Previously I mentioned that it’s time for the writing in science research articles to change – to become clearer and more accessible to a wider audience. I think that much of the confusion in the literature stems from the fact that scientists are rarely informed about techniques on structuring and revising their articles.
Below are a few ideas about how researchers can achieve a clearer and more natural style of writing. These suggestions can help researchers marshal their data into a coherent story; they also help readers because a logically structured account of the significant finding is so much easier for readers to understand than a random or semi-structured compilation of data.
These tips relate to the structure and content of a manuscript, beginning with the paper Abstract. As I posted in a response to my previous entry, most agree that it’s crucial to get the Abstract right because more readers will read your Abstract that any other part of the manuscript. And if busy readers like your Abstract, then they’re likely to continue reading the full paper. As well, if you get the information right in the Abstract, it can serve as a blueprint for your paper. (Try writing your Abstract first because you can see quite quickly if you have found or missed your true focus – your single most important finding – and if you’ve included too much detail.) I recommend the Structured Abstract because it tells the story of your research in a way that’s logical to your readers. If anyone wants the details of the Structured Abstract, I’d be happy to post them – with examples of original(unstructured) and revised (structured) Abstracts.
The next suggestion relates to the content of the article. Once you’ve established the focus of your paper (your most significant contribution) and written a draft of your Abstract or paper, it’s crucial to revise your writing to overcome some of the most egregious mistakes that contribute to a style of writing that is confused and confusing. These errors include overuse of specialized terms, the passive voice, “be” verbs, nominalizations. (Careful editing can transform a boring and convoluted text into a paper that’s a joy to read.) Again, if anyone wants specific editing tips, just let me know.
The above techniques can help researchers gain control over a sea of data, enable them to write precisely, and result in a lucid text because “clear writing leads to clear thinking and clear thinking leads to clear writing”.
Possible next blog topics include: how to transform convoluted sentences into sentences where ideas shine through; some causes of confused writing in science; can/should journal editors make clear writing a journal priority?; tips on writing paper titles; the benefits of the Structured Abstract; tips on writing logical Introductions; tips on writing logical Discussions. Please let me know if you’re interested in any of the above blog possibilities.
I wish I could write in simpler terms too, as publications with less jargon can reach out to a wider scope of readers not well-versed in the same field. It took me almost 2 years to build up manuscript-writing skills. However, the way I tell the story of my research sounds passive and I use a lot of “be” verbs. I am curious how a structured abstract looks like. I am also interested to learn more about effective scientific writing. Looking forward to your next post on the blog!
Hi Vivien,
Yes, it takes a long time to acquire good editing skills – and then you have to keep practicing them too.(It’s more like practicing the piano than riding a bike if you know what I mean!)
I’ll put up some information about structured abstracts soon that you can add to your repertoire.
Linda
Hi Linda,
How I truly agree! Without practice, everything will go down the drain…
Appreciate your inputs.
Vivien
I would be interested to read your posts on any of the topics you suggest, but in particular I’d like to hear your thoughts on “how to transform convoluted sentences into sentences where ideas shine through”. This can seem a very difficult task, especially when the writer has in their own mind a great many details behind every statement they make, and indeed is expected to provide evidence for all their claims.
Hi Kathryn,
I’ve deconstructed the Abstract to your paper on “Multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Paratyphi A” and would be happy to give you some editing suggestions if you send me your email address.
Linda
Linda,
I just found your blog today and have enjoyed reading your blog posts. My writing world was transformed by W. Strunk’s “Elements of style”. Many of your points are true to Strunk’s dictum: “Brevity is a by product of vigor”.
I would like to read your tips on writing paper titles.
Arun
Hi Arun,
Glad that you like the blogs.
Strunk and White get many things right and I’d also recommend “The Elements of Style” by Joe Williams.
I’ll try to post some guidelines on titles soon.
Linda
Dear Linda I read your blog today and I would be very glad to have the opportunity to read some tips on making scientific writing clearer. It would be pssible to send me by email.
Frederico Sousa (Brazil) fredericosousa@hotmail.com