A personal view of scientific writing
or
The mistakes I have made!
John Kirby (with Alicia Cresswell)
Postgraduate tutor
What do scientist write?
• Abstracts
• Research papers
• Reviews
– (maybe from your first assessment)
•
•
•
•
Book chapters
Books
Grant applications
Theses
– (and assessment reports)
Student BMJ 2005; 13: 376
Clarity is essential
• All documents need to read swiftly
• No room for ambiguity
– What you write might alter patient
management!
• English may not be the readers first
language
– Keep your language simple!
Rules for clarity
• Everyone will acquire his or her own
style
• However, there are some general rules:
– Use short sentences which express single
concepts
• I worry if my sentences exceed three lines
– Use short paragraphs
– Avoid ‘clever’ clauses and parentheses
– Use good grammar and punctuation
– If in doubt, keep it simple
A useful tips
• You will annoy your friends, but please
try to read your own work out loud.
• If you find it hard to speak then
then something is wrong with the text
• When correcting text try little and often
rather than long boring sessions
• Get a friend to read your work
Don’t worry too much!
• Many international journals now employ
copy editors and proof readers who pick
up most errors before publication
• Often this will convert your English into
American English (with spelling to
match)!
Common errors
• Keep track of singular and plural forms
– Remember data is the plural of datum!
– Hence, “these data suggest…”
– A series of 900 complex and boring
experiments was designed
– “none are” or “none is”?
Tense
• Keep track of tense
– Most experiments and procedures will be
described in the past tense
• A good way to separate what you have
shown from what others have reported is to
mix tenses in your writing
– This is common in a discussion section
• For example:
The protein was non-functional after modification of
the terminal residue. This result is consistent with
that reported by Bloggs et al (Ref) and indicates….
“Instructions to authors”
• Read these before you start writing!
• All journals have a house style
– Examples:
• The BMJ insists all papers are written in
(active) first person
– I demonstrated that….
• Most pure science journals tend to require
(passive) third person
– These data demonstrate that….
– Don’t worry if MS Word complains about “passive
voice”. This means you are correct!
Oooops
Dear John Kirby
I looked at your manuscript closely and at first glance it seems
to be rather long. The limit of articles is 6,500 words as stated in the
instructions.
Therefore, I would like to know the exact word count of your paper and
if it is too high to shorten the manuscript to meet the guidelines.
Sincerely yours
Writing a scientific paper
• First question
– Have I got sufficient data to support my
conclusion?
• Have a look at a typical journal in your
field
– What do the results sections look like?
– In my field they seem to contain about 2
tables and 6 figures
We are not butterfly hunters!
The next step
• When you have decided what you are trying
to communicate set up a mock results section
• Label several sheets of blank paper:
– Table 1, 2 etc
– Figure 1, 2 etc
• Roughly sketch what data will go on what
page
• Shuffle the pages into a logical order
• Does it seem complete
– Yes? Write the paper!
– No? What else do you need to do?
Choose your journal
• Look carefully at a selection
– Which is most appropriate?
• Talk to your supervisor(s)
– No point going for Nature unless everyone
agrees it is worthwhile
• Consider the impact factor
– Not all journals are equal!
– The impact factor is a measure of how
often an average article in a journal is cited
Writing the paper
• Read the instructions to authors
• What sections should the text be
divided into?
• Often:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
Results
Discussion
References
Figure legends
What do you do first?
This is what I do
• On a 1000 mile journey, the hardest
thing is the first step.
– Make the first step easy!
• The methodology is often easiest to
write as is simply descriptive.
– Order this in the same way as you will
present your results
The next step
• I usually write the results text next
• This is also descriptive as you simply
describe your data (figures and tables)
– “These data show that something is
higher/faster/larger than something else
(p<0.001)”.
• A common error is to add discussion
and interpretation to this section
– This leaves nothing for the discussion
section!
The home straight
• I usually then write the introduction
– Details why you did the study (not what
you found)
• Then the discussion interprets your
results and places into context with the
literature.
– End with a nice ‘take home’ message in
the final paragraph
Crossing the line
• Figure legends should be ‘stand alone’
• The title should be clear and attract
attention
– You need to lure readers to your paper
amongst all the others
• Similarly, the abstract should be very
clear with simple messages, clear
results and snappy conclusions
References
• Use Endnote (or similar) to output the
references in the correct format
• But, which references do you cite?
– High impact factor journals
– Avoid citing reviews (unless to save you from
reviewing)
– Avoid over citation of yourself
• Write what you know and then reference the
text or you will need to stop every few words
to find a paper in the heap on your floor!
A knotty problem
• Who will be included as authors (and in
what order)
• This can cause some dispute!
• Some journals have a clear policy
• Some supervisors or research groups
also have a policy (ask)
• Remember all authors carry full
responsibility for the content
The mechanics of publication
• Submission
– You may need to learn how to use an online system like ‘Manuscript Central’
• The decision
– Rejection. Learn from the referees
comments and try again
– Revision. This is common. Answer the
referees questions carefully (maybe
generate some more data) and you’ll be
OK
– Immediate acceptance. This is rare!
Submission can be harder than you think!
What does the referee think?
The mechanics of publication
• Submission
– You may need to learn how to use an online system like ‘Manuscript Central’
• The decision
– Rejection. Learn from the referees
comments and try again (a different
journal)
– Revision. This is good. Answer the
referees questions carefully (maybe
generate some more data) and you’ll be
OK
– Immediate acceptance. This is rare!
Errors and glitches
• Check proofs VERY CAREFULLY!
• Then check them again
• Then ask your co-authors to check them
• Then ask everyone you can think of the
check them
JBC; 77 citations and nobody has ever commented…
Conference abstracts
Problems
• You often need to describe work in progress
months before the meeting
• Acceptance is highly competitive
and
• You want to be accepted as your travel grant
depends on giving a presentation!
More on abstracts
• Follow the rules
– Strict word or (even character) counts etc
• Make whatever you hope to present
sound as good and positive as possible
• Avoid empty statements like:
– These data will be discussed
– This work is still in progress
Even more….
• Choose a punchy title
• Write a brief introduction. Maybe only 2
sentences
• Very briefly describe the methods
• Show ‘solid’ data (with statistics if
needed)
• The conclusion should show how you
have answered your original question.