheadings that carry the arc

• Use descriptive subheadings that read as mini-claims ("Protein X is required for Y", not "Microscopy experiments").
• Each Results block: claim sentence first, then the evidence (figure callout + numbers + statistics), then the inference.
• Order by the logic of the argument (phenomenon → mechanism → causality → generality), not by chronology of experiments.
• Each subheading should map to one or two figures.

Discussion discipline (concise)

• Interpret — don't recap. State what the mechanism means for the field.
• Address the main alternative explanation and how you exclude it.
• State limitations honestly (builds credibility and pre-empts reviewers).
• End on the broad significance / open question — not "more work is needed" filler.

Length discipline tactics

• One idea per paragraph; lead with the claim.
• Move validation, controls, and orthogonal confirmations to Supplemental Information (cited as "Figure S3", "Table S1").
• Cut "In order to" → "To"; cut "It is worth noting that" and throat-clearing.
• Demote any result that doesn't serve the single arc.

Cross-references

• Main figures: "Figure 1" (Cell spells out "Figure"); panels "Figure 1A".
• Supplemental: "Figure S1", "Table S1", "Video S1".
• STAR Methods sections are referenced by name (e.g., "see STAR Methods").

Output format

【Sections present】 Summary / Intro / Results / Discussion / STAR Methods / legends / refs
【Methods format】 free-text (FIX → STAR Methods) / STAR Methods (ok)
【Main-text length】 ~N chars incl. legends → over/under ~45,000
【Display items】 N → within ~7–8? main vs Supplemental split
【Results subheadings】 claim-style + argument-ordered? yes/no
【Discussion】 interpretive (not a recap)? limitations stated? yes/no
【Next】 cell-figures

Anti-patterns

• Do not write a free-text Methods section — Cell requires STAR Methods.
• Do not let the Discussion re-list the Results.
• Do not order Results chronologically when an argument order is clearer.
• Do not keep arc-irrelevant results in the main text to look comprehensive.

Confirm exact length and item caps against current Cell Press author guidelines.

Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Cell-Skills/skills/cell-writing/SKILL.md