Technical writing tip #1 of 6
Ai Lin Chun
Sunday, 14 October 2007 14:21 UTC
Happy Monday everyone!
Due to popular demand, I’ve decided to recap some of the technical writing tips from the seminars I’ve given during lab visits. In a series of six, this week, tip #1 is: Keep it Simple
This means use short sentences and keep technical jargon to a minimum.
Break sentences down so they are easier to read and follow.
For example:
LONG and CONFUSING sentence
The design of the microscope incorporates aberration lenses, 3 different lasers, which are suspended above the lenses which is housed in a chamber
SIMPLIFIED sentence
The microscope consists of aberration lenses and three different lasers.
Each laser is suspended above the lens and housed in a chamber.
Any further questions or if you have a nice example to share or just want to practice, please post them here.
We’re all guilty of writing long and confusing sentences, whether native or non-native speaker of the language.
-
Replies
-
Good tips!
I’d like to mention a couple of other sources:Linda Cooper has a blog on Nature Network called Time For a Change, which contains very good advice on writing, with examples.
And Nature Publishing Group has a free-access author and reviewers’ website, which has pages of advice in eight languages about getting published in a Nature journal, and a page on writing advice, which links to useful resources, including translation services and Nature journal editorials on writing papers.
-
Very interesting this! As of great importance to the scientific community. The simplicity is all.
I liked the tips and I will apply to my articles and publications. -
Thanks, Maxine for the tips!
We all learn best through examples and working through it with someone. I’m posting an example of a long sentence that I would normally edit when checking manuscripts. Would someone like to try and simplify this one?
LONG SENTENCE
Although effective methods for choosing appropriate targets have yet to be identified, and this is a major area of active research (i.e., through genomics and proteomics), to date, it has been more feasible to create new technologies to enhance interactions with existing targets. These technologies include fusion proteins, engineered antibodies, and protein-based ligand mimetics, among others.
-
Here is my shot:
Although there is no way yet to identify appropriate targets, it is possible to enhance interactions with existing targets using fusion proteins, engineered antibodies, protein-based ligand mimetics, and other new technologies.
By the way, there is a new entry on Spoonful of Medicine blog that you might like to read in this context!
-
That’s a very efficient sentence, Maxine. Thanks! I learned something too…
Here is my original edit:
Although using genomics and proteomics technology to choose appropriate targets is an active area of research, to date no effective methods have been identified. Creating new technologies to enhance interactions with existing targets seem more promising.
It’s clear there is no one correct way to simplify things but checking the word count might be a good place to start. If there are too many words, chances are the sentence is too long and starts to get confusing.
Another suggestion/guideline that I usually try to follow is:
“Edit-Sit-Edit again”
and for writers/Authors:
“Write-Sit-Edit-(Sit)-Edit again”This means do the first round of writing, sit on it for 1 day or so, edit it on a different day, sit on it and then edit again. Repeat as necessary.
Trying to write and edit your own work all at one go is bound to be a tedious and difficult task.
I checked the blog you suggested and had a good laugh. Not mockingly but because it was all too familiar.
I copy it below for the viewers in this network as an example of something NOT to do, at least for papers that are submitted to Nature Nanotechnology:
HMBA Releases P-TEFb from HEXIM1 and 7SK snRNA via PI3K/Akt and Activates HIV Transcription
REMEMBER:
1) Keep acronyms and abbreviations to a minimum.
2) Keep it Simple!
3) Write so you reach out to as many people as possible -
Hello All,
I do agree that simplicity is certainly a key to good communication in all disciplines; as someone said, sometimes “less is more”.
For instance, I have personally seen very good scientific manuscripts, holding high quality data, getting rejected just because of the wordy way they were written up.
It is not only that simplicity to express ideas makes them look better and easy to understand, but also, the fact that reviewers do not have time to go through long papers.
The same applies for talks; the audience loses focus when the talk does not flow in a concise, clear, somehow captivating manner.
I think simplicity comes together with the ability to PRIORITIZE what we want to say, write, communicate.
The good news is that prioritization is a skill that we can create ourselves and transfer to our work environment, and it then keeps improving througout our careers. -
Well said, Luciana!
I would add that during my talks I often say, ‘first think about the main message and then write’.
One of the main requests have been to give lots of examples. So, in response to this, I’m posting another example:
Current cancer treatments include surgical intervention, radiation, and chemotherapeutic drugs-based treatments. These treatments are often restricted by adverse systemic toxicity, limiting the dose that can be administered, and by lack of selectivity in killing cancerous cells without harming healthy cells.
Anyone wants to try to simplify this?
-
Hi Ai-Lin, and everyone,
Allow me for somewhat late reply.
Here’s my idea:
It is difficult to treat cancer effectively without harming healthy tissues, regardless of the types of treatments. These treatments include surgical intervention, radiation, or chemotherapy, which are currently available.
…Did I change too much?Anyway I am really happy with this kind of contributions of Ai-Lin’s, including another topic, on reviewing the manuscripts, which are valuable for nonnative English speakers including myself. Let me circulate the contents to my colleagues.
Best,
Mitsunobu -
Hello Mitsunobu,
Your two sentences are nice, short and simple. However, what you have done was re-order the ideas rather than condensing them into a simple sentence. I’ve put the three in one place for comparison…
ORIGINAL: Current cancer treatments include surgical intervention, radiation, and chemotherapeutic drugs-based treatments. These treatments are often restricted by adverse systemic toxicity, limiting the dose that can be administered, and by lack of selectivity in killing cancerous cells without harming healthy cells.
MITSUNOBU: It is difficult to treat cancer effectively without harming healthy tissues, regardless of the types of treatments. These treatments include surgical intervention, radiation, or chemotherapy, which are currently available.
EDITOR’S EDIT: Current cancer treatments include surgical intervention, radiation, and chemotherapeutic drugs, which often also kill healthy cells and cause toxicity to the patient.
I hope this helps…Please feel free to post further questions if you have any. Someone will respond!
-
