This is pretty much my experience with scientific writing. No one told me how to do it, so I started copying the style from the papers and books I had at hand.
This is pretty much my experience with scientific writing. No one told me how to do it, so I started copying the style from the papers and books I had at hand.
The most familiar example is nutritional science, and the whole fat vs carbs debate. There are a lot of easy examples in medical science and economics as well. The scary thing is the more scientific articles you read the more you see this pattern everywhere. Scientists have greatly oversold the degree of their knowledge in most fields.
My impression is that the people doing the overselling were very much not the scientists in almost all cases.
Structurally it's similar to clickbait. I heard that such an incentive structure did bad things to journalism.
I find it far more likely that the mistrust comes from those articles combined with the fake experts that appear on TV. This is less of an issue in Europe, but it does happen here as well.
Paper authors are not: they want to look sophisticated, whether their findings are sophisticated or not.
Paper reviewers are not: they want to preserve the usual style, at least for consistency, and also because they are authors of other papers, too.
Readers who are specialists in the field? Maybe, but they are used to the jargon and easily see through it.
Readers outside the field? Maybe, but nobody has an incentive to care about them, they are not reviewers, not potential co-authors (unless you plan a rare cross-disciplinary study), and if they approve grants, it may be better to impress them with the jargon and look important.
The rare curious non-scientist reader? These are a rounding error.
[1] https://philarchive.org/archive/ALEATO-6 "A type of simulation which some experimental evidence suggests we don't live in"
We had a problem at UC Berkeley where a very smart CS guy wanted to publish a paper but since he didn't have an official affiliation, major journals wouldn't publish his papers (they literally wouldn't publish a paper by a person whose correspondence address was their home address).
So we gave him a title at Berkeley and the paper was published.
His work is some of the best around, but the academic community wouldn't pay attention until he ran some benchmarks and had them disseminated by prominent academics.
So our best guess at changing the status quo is the reviewers?
If the reviewers would push for readability, this would force authors to adapt, right?
Now, how do we convince people to change expectations and habits?
Then I got reviews saying I have to cite x, caveat y, relate to z and discuss special cases a,b,c... By the time you've done that there is no way it's going to read nicely any more.
But to play devil's advocate, the reviewers are right. The permanent scientific record does need all the nitpicking details. Papers are not supposed to read like news articles. Now I try to get a good abstract, intro and confusion and accept that the rest will be nit picking.
i will be working with ton of phds this year and starting one fall 2020.
- For the general public (or management) keep it very simple.
- For a specific journal, try to keep with their style. Any deviation from their standard might arise additional scrutiny which could risk your paper being rejected. And with the current focus on publication metrics, the actual paper count is likely more important that quality.
Read the conclusion before the "Results" section. In fact, read the "results" section last.
Read review papers, they are way less bad. In addition they tend to comment on the source papers clearly enough that you can use them as a reading guide. Same goes for theses, but only if they're any good, so review papers work better. Pick a good review journal (impact factor is a decent proxy).
Email the author of a paper if you have a specific question (on the methods, what a result means, why they chose to put some data in supplementary and some in the paper, etc). Usually it works and they don't actually write emails in academese. Always write to the corresponding author not necessarily the PI.
If you want to write papers and not merely read them, reading them is the first step so do the above first, and then loosely parrot what you've seen in the wild with some technical term mad libs thrown in.
1. Simon Peyton Jones, How to Write a Great Research Paper https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/academic-program/wr...
2. Larry McEnerney’s writing workshop https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vtIzMaLkCaM
These focus on writing papers, and get as close to talking about “scientific” writing as any resources I have seen.
But I think good general writing advice will help with scientific writing, too.
The book “Style: Towards Clarity and Grace” may be useful for that.
I would also suggest that it is important to remember, even in technical writing, that you are telling a story. The more you practice your storytelling, the better your papers will be.
Besides jargon, I see two common problems in the papers I read. (I am an art history student, but I expect this is not unique to my field.)
1. I read too many articles that fail to get me excited about where they are going. They tell me what they will say, but not why I should care.
2. I read too many essays that fail to conclude with applications, take-aways, or next steps.
Please don’t just give A Novel Approach To Dragon Slaying. Show me the villagers suffering from the dragon’s violence. Then show me how to slay the dragon. And don’t end with the dead dragon—end with the fireworks the villagers light in celebration.