Main-Text Writing & Structure (molcell-writing)

When to trigger

• Unsure how a Molecular 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 (Molecular Cell uses STAR Methods).
• Results wander through techniques instead of advancing the single-mechanism argument.

Molecular Cell Article structure (in order)

1. Summary — single paragraph (molcell-summary).
2. Introduction — ~3 short paragraphs posing the molecular question (molcell-framing).
3. Results — the bulk; organized by the proof of mechanism, with descriptive subheadings.
4. Discussion — concise interpretation, model, limitations; does not re-list results.
5. STAR Methods — Structured, Transparent, Accessible Reporting (molcell-star-methods).
6. Figure legends — each stands alone (title + per-panel + statistics).
7. References — Cell Press numbered style (molcell-citation).
8. Supplemental information — supporting figures/tables/videos.

Molecular 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 (verify on the official site)

• Article main text ≈ 7,000 words, counting Introduction, Results, Discussion, and main figure legends, but excluding STAR Methods, supplemental item legends, and references. A working target — confirm the current cap.
• Display items: up to ~7 figures/tables for a standard Article; additional supporting items go to Supplemental Information.
• Short Article: ~4,000 words for a single, fully validated conceptual point — consider it when the mechanism is decisive but compact.
• STAR Methods and references sit outside the main-text word budget but have their own expectations.

Numbers are working targets. The principle is fixed: Molecular Cell Articles are deep but tightly written; validation and orthogonal controls go to Supplemental Information and STAR Methods.

Results: subheadings that carry the mechanism

• Use descriptive subheadings that read as molecular claims ("The clamp loader gates ATP hydrolysis", not "Biochemical assays").
• Each Results block: claim sentence first, then the evidence (figure callout + numbers + statistics), then the inference and the alternative you exclude.
• Order by the logic of the proof (phenomenon → mechanism → separation-of-function → physiological relevance), not by the chronology of experiments.
• Each subheading should map to one or two figures.

Discussion discipline (concise)

• Interpret — don't recap. State the molecular model the data support and draw it in words.
• Address the main alternative mechanism and how your data exclude it.
• State limitations honestly (what the reconstitution omits, what the resolution cannot resolve).
• End on the mechanistic significance / open molecular question — not "more work is needed."

Length discipline tactics

• One idea per paragraph; lead with the claim.
• Move orthogonal confirmations, titrations, and controls to Supplemental (cited "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 mechanism; comprehensiveness is not a virtue here.

Cross-references

• Main figures: "Figure 1" (Cell Press 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 words incl. main legends → over/under ~7,000 (or ~4,000 Short Article)
【Display items】 N → within ~7? main vs Supplemental split
【Results subheadings】 molecular-claim style + proof-ordered? yes/no
【Discussion】 interpretive (model + excluded alternative)? limitations stated? yes/no
【Next】 molcell-figures

Anti-patterns

• Do not write a free-text Methods section — Molecular Cell requires STAR Methods.
• Do not let the Discussion re-list the Results.
• Do not order Results by technique chronology when the proof order is clearer.
• Do not pad the main text with arc-irrelevant experiments to look comprehensive.

Confirm exact word and item caps against the current Molecular Cell information-for-authors page.