Abstract: To succeed, a scientist must write well. Substantial guidance exists on writing papers that follow the classic Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRaD) structure. Here, we fill a critical gap in this pedagogical canon. We offer guidance on developing a good scientific story. This valuable—yet often poorly achieved—skill can increase the impact of a study and its likelihood of acceptance. A scientific story goes beyond presenting information. It is a cohesive narrative that engages the reader by presenting and solving a problem, with a beginning, middle, and end. To create this narrative structure, we urge writers to consider starting at the end of their study, starting with writing their main conclusions, which provide the basis of the Discussion, and then work backwards: Results → Methods → refine the Discussion → Introduction → Abstract → Title. In this brief and informal editorial, we offer guidance to a wide audience, ranging from upper-level undergraduates (who have just conducted their first research project) to senior scientists (who may benefit from re-thinking their approach to writing). To do so, we provide specific instruction, examples, and a guide to the literature on how to “write backwards”, linking scientific storytelling to the IMRaD structure.