Chapter Six – Getting a Grip on Scientific Style
1
Chapter Six – How to Get a Grip on
Scientific Style
I know – you’d think I’d have covered “scientific style” earlier in the book. But remember the constant
reminder throughout this whole book to keep your reader in mind when making writing decisions? This
is why I saved this until the end. When you start a book with this kind of stuff, readers get bored really
quickly. Frankly, I don’t blame them; I’d get bored, too. In fact, when I read books about writing and
presenting, I ignore all the “how to” rules until I need them, which isn’t until I actually have to write or
present something. Then, I look them up as I need. I am going to assume you’re pretty similar.
I am also taking a somewhat different approach even in this chapter on the so-called rules of writing.
It’s important to me that you have an idea of why style in science is different. The rules are reflections
of the culture of science, of what scientists do when writing that show their participation in scientific
culture. Many scientific writers may not be aware of these cultural rules – most of us are not aware of
why we participate in the conventions that we do or the history behind how those traditions got started.
This is sort of a defining feature of any culture – it’s learned outside of our conscious awareness or
control. However, because writing in the sciences is not something most of us grew up with, we need to
learn many of the rules just like we had to learn the Pythagorean Theorem or a sonnet’s rhyme scheme.
Scientific Culture
Every family, group, organization, country has a culture – patterns governing interaction that has arisen
over time. Using the patterns means you are a cultural insider. Further, using the patterns form the
foundation of success since they are what cultural participants are expecting. I’m going to highlight just
a few of the elements that seem more relevant to writing and the writing rules associated with them.
The Cultural Prime Directive – Science is about the science itself
I believe this is the strongest cultural tradition of science and the one with the most influence on
the writing and speaking styles associated with scientific communication. In the history of science, the
key development was the “scientific method” itself. The scientific method at its core is a process for
discovery that relies on observation, thinking, investigation (tests of some sort), and more thinking.
Before the scientific method, knowledge often developed according to authoritative decree rather than
evidence. Prior to the evolution of science (and “science” as a method has historically many more
practitioners than the western ones we are taught in school), events were explained by stories, such as
the Greek Myths, that caught the emotion and description of a happening, but weren’t particularly good
at explaining what was going on in a way that could then be used to explain similar events or distinguish
between dis-similar events. The scientific method (see Wikipedia for a fascinating and short history of
this!) became a means of more reliably grouping together similar things and distinguishing dis-similar
things which gave human beings a much more consistent understanding of events in the world. Also,
though it may not seem so now, since the scientific method is a method – a process for discovery – then
presumably anyone who can think and follow the method can practice science. Now, as in all things,
there are people better at science than others, just as there are better singers, better athletes, and
better poets. But the idea that there is a way of exploring the world through systematic discovery
remains extremely powerful.
Extending the argument a bit further, if the main contribution of science is a process for
systematic discovery that anyone willing to accept the method can perform, then science also needs a
way of overseeing itself. This is where the notion of replicability comes in. Though anyone can
Chapter Six – Getting a Grip on Scientific Style
2
participate in the scientific method, no one person can decree they’ve discovered truth. Instead, other
people must agree, usually using their own observations, tests, and thinking. Thus, consensus must be
reached before an understanding of something achieves any high status. In this way, no one person can
rule their field. (On the other hand, consensus can be problematic, too, when it blocks acceptance of a
new idea at the cost of overturning a highly accepted theory -- see Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of
Scientific Revolution for a philosophical look at the progression of knowledge in science.) They must
participate in the whole enterprise, with the oversight of other practitioners. Okay, reality check: do
scientists always work this democratically? No, not really. But no culture ever works according to its
own description. It’s interpreted by the people in that culture. But the ethic of consensus in science has
also remained powerful over time.
So, there are two cultural notions in the world of science that have remained powerful over
time and have a tremendous influence of the way science is communicated: 1) the scientific method as a
process for systematic discovery; 2) the ethic of consensus. How do these influence writing styles? Let’s
take a look at a few absolute rules.
 Rule #1: Use only the grammatical third person -- Do not use the
second person in primary scientific publication.
o Throughout this book, I’ve used the second person “you” to
Are people really
metaphorically speak directly to the reader, as though I am
secondary to
engaging you in a personal conversation. This is absolutely
information? No. But
this is a cultural ideal
taboo in scientific report or review writing. If science
and thus plays a role in
knowledge is achieved by consensus, then my particular
shaping scientific
thoughts or your particular thoughts are not directly
discourse. Science
cannot happen without
relevant (this may be why so many people are put off when
scientists, and they
they first begin reading in the scientific literature!). Instead,
make their way into the
writer and reader are secondary to the information itself.
process via in-text
Do not speak directly to the reader by using the second
citations where credit
for intellectual work is
person.
given. Citations are
o Strategy: There is one main way to get around the
how the writer
temptation to use the second person – make the topic of
acknowledges the
what you are saying the subject of what you are saying. For
contribution of humans
to the scientific process.
example, I could revise the previous sentence as follows:
“First, make the topic of the sentence – what the sentence is
about – the grammatical subject of the sentence.” Instead
of “When you put a rat in a maze with food…”, write “When
rats are put in a maze with food, …”. Or, write “Upon entering, the etched glass
windows splinter the sunlight” rather than “When you first walk in, you
immediately notice how the etched glass windows splinter the sunlight.”
 Rule #2: Use the passive as often as necessary.
o Okay, I’m going to go out on a limb here and offend some otherwise entirely
wonderful writing instructors by saying unequivocally that the whole “avoid
using the passive” obsession is downright silly. Consider the following pair of
sentences:
 The dog chased the cat
 The cat was chased by the dog.
In the first sentence, who or what is the sentence about? It is about the dog. In
the second sentence, the same question reveals the sentence is about the cat.
The “aboutness” of sentences is known as the discourse topic. Discourse, as a
level of grammatical structure, is very important to information management
Chapter Six – Getting a Grip on Scientific Style
o
o
3
during speech. Virtually every language on the planet has some grammatical
means of playing with what the sentence is about. In English, our default mode
is that the grammatical subject is also the discourse topic. In other words, the
subject of the sentence (the grammatical subject) is what the sentence is about
(the discourse topic). This is linguistically convenient, but quite confusing when
it comes to explaining the importance of passive sentences. Instead of avoiding
the passive, use the passive correctly, as necessary. In fact, most of the time, if
you don’t think about it, you’ll use it correctly because it is a grammatical
structure that was acquired during childhood along with the rest of language.
Strategy: If science is about the science itself, then the use of first person in
writing is potentially quite intrusive. First person can be used sparingly in the
Introduction and in the Discussion, especially at the ends of each section, but
should not be used elsewhere. The reader knows who did the testing, so
endlessly repeating “I designed the survey, we handed out the survey, I
calculated the statistics, we collated the answers” is unnecessary. Also, note
the grammatical subject of the sentence is “I” – meaning, as you just learned
above – that the sentence is about whoever “I” is rather than about the
information being conveyed. I realize that for some, removing the first person
(and even second person) feels depersonalizing. I view it as a grammatical
challenge – it takes serious creativity to write complex prose without resorting
to first and second person. The two best structures for accomplishing this are to
(1) make the topic the subject of the sentence; 2) use passive as much as
necessary.
Note: for those of you wondering why I’ve chosen to use 1st and 2nd person, I’ll
say simply that teaching texts are different from scientific texts. When teaching,
a more conversational tone succeeds better than the 3rd person stance common
to scholarly prose.
No culture is complete without rules for behavior, dress, etc.
Can you show up to a job interview in a business suit and flip flops? Not if you want to get the job. How
do you know this? Cultures provide rules for interaction as well as meanings for interaction. Science is
no exception. I think of “writing styles” such as APA, CSE, etc. as behavioral codes belonging to science
culture. I don’t have to like to code to know that I have to follow it. Each writing style enforces visual
and lexical uniformity in its publications, making them instantly recognizable to members of the group.
The ultimate guide to APA style is the APA style guide, now in its 5th edition. It’s a thick book covering
just about every question regarding formatting a paper that a writer might encounter. Given the advent
of the Internet, though, not even the APA can publish changes fast enough, so they provide additional
formatting help at APA Style, http://apastyle.apa.org/. Not all the rules are provided here, just the most
recent changes.
If you need all the rules – or most that you can think of – I’d recommend the site Research and
Documentation Online, featuring Diana Hacker – http://www.dianahacker.com/resdoc/. A variety of
drop down menus and sample papers provide you with virtually everything you need in terms of
formatting. Also, a quick web search for “APA style” will bring up a zillion possible other sites to mine
for instructions.
Chapter Six – Getting a Grip on Scientific Style
4
For those who’d rather not fill their heads with the specifications regarding commas, periods, and
parentheses or fill their computer screens with multiple open windows, you can try what I use (and
many, many of my students): a web-based references manager. These are powerful software programs
(RefWorks, Citation Manager, End Note, etc.) that provide storage and organization for all your
references, automatically format reference sections, and even format papers correctly by providing
downloadable utilities. These programs are quite expensive, though. Check to see if your school or
college provides a subscription to one of these services. If you’re not sure, ask a librarian. Alternately,
there are some terrific, very inexpensive on-line programs that can help. One such program is Noodle
Bib at http://www.noodletools.com/. This service also provides links to many other tips and tools that
help with writing. Currently, the price is only $8.00 a year for an individual. One advantage to Noodle
Bib is that it helps the beginning science writer understand publication types themselves. Another,
solely for generating individual references, is sponsored by the Landmark project and called the Son of
Citation Machine: http://citationmachine.net/. This service is free and also provides some of the
learning features of Noodle Bib, though does not have note-taking and other tools.
As you may have gathered by this point, I am not going to review the rules of formatting and citation.
There are so many excellent sources available to you that I’d prefer to use space explaining things that
are frequently left out. A few common sense pointers are to double space unless your instructor says
not to; include a title and title page unless your instructor
says not to; use page numbers throughout the paper; and
find out how your instructor prefers multiple pages to be
bound. Some like staples, some like folders, and some
like binder clips.
n. The mother of all networks. First incarnated
Understanding Scientific Publication
Platforms/Technologies
This is an area that is not so common sensical. I think my
generation (40-something) actually have an easier time
understanding the impact of technology on publication
because we grew up through the information revolution.
The college I went to didn’t get its first computer lab until
my sophomore year and I didn’t begin using the Internet
regularly for research until the late 1990s. Now, like you,
getting me away from my computer-as-portal-to-theworld takes all but a constitutional amendment. The
downside to the extraordinarily easy access to
information is serious confusion about what the Internet
is and the credibility of the information found there. In
terms of the latter, review what was said in Chapters 1 &
2 about using scholarly search engines and evaluating
transparency in order to get to scholarly information. The
first problem I’ll take up next.
What is the Internet? I am not a technology expert, so let
me strongly urge you to do a quick search at
dictionary.reference.com and read for yourself. These
two paragraphs from Jargon File are a good introduction.
beginning in 1969 as the ARPANET, a U.S.
Department of Defense research testbed. Though it
has been widely believed that the goal was to
develop a network architecture for military
command-and-control
that
could
survive
disruptions up to and including nuclear war, this is
a myth; in fact, ARPANET was conceived from
the start as a way to get most economical use out
of then-scarce large-computer resources.
As originally imagined, ARPANET's major use
would have been to support what is now called
remote login and more sophisticated forms of
distributed computing, but the infant technology of
electronic mail quickly grew to dominate actual
usage. Universities, research labs and defense
contractors early discovered the Internet's potential
as a medium of communication between _humans_
and linked up in steadily increasing numbers,
connecting together a quirky mix of academics,
techies, hippies, SF fans, hackers, and anarchists.
The roots of this lexicon lie in those early years.
(Internet. (n.d.). Jargon File 4.2.0. Retrieved February
20,
2008,
from
Dictionary.comwebsite:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Internet)
Chapter Six – Getting a Grip on Scientific Style
5
Basically, the Internet is a collection of smaller networks resulting in a huge conglomeration of
connections that provide virtually instant access to all kinds of information. For publication, what this
means is that the Internet is “simply” another technology that makes print available to the reader.
Paper is another kind of technology. Each technology has advantages and disadvantages. The Internet
doesn’t kill trees but is still difficult to transport (at least until world wide wireless is perfected). Paper is
portable, but degrades and has to be stored under climate controlled conditions.
From the standpoint of making scholarly information available to readers, it’s important to understand
that “e-based” sources are simply sources being made available in an electronic form. The electronic
form has two main versions: html and pdf. Hyper Text Mark Up (html) language is usually easier to
read, navigate, and store but is somewhat less authoritative. Portable Document Format (.pdf) is a kind
of image file; sort of like a picture taken of the printed page that is published electronically. Because the
.pdf file looks exactly like the original, it is considered more authoritative and should be the version used
for citing page numbers. Being an image file, it takes up more storage “space”. But both versions
provide the same information and both are legitimate electronic forms for publication.
.html version of article – easy to read on
computer because it doesn’t have columns
.pdf version of the same article – this is how
it looks in print.
Another “disadvantage” of the Internet is how difficult it is to manage what gets put where. In print,
scholarly publications are published in journals, the individual issues of which are annually bound. Then,
they are stored in a physical location with others of its kind. Thus, in the “olden days”, learning about
research was multi-sensory in that you had to walk into a real building, navigate its interior and
physically extract the object from a shelf. While laborious, one learned about publication types because
references were in one area, research journals in another, lay print (newspapers, magazines) in another,
and fiction on a different floor entirely. The brain formed a mental concept map that associated
physical movement with visual reinforcement of information types altogether in a lovely, intellectuallynurturing bubble. Such is not the case with the Internet. There is nothing about an electronic or digital
connection which in and of itself forces one kind of information to be in one place and another kind
some place else. Thus born were the search engine, the database, and an interface joining the two.
Using search engines though is less intuitive than going into a library and finding the reference section.
In fact, for most people, there is nothing whatsoever that feels “natural” about their first trip into the
Chapter Six – Getting a Grip on Scientific Style
6
scholarly literature. Search engines are language-based and the language used in science comes from a
culture that beginning researchers are just entering. I don’t have a ready solution for this! But I have
found that the net savvy modern reference librarian is among the most useful human beings on the
planet. One who can teach what s/he knows (not the same thing as having the ability) ought to be
revered along with saints. I am quite good at finding sources, but am still struggling to convey how I
know what I know about searching to students. Since my background is linguistics – and my theoretical
specialty was the interaction of meaning and structure – I am good at using language-based devices, but
this isn’t always helpful. I think this is the main disadvantage of the Internet. It’s a well-known one, too,
otherwise there’d not be the proliferation of helpful services there are. For example, EBSCO Host, one
of the larger service providers, has an excellent left side bar featuring search terms and journals related
to the words input by the searcher. This makes it much easier to figure out how a particular discipline
talks about itself and gives the searcher the power to narrow or expand searches with a single click.
Effective searching takes understanding and organization. Remember how we dissected a citation back
in Chapter 1? Understanding a citation also teaches you about publication and information types. The
title is the name of the article written by the researchers. The article is then published in a journal, a
kind of scholarly magazine dedicated to a particular field of science. Journals often belong to publishing
houses which then make articles available to the public. Publishers make articles available in print and
electronically. When in print, articles appear in something like a magazine, in single issues which are
bound annually. When electronic, articles are made in available in .html or .pdf forms. Electronic
versions of articles are made available through publisher’s website. Readers may access articles by
going directly to the journal’s website as happens when searching from a library’s catalog. Or, articles
can be accessed through host services. Host services contract with many different publishers to make
access to electronic copy easier. Host services provide the search engine to help users navigate the
particular databases they’ve aggregated. Hosted databases are usually arranged topically, by discipline
or research area. This allows researchers to access many articles from many different individual journals
at the same time. Thus, in the citation, the whole publishing process is represented.
Over the next several years, I imagine that wireless capabilities and technologies will become
increasingly seamless and allow for most anything available in print to be available electronically,
evolving to the point where relatively fewer items will be available in print. There are some challenges
with this idea, the main one being that computers are difficult to read on. I’ve not met a student yet
who liked reading on the computer screen. The experience really tires out the eyes and the one-pageat-a-time layout makes comparative reading from different portions of the same text next to impossible,
despite the existence of “thumbnails” (those tiny little pictures used to “show” you what’s on another
page). Reading between multiple articles at once is also very difficult on a computer screen and this is a
skill most researchers must develop to succeed. On the other hand, computers’ functionally allow for
much easier note-taking and storage! So, each technology has its advantages and disadvantages.
Citing Sources Style Guide
You must cite sources when you write scientifically. In the beginning, you will cite more than will be the
case if you remain in a research career. Undergraduates must cite more often than graduate students;
grad students cite more than practitioners. There are two reasons for this. First, as your knowledge of a
field progresses, so does your understanding of what is considered “common knowledge.” At first, you
must provide citations for this information because it is new to you – the citations are proof of the
Chapter Six – Getting a Grip on Scientific Style
7
Host
service
Search
terms
The
database
Title, authors,
journal – the
complete
citation!
Left
side bar
with
terms
Publisher
Name of journal
html version – also
called full text
Send to self
Export the citation to a
bibliographic manager
.pdf version – use
for citing page #s
intellectual effort you’ve put in while acknowledging the sources of what you’ve learned. As a graduate
student, you figure out more of what is common knowledge, and may cite somewhat less. Second,
using citations is part of writing ethically. It is assumed given scientific culture and the ethic of
consensus that if you are participating, you will give credit to those ideas that come from other people
as a means by which the reader can identify specifically which ideas come from you.
Chapter Six – Getting a Grip on Scientific Style
8
Stylistically, there are a few different citation situations students frequently have questions about or get
wrong their first time out. Let’s go over these now.
Put citations where they make sense
As McMillan (2006) points out, citations should be placed logically in the sentence where they
will best indicate who did or said what. For example, in the sentence “The computer culture of young
children has been studied in terms of education and play (blah, xxxx; blah, xxxx)”, which researcher
studied which facet? Did they both investigate both conditions or did one examine education and one
examine play? It is more accurate to write “The computer culture of young children has been studied in
terms of education (blah, xxxx) and play (blah, xxxx)”. The second sentence is more accurate and clear.
Only cite what you have read
Frequently, you will come across useful information attributed to another researcher in a paper
you are reading – who do you cite? Since citations are a record of what you have actually read, you only
cite the papers that you have read yourself. You have two choices at this point. Find the article that is
referred to and read it yourself or use a “pointing” strategy to keep the citation clear and honest. For
example, if Johnson is the author of the paper you read and Everett the author of the paper cited in the
paper you read, then the citation needs to point to Everett in some way. Here are a couple of
possibilities: “According to Everett (in Johnson, 2007, 137), blah blah blah)” or “Blah, Blah, Blah (Everett,
in Johnson, 2007, 137)”. In both cases, explicit mention is made of the fact that you are referring to
Johnson’s representation of Everett rather than Everett’s original paper. If you are referring to a quote
that you then want to quote, then follow the pattern above, but specify the nature of the quotation:
“Johnson (2007) quotes Everett as writing “‘blah blah blah’” (137)”. Note that there are single quotes
within the double quotes.
Quoting is discouraged in scientific writing
Another curious cultural ideal in the science writing world is the covert belief that language is
just another tool to be used for the scientific enterprise. If there were a more efficient, clear, precise
communicative process at our disposal, we’d use it, but since language is all we have, words are what
we use. Thus, in the sciences in general, quotes are used sparingly. In fact, avoid quoting except for
very specific rhetorical purposes: quote when you very much want to argue for something or against
something. These are the cases where the exact language of the original source is important. The use
of original language because you cannot figure out how to paraphrase it and the author/s said it so well
is not an acceptable reason to quote. If you cannot imagine a paraphrase, you have 2 jobs to do. First,
you must find simpler sources – often secondary ones – and study the idea again until you better
understand it. Second, you must synthesize sources so that you are not relying so much on a single
paper to get an idea across.
Synthesizing Sources – the CYA strategy for ethical writing in the sciences
This topic was covered earlier in the book, but could use more explanation here. One of the
best guides to understanding ethical writing and avoiding plagiarism is Miguel Roiq’s Avoiding
plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing at
http://facpub.stjohns.edu/%7Eroigm/plagiarism/. Currently, Dr. Roiq makes his work freely available as
either an .html document or a word document that can be saved (if used for a class, please write and
ask Dr. Roiq’s permission). In brief, Rioq points out a paradox in science writing that is notoriously
difficult to address:
Chapter Six – Getting a Grip on Scientific Style
Writers cannot
plagiarize
Writers must
paraphrase
Technical language
has no synonyms
9
Quoting is
discouraged
What is a writer to do? The answer is SYNTHESIZE SOURCES. When you discuss the literature on a
topic, you have the responsibility to read more than a single source for your information. Gone are the
days of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. You must actively integrate your sources. Why? You
stand a lesser chance of committing unintentional plagiarism if you use more than main source for your
work. If 4 people have basically said the same thing, then when you say it – and cite all 4 sources – you
are “proving” the publication history behind the idea and the reader is more confident that you know
what you are talking about. Multiple citations are most common when providing definitions and
explanations of a topic.
Cite after first mention
Unlike other traditions, in science, cite immediately after the first sentence from a source, even
if the next few sentences will be from the same source. Remember, to the reader of science, each and
every sentence should have intellectual history attached to it. If there is no citation at the end of the
sentence, the assumption is that the idea belongs to the writer (you are the beginning of the intellectual
history of the idea). Every sentence—every idea – belonging to another source should include a citation.
If after the first citation, the following sentence obviously belongs to the same source because there is a
clear, logical connection (chronological, process, test-result, etc), then you do not have to cite again. If
an entire paragraph is from a single source, cite after the first sentence, somewhere in the middle, and
at the end, so it is utterly clear where the information comes from. Generally, you should not be writing
whole paragraphs from a single source, but if you are explaining the history of an idea or a particular
methodology, then it may happen.
Only include page numbers for quotes or very specific information
Generally speaking, the only time in APA style that you need to provide a page number is if you
are quoting directly. Sometimes, though, you might reference a piece of very specific information – a
result or particular claim, for instance – in which case it is a courtesy to provide the reader with the page
number so they can find it for themselves quickly.
Every writing culture that you learn feels weird at first. Science is no different. Poets write in iambic
pentameter, but talk over cups of coffee in regular conversations. When you write in iambic
pentameter, you participate in the culture of the poet, however briefly. Scientists write according to the
conventions of scientific writing, in formats that have evolved over many generations of discovery.
When you write a research report, you participate in the culture of the discipline to which you have
contributed, and become part of the long history that is science.