Style Points for Scientific Writing

Winston Churchill is reported to have said of literary critin who insisted that sentences never end in a ~reoosition ( I ) .

Indian Journal of Medical and Paediatric Oncology, 2019

Scientific writing in English started in the 14th century. Human beings have been able to communicate for thousands of years. Yet scientific communication as it is today is relatively new. It was only 300 years ago that the first journals were published. Writing is the most vital means for communicating scientific work. It helps document and communicate ideas, activities and findings to others. Good writing can be beneficial to scientists in a number of ways. In this article we have discussed the basic overview and principles of scientific writing.

Education 3-13, 2013

The essay deals with sentence structure, style, and logical flow when writing scientific text. Ten suggestions for optimizing sentences are presented followed by ten published examp les of stylistic variations. Although the emphasis is on chemistry, the reco mmendations are applicable to all areas of non-fiction writ ing.

Limnology and Oceanography Letters, 2020

One of the most common editorial refrains, regardless of discipline, is "this needs to be tighter." It typically means too many words and ideas are jumbled together and the underlying point is obscure. The writing is not concise. But, improving conciseness is difficult because the problem is caused by a host of factors that are easily overlooked, especially by early career researchers. Here, I describe what it means to write concisely and outline 10 rules, with examples, to help scientists tighten their prose. "I am writing a longer letter than usual because there is not enough time to write a short one." Blaise Pascal, Lettres Provinciales (ca. 1657) Rules for concise scientific writing Rule 1: Take writing seriously Conciseness alone does not ensure good scientific writing. However, good science writing that is not concise is rare

2018

The Writing Center intends this handout to help those writing scientific papers: 1) recognize the conventions that shape scientific writing style 2) understand why these conventions exist Once you comprehend the nature of a community of writers, you also begin to appreciate that stylistic conventions are not merely arbitrary "rules" designed to complicate our lives. Instead of just laying out a lot of dos and don'ts, this handout will try to explain the rationale behind the writing decisions you'll be facing. What is scientific writing? When do people write in the sciences? What different types of writing exist in the sciences? Who reads this writing? Why? What identifies a piece of writing as scientific? Such questions help to complicate the general idea of scientific writing, and complication is (believe it or not) helpful here. Depending on your background, you may associate scientific writing strictly with the lab report. Introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion-all that jazz. This description of scientific writing is, however, extremely limited. Sure, the lab report forms the basis for most professional scientific communication; it's the customary way for a group of researchers to share their findings with others in the field. Yet other, very distinct opportunities for writing do exist: Los Medanos College Center for Academic Support Fall 2011 • the grant proposal, which justifies the value of a prospective or ongoing research project.

EMBO reports, 2006

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 1978

The ornate style practiced before the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century too often led to obscurity and verbal games rather than clarity and the pursuit of truth. In reacting against ornateness, however, scientists developed the ideal of a plain style that is itself problematic. The writer's posture is essentially defensive; he is more concerned with what not to do than what to do in his writing. The practice of amplification, useful for audience adaptation, has been abandoned, and rhetorical devices that promote the personal touch are no longer taught. Recent experiments indicate that classroom exercises involving rhetorical devices can help promote economy and clarity, encourage more personal and aggressive writing, strengthen the idea that writing is an art, and arouse writer and reader interest. The study of stylistic devices in use before the scientific revolution can be fruitful for modern scientific and technical writing.

Journal of Human Growth and Development, 2022

Backgroung: scientific writing is a process requiring dedication, knowledge, and skills from different scientific fields. However, the authors, especially young people starting graduate studies and scientific careers, are likely to make some mistakes when writing, which often goes unnoticed. Objective: This study describes common mistakes in scientific writing and how to avoid them. Methods: Mistakes can occur in the writing process before and during the act of writing, as many authors are not familiar with or skip important steps to be considered beforehand. To prepare the manuscript, it is essential that authors master the study subject matter and that research results are supported. Results: During writing, the author often misuses the necessary items in each section, losing the logical sense of research data and making the article difficult to read. Before the writing process begins, it is, therefore, necessary to plan each paragraph and use textual techniques that ensure cohesion and coherence between paragraphs. Conclusion: This study describes the main mistakes in the process of writing scientific articles, aiming at improving techniques, optimizing researchers' time to develop an appropriate, clear, and elegant text.

Write with precision, clarity and economy. Every sentence should convey the exact truth as simply as possible." Instructions to Authors Ecology 19 64 ScientiÞc research demands precision. ScientiÞc writing should reßect this precision in the form of clarity. Unfortunately, a glance at almost any scientiÞc journal will reveal that the above-stated ideal is often not attained in the real world of scholarly publication. Indeed, many of the accusations by non-scientiÞsts of "obscurity" and "elitism" within the scientiÞc community probably originate in the sad fact that many scientists are not capable of expressing their hypotheses and conclusions clearly and simply. Fortunately, much of the confusion can be eliminated if writing is considered part of the pretentiousness. In practical terms, the Þrst of those two suggestions implies that as much effort and consideration should be given to the organization of the paper as was given to the execution of the study, and the second implies that the writer should employ crisp sentences not cluttered with excess verbiage. The purpose of this handout is to help you achieve your goals. This argument may seem more compelling if we look at it in terms of dollars. Much is spent to perform research, and the publication is the distillate of that expensive work, all that will survive and communicate what was learned. Moreover, the scientist pays to have papers published, currently $50 per page for many journals. If the content is not clear, the research will be lost, and the money spent to perform it was wasted. If the text is verbose, the author will pay dearly in page charges. Do not consider the following guidelines as unbreakable rules. The particular format and style adopted for a given paper depend upon both the nature of the report and the journal or other publication in which the paper is to be published. For our purposes, we will use the format of Ecology, the publication of the Ecological Society of America; refer to recent issues as models. All journals publish "Instructions to Authors" annually in one of the issues. In other words, there is often more than one "correct" way of doing something, depending on your intentions. However, the practices adopted here are straightforward and intuitively simple. You are advised to become familiar with details of organization, section headings, methods of data presentation, and ways of citing and listing references by examining recent papers in any well-established scientiÞc journal. 1. the purpose of the study (the central question); 2. a brief statement of what was done (Methods); 3. a brief statement of what was found (Results); 4. a brief statement of what was concluded (Discussion, in part).

1990

Science is often hard to read. Most people assume that its difficulties are born out of necessity, out of the extreme complexity of scientific concepts, data and analysis. We argue here that complexity of thought need not lead to impenetrability of expression; we demonstrate a number of rhetorical principles that can produce clarity in communication without oversimplifying scientific issues. The results are substantive, not merely cosmetic: Improving the quality of writing actually improves the quality of thought.