Does anybody have some research papers writing advices? I am writing a biology research paper. My topic is related to organs transplantation (current issues, ethical problems etc). I have written a draft and showed it to my professor. She was satisfied with the content and research, but she told that I need to work on my writing. According to her, I didn't follow the structure, but I have no idea how am I supposed to build my research paper. Can somebody give me suggestions or recommend me articles about research paper writing?
Each writer has their own style and many of the things that pass for good writing for some, are bad writing for some others. But, if you are in a certain research field, the scientific papers always follow some kind of template.

For example, I'm a physicist. The typical paper structure (e.g. Phys. Rev. B) is:


Introduction 
Formulate hypothesis in the context of current research.
Method/Formalism
Describe your methods.
Results and Discussion 
Show your results and explain them.
Conclusions
State your most important results and discuss their value in the context of current research in the field.


The way I see my ideal paper is like a mathematical proof. In the introduction I discuss what others have done and what method they used to get the results directly relevant to mine, and explain why obtaining my new result is useful for the development of my subfield of physics. In other words, this is where I formulate the problem and refer to the tools (models, methods) I'm going to use to solve it.

In the second section I briefly introduce my model and method, but I only explain in detail stuff I have done beyond the current state of the art to solve my problem. Very technical things go into the appendices or supplementary information. Stuff that is known and explained well elsewhere is cited.

The third section is where the results are reported and explained. I would probably write "I measured this and got that", but not without explaining how is that agrees or contradicts previous results. I would also highlight the novelty of the result if it's new. This section is hard to write because one often has many interesting graphs and formulas, but needs to keep only the most relevant to the conclusions that are drawn. Again, interesting stuff that further supports your hypothesis, but it's technical, or you don't have space for it here, can go in the supplementary material or appendix.

The conclusion section is the most important because you explain there how is your result new, relevant and important, how it advances the field, and what future work you suggest (without giving away more than you need to).

Most papers follow this kind of model, but each publishing venue has its own, most of the time annoying, templates and standards. If you write a paper in PhyS. Rev., you have to have in mind their template, if your paper is written for Science, you better prepare a draft using their template. 

This is my answer, and I hope you get better ones. But, if you don't, check some links you can find with google:
Elsevier article, Nature article, this paper.