Disrupting the inheritance of poor writing habits:

a new approach to scientific writing in

the life sciences

Charles FrinkFrink Communications

frinkcom@xs4all.nlFounding Member of ProSciCom

www.proscicom.nl

The problem: 500,000 new publications per year in the life sciences — almost 1 per minute.

Poor writing habits add to this problem: “There is no form of prose more difficult to understand and tedious to read than the average scientific paper” (Francis Crick)

From the reader’s perspective

• Easy-to-read articles are scarce

• The credibility and relevance of the study are not immediately clear.

• Reading is hard work!

From the perspective of journal editors and peer reviewers

• Originality of the research is dubious

• Its relevance cannot be seen

• Has this research has made any contributions?

• Why is this work interesting?

• “Generations of editors, reviewers and readers have struggled to understand complex, exaggerated and often pompous prose that does little to enhance the reader’s understanding but aims to demonstrate the scholarly prowess of the author.”Amin Bredan (2013)

• Bredan A, Inheritance of poor writing habits, EMBO reports (2013) 14, 593-596

This style has its origins in academic writing, which often aims

“to impress, not to express"

From George Orwell1 to Steven Pinker2, scholars have pointed

out the problem and suggested solutions

1. “Politics and the English Language” (1946)

2. “Why Academics Stink at Writing” (2014)

Teachers of scientific writing have focused on the linguistic “nuts and bolts”…

…but the quality of much writing in the life sciences is still below par.

Why?

Specialization!

Increasing specialization means that published research is increasingly difficult for outsiders to understand.

Authors must focus on readability for the non-specialist

Who are these non-specialist readers?

• Members of multidisciplinary consortia

• Policy makers in health care

• Members of grant assessment boards

Readability = credibility

Jargon, passive voice, embedded expressions and complex sentences obscure meaning — even for readers in the same discipline

Poor writing habits are inherited

Ineffective writing is transmitted by senior scientists to junior ones.

Amin Bredan, scientist and journal editor

Disrupting the inheritance of poor writing habits

Begin with the “meta-structure” of a manuscript•Focus on core concepts first, then support them with details.

•Tie the core concepts together as a story, with a beginning and an end.

Expert communicators use core concepts

• Experts organize their knowledge around core concepts—"big ideas that guide their thinking about their domains.” (John Branford, How People Learn, NAP, 2000)

Structure has priority over language

• When core concepts are clearly presented and solidly connected, linguistic aspects become less crucial and easier to improve.

• Peer reviewers can focus on the actual scientific content, even if the linguistic aspects are below par.

Tell a story

• We are hard-wired to tell and understand stories

• Build your story on core concepts • Start from common ground

The first sentence of an introductionfrom a novice

“Basal ganglia is a term to denote subcortical nuclei, consisting of the striatum (putamen or PUT and caudate nucleus or CN), the pallidum (internal and external globus pallidus or GPi and GPe), subthalamic nucleus (STN) and substantia nigra (pars compacta or SNc and pars reticulata or SNr).”

The first sentence of an introduction from an expert:

Influenza threatens the lives of many patients—especially the elderly and the very young.

General aspects of a scientific article

Author’s aim

Poor writing habit Good writing habit Impress the reader with exaggerated novelty, unnecessary jargon and many technical details

Communicate clearly and concisely to the reader, while using the minimum of jargon and technical details

Logical flow

General aspects of a scientific article

Poor writing habit Good writing habit

Details first, often very technical, core concepts last.

Core concepts first, supported with details.

Voice

General aspects of a scientific article

Poor writing habit Good writing habit

Largely passive Wordy, often unclear who did what. No first person

Largely activeConcise, always clear about who did what.First person where needed for clarity and credibility

Core components of an article

1. Title

2. Problem definition and strategy

3. Research question/hypothesis

4. Methods/study design

5. Results

6. Discussion

7. Conclusion

Core concept 1: the title

Poor writing habit Good writing habit

Describes study design, often cryptic (jargon, no verbs)

Contains a “nugget” of useful information, often expressed with a verb.

Example of a title

“Local meteorological data predicts malaria epidemics in Ethiopia”

Core concept 2: Problem definition and general

strategy

Poor writing habit Good writing habit

Technical and wordy. Relevance is unclear for the non-specialist.Scope is too broad

Relevance is clear for non-specialist reader: begin on common ground. Scope of the problem is within credible limits.

Example of problemand general strategy

“Most deaths from malaria in Ethiopia could be prevented if adequate medical facilities and medicines were available at the beginning of an epidemic. This, however, requires predicting epidemics.”

Core concept 3:Research question/hypothesis

Poor writing habit Good writing habit

Implied or vaguely worded: “was explored…, was assessed…,

Explicit hypothesis with measurable/observable variables and their relationships: “we tested the hypothesis that….”

Example of research question

(1) What local meteorological factors, and what combinations of factors, correlate significantly with the occurrence of subsequent malaria epidemics in Ethiopia? (2)To what extent do the factors explain the variance of occurrence of subsequent epidemics?

Core concept 4: Methods/study design

Poor writing habit Good writing habit

Excessive detail, very technical, jargon may be impenetrableLink with research question is not always explicit.

Core concept of methods is clear for non-specialist readers. Link with research question is always explicit.

Example of study design

“In a retrospective study, we collected meteorological data on rainfall, temperature, sunshine... as well as data on malaria epidemics for 10 local areas in Ethiopia. This data covered the years 1963 to 2006. We analysed the data by means of …”

Core concept 5:Results

Poor writing habit Good writing habit

Excessive detail can bury core concept of results and obscure link with research question

Core results presented explicitly first, with only the most essential technical details. Link with research question is always explicit

Example of results

“Local meteorological factors AAA, BBB and CCC correlated significantly with subsequent malaria epidemics. The combination of CCC and DDD correlated significantly and explained 30% of the variance in subsequent epidemics.”

Core concept 6:Discussion

Poor writing habit Good writing habit

Details first, answer to research question at the end, or may even be implicit. Repeats or summarizes parts of the Introduction and Results. Passive voice impairs credibility.

Answer research question first, supported by results. Results are interpreted, not repeated, then contrasted/supported with previous research. Active voice/first person for credibility.

Example of Discussion

Answer the research question:“Our results suggest that malaria epidemics correlate significantly with rainfall and temperature, but not with sunshine and humidity. The combination of temperature and sunshine may explain 30% of the variance in malaria epidemics ”

Support that answer:“Previous studies showed significant correlation of epidemics with the rainy season.”

Core concept 7:Conclusion

Poor writing habit Good writing habit

Summarizes results and discussion. Exaggerates novelty and impact. Suggestions for future research are self-serving or absent. Limitations are hedged or ignored.

Explains the relevance: how the research helps to solve the problem from the beginning. Generous suggestions for future research.Limitations are honestly acknowledged

Example of Conclusion

Relevance: “Our pilot study demonstrates that local meteorological data can be used to predict malaria epidemics in Ethiopia.”

Limitations:“We could not verify the accuracy of older meteorological data.”

Future research:“Our predictive model could also be tested in other regions.”

Contact me for more information or to order the above book by my

colleague Ed Hull.

Thank you for your attention.