Over the years I’ve learned a lot from watching how other people write. Here are some things I’ve picked up that you might find useful.<\/p>\n
Even though scientists are great at doing research, especially at the beginning of their career they don’t always meet the basic standard for\u00a0scientific writing.\u00a0This is why a few organisations have published writing checklists. For example, the CONSORT statement<\/a>\u00a0describes how to report clinical trials. Why not make things easier for yourself and use those checklists?<\/p>\n You’re not writing a novel, so use the same term for the same thing everywhere. If not, readers will think you mean something different.<\/p>\n This idea extends to structure and signposting through your manuscript. If you have two aims, then make sure the same two aims appear using the same language in the methods, and then in the results. Make it clear which results link with which methods, and which aim they are addressing. If you have results that don’t address the study aims, then those results are in the wrong paper or\u00a0maybe\u00a0you\u00a0should reconsider your aims.<\/p>\n These common phrases\u00a0are perfect examples of that –\u00a0as are many others:<\/p>\n The purpose of this section is to describe how we XYZ { Just use XYZ as a heading and start telling. }\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n From the literature we see that XYZ. { Just write: XYZ }. <\/em><\/p>\n The results are summarised in table 1. Blah blah… { Just write: Blah blah (table 1). }<\/em><\/p>\n You get the idea. Most manuscripts could be shortened by at least 10% without any change in meaning. In fact, they generally read better; a statement has greater authority when it isn’t sugar-coated and wrapped in these comfort phrases. Which is more convincing?<\/p>\n From the literature, we see that all elephants are grey [refs]\u00a0 OR\u00a0 All elephants are grey [refs]\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Use the present tense for stuff that is established wisdom (\u201cBy tradition, cake is<\/strong> baked in an oven\u2026\u201d<\/em>)<\/p>\n Use the past tense for stuff you did (\u201cIn the experiment, the cake was<\/strong> baked in an oven\u2026\u201d)<\/em>.<\/p>\n In a proposal, use the future tense for stuff you will do (\u201cThe cake will be<\/strong> baked in an oven\u2026\u201d)<\/em>.<\/p>\n The origin of ‘data’ is the plural of the Latin ‘datum’, but this point of view is a bit dogmatic. We (mostly) don’t speak Latin in Newcastle University, and even the Oxford English Dictionary accepts that data can be singular in common use.<\/p>\n Personally I\u2019d go with plural data<\/em>. But of course, you can write in 1st<\/span><\/sup> person and avoid the problem: \u201cWe analysed the data\u2026<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n Some words change their spelling when you move across the Atlantic. A \u201ctumour\u201d becomes a \u201ctumor\u201d, “aluminium\u201d becomes “aluminum\u201d, and verbs end in \u201cize\u201d rather than \u201cise\u201d.<\/p>\n Being English, and living in England, I write in\u00a0British English (BE). Reading a nicely-written article in BE conveys a sense of quality that is hard to describe; maybe the written equivalent of a newsreader voice.<\/p>\n Of course, the reverse is probably also true. If you’re writing an article for an American scientific audience, you should consider writing in\u00a0American English (AE). It might feel like a small thing, but can be a big deal depending on who the journal\u2019s editor is.<\/p>\n Whoever you are writing for, it’s best not to mix\u00a0BE and\u00a0AE spelling. This simple advice can prove harder in practice than you might expect. Microsoft products gravitate towards\u00a0AE spelling and it is easy to be auto-incorrected. Even when your default dictionary is\u00a0British English, documents created by somebody else will likely over-ride your settings and use the\u00a0AE dictionary.<\/p>\n We’re getting into personal opinion here, so treat this section with caution.<\/p>\n Tradition has it that scientific literature is written in the third person, passive voice:\u00a0the cake was baked <\/em>has a ring of impartial, objective science about it. No human involvement. Presumably if there were real people involved, the cake would be over-egged or burned or something, which cannot be allowed to happen in science.<\/p>\n Personal view<\/u>: avoiding I\/we isn’t always\u00a0beneficial\u00a0in terms of style. I\u2019ve never heard an argument that wasn\u2019t a variation on \u2018it\u2019s just what you do<\/em>\u2019.<\/p>\n Here is my case for writing in the first person; but do\u00a0let me know if you have a reasoned counter-argument and I’ll add it to this page.<\/p>\n Exhibit 1: 3rd person passive is usually unclear about who did what<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIt was hypothesised <\/em>\u2026\u201d is ambiguous as to who did the hypothesising.<\/p>\n So it’s clearer to use first person:\u00a0\u201cWe hypothesised <\/em>\u2026.\u201d { 2 words: describes the facts of the matter concisely and scientifically }<\/p>\n But \u2018we\u2019 is breaking the rules, so we need a different subject for our sentence:\u00a0\u201cThese studies tested the hypothesis <\/em>\u2026.\u201d { 5 words, suggested by an internet authority to address this specific example. }<\/p>\n Why don\u2019t I like this sentence? It\u2019s twice as long as it needed to be. And now \u2018the studies\u2019 are doing all the work, whereas the experimenters (you!) are nowhere to be seen.\u00a0 I want to know specifically WHO did the hypothesising. Avoiding we\/I forces you to construct sentences like this, where inanimate objects take the place of the people who actually did the work.<\/p>\n Summary: You are writing up a large body of work that you and your colleagues made happen. How does it make sense that\u00a0we<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0I<\/em> cannot play any part in the action?<\/p>\n Exhibit 2: some verbs only work with a human subject<\/span><\/p>\n Very often, you will read “The study hypothesises…”\u00a0<\/em>or “The data suggest…<\/em>“, which are nice work-arounds to avoid\u00a0we\u00a0<\/em>or\u00a0I<\/em>.<\/p>\n I quite like \u201cThe data suggest<\/em>\u2026\u201d, but data aren\u2019t human: in my mind data can not speculate, or resign themselves to failure, or react violently to another author\u2019s uninformed opinion in the way I<\/em>\u00a0or we\u00a0<\/em>can.\u00a0 Avoiding ‘I’ and ‘we’ restricts the verbs and other language you can use.<\/p>\n You could\u00a0advocate very occasionally using\u00a0the word \u2018one\u2019. \u201cOne can speculate as to how Kipling et al arrived at their conclusion\u2026\u201d<\/em> sends a certain understated British passive-aggressive message that is hard to capture using any other turn of phrase.<\/p>\n Summary: Human-like opinions and activities need a human actor.<\/p>\n Exhibit 3: the past tense of most English verbs serves also as an adjective<\/span><\/p>\n Baked <\/em>is a past tense, and also an adjective.\u00a0 \u201cThe cake was baked\u201d<\/em> might be a description of the cake (like: \u201cthe cake was raw\u201d)<\/em>, rather than something that happened to the cake.<\/p>\n To clear the ambiguity,\u00a0\u201cThe cake was baked\u201d <\/em>\u00a0has to be rewritten as\u00a0\u201cWe baked the cake\u201d <\/em>or\u00a0\u201cI baked the cake\u201d. <\/em>First person, active voice. And now I know WHO did the baking.<\/p>\n Summary: The 3rd person passive voice is ambiguous.<\/p>\n On the active voice<\/span><\/p>\n All these examples work better in the active voice. To write in the active voice, avoid where possible using the verb \u2018to be\u2019 . . . is, are, was, were.<\/em> There is an entire variation on the English language<\/a>\u00a0where\u00a0to be\u00a0<\/em>is disallowed. Not always possible and\/or often results in poor English (read the criticisms on the Wiki page), but as a guideline it\u2019s helpful.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I\u2019ve probably thought a bit too much about this. No doubt others will come back with good counter-arguments, so have a\u00a0look at this article\u00a0in defence of my personal\u00a0opinion<\/a> (from the 4th<\/sup> paragraph down). This is a good reference in its own right.<\/p>\n Right, rant over. I await the storm of protest – so long as the protests are based on carefully constructed linguistic arguments.\u00a0In the meantime,\u00a0you might speak to your supervisor if you think they have a strong preference for style.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Over the years I’ve learned a lot from watching how other people write. Here are some things I’ve picked up that you might find useful. Thing 1: Use a checklist Even though scientists are great at doing research, especially at … Continue reading Thing 2: Be consistent and structured<\/h3>\n
Thing 3: Don’t write the way you speak<\/h3>\n
Thing 4: Proper use of tenses<\/h3>\n
Thing 5: Proper use of the word ‘data’<\/h3>\n
Thing 6: UK or US spelling<\/h3>\n
Thing 7: Writing style – first person active OR third person passive<\/h3>\n