They are more likely to be cited by other scientists if they are helpful rather than cryptic or self-centered.
Scientific papers typically have two audiences: first, the referees, who help the journal editor decide whether a paper is suitable for publication; and second, the journal readers themselves, who may be more or less knowledgeable about the topic addressed in the paper.
Scientific papers are for sharing your own original research work with other scientists or for reviewing the research conducted by others.
As such, they are critical to the evolution of modern science, in which the work of one scientist builds upon that of others.
Start by stating the actual situation (what we have) as a direct continuation of the context.
If you feel you must explain recent achievements in much detail — say, in more than one or two paragraphs — consider moving the details to a section titled State of the art (or something similar) after the Introduction, but do provide a brief idea of the actual situation in the Introduction. Emphasize the contrast between the actual and desired situations with such words as but, however, or unfortunately.
To reach their goal, papers must aim to inform, not impress.
They must be highly readable — that is, clear, accurate, and concise.
(Papers reporting something other than experiments, such as a new method or technology, typically have different sections in their body, but they include the same Introduction and Conclusion sections as described above.) Although the above structure reflects the progression of most research projects, effective papers typically break the chronology in at least three ways to present their content in the order in which the audience will most likely want to read it.
First and foremost, they summarize the motivation for, and the outcome of, the work in an abstract, located before the Introduction.