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 seemsto 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 on-

line 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 on-line

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.