Writing Scientific English

“This manuscript purports to show a relationship between A and B. However, the manuscript fails to achieve this goal for the following reasons.”

If you are still unsure about the meaning of this word, you can find examples of its use by searching PubMed for abstracts that contain it.

I have tried to write positive sentences in this book. Clearly, it is impossible to permanently avoid negative words, so that there are quite a few negative sentences. It is just something to keep in mind. Check your work for complex negative sentences and try to keep them to a minimum.

Box 2.2Positive and negative sentences

Turn the following negative sentences into positive ones. They contain most of the standard negative constructions used in English. You may find some of the following words useful: absent, avoid, constant, contain, fail, ignore, lack, overlook, questionable, resistant. My suggestions can be found in section 2.5.2.

1. The experiment did not work.

2. No changes were observed in any of the variables tested.

3. There is not a piece of evidence supporting this hypothesis.

4. The variation was never more than 1%.

5. None of the alternative explanations seemed likely.

6. Neither the fear of global warming nor the number of fatal accidents influence car drivers.

7. Nothing is dangerous about this method.

8. No-one noticed the discrepancy between the two sets of data.

9. In none of the samples could the desired compound be found.

10. No less than eleven substances were present in the mixture.

2.1.6Write active sentences

What is the difference between active and passive sentences? “We mixed A and B” is an active sentence. “A and B were mixed together” is the passive version. Active sentences are more direct, shorter and clearer. Compare the following two versions of the same thought.

“The ability of the antibiotics to inhibit bacterial growth was examined by using standard techniques.” (15 words)

“We used standard techniques to examine the ability of antibiotics to inhibit bacterial growth.” (14 words)

The active sentence is much clearer. Here is another example, based on a sentence frequently found in scientific writing. Once again, the active version is preferable.

“The improved versions are presented in section x.” (8 words)

“Section x presents the improved versions.” (6 words)

Another motive for writing active sentences is that they are more natural. We do not speak in the passive. If you do not believe me, try explaining what you did today in the passive. “Coffee was drunk at breakfast. Afterwards, teeth were brushed.” Relating daily experiences in this way is not natural. Why then should we use the passive for scientific writing?

It is your decision whether you use more active sentences than passive ones. If you think you can transmit your thoughts better using passive sentences, then go ahead. Just remember though that good writing should sound as if you are speaking to someone.

2.1.7Omit needless words

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the command “Omit needless words!” originates from the book “The Elements of Style”. This concept of removing superfluous words often comes as a surprise to some students. Many share the conviction that high-class scientific writing requires numerous complicated words. The most productive step for such students on the path to writing more concisely is to abandon this belief.

Recognising and removing unnecessary words is, like many skills in writing, a question of practice. Several exercises in this book provide that practice and enable you to build up the experience to judge whether a word, a phrase, a sentence or a paragraph may be superfluous. As an example, examine the following two sentences.

“The fact that many young scientists need a significant amount of practice to improve their written communication skills is a case in point. It can be seen from the diagram in Figure 1 that those students who regularly handed in written work performed at a higher level than those who did not.”

The words at the beginning of the two sentences are typical phrases which turn up in scientific writing but which do not add to the meaning. The shortened versions are much more effective.

“Many young scientists need practice to improve their writing. Figure 1 shows that students who wrote regularly performed better.”

Discussion in class with my students on writing active or passive sentences invariably leads to the question whether it is acceptable to use “I” or “We” in scientific writing. Clearly, if I encourage the use of the active voice, I must also accept the use of first person pronouns. What about the scientific community as a whole? Ken Hyland and Kevin Jiang (2017) have provided data to answer this question. The authors noted an increase in the use of “I” and “We” in recent years in the natural sciences but less so in the social sciences. Thus, such sentences at least in the natural sciences are becoming more commonplace. My advice to my students at the end of the class discussions is pragmatic. If the writer feels that the clarity of the sentence benefits from “I” or “we”, then their use is justified.

Box 2.3 has a further six sentences with many needless words. section 2.5.3 presents the improved versions.

Box 2.3Omit needless words!

Rewrite the sentences to make them simpler. See how many words you can remove. My suggestions can be found in section 2.5.3.

1. It can be seen from Figure 1 that there is a significant correlation between the rate of growth of the incidence of cardiac-related disease and illness and the increasing frequency of the possession and use of a television.

2. It is a fact that 20% of the world's population has no clean water or enough to eat.

3. The effect of compound X on blood pressure has not yet been investigated in any detail.

4. Another important reason for this optimisation is the fact that we should try to get rid of pollution.

5. Synergy will lead to a significant reduction in the amount of funding required.

6. There is a considerable, if not extensive, body of literature dedicated to demonstrating that the Earth can be considered as a spherical body traversing a circular path around a similarly shaped, although significantly larger and completely different in nature, body which is in common parlance termed the Sun.

2.1.8Read and think about your work

If you have not read your work, why should anyone else? Do this on a printout as errors, inconsistencies and discrepancies are often very difficult to detect on the computer screen. In addition, the printout lets you compare different pages. This is very time-consuming on the monitor. For instance, if there are two abbreviations for the same chemical in various parts of the manuscript, it will be very difficult to find this inconsistency on the monitor.

Reading your work is only the first step toward improving it. You must also start to think critically about it. Put your writing into question. Does the text fit together? Read it out aloud to find out. Are the sentences too complex? Read them aloud to find out. Is the text written in formal English? Look at chapter 1 to check. Did you keep the guidelines from chapter 2 in mind whilst writing? Search again for complicated sentences and needless words. Simplify the sentences and omit the needless words. Did you think about the reader whilst writing? Do all the sentences express your thoughts so that the reader will understand them? These questions are the first steps on the way to writing a coherent text in scientific English. Box 3.2 has further suggestions to help you identify problems in written work.

2.2Just to make you feel better

Do as I say, not as I do!

CHILD-REARERS' ADAGE

The first two chapters contained a plethora of guidelines and suggestions for scientific English. You are perhaps wondering how long it will take to grasp their use and whether you will be able to apply them to every text you write. My advice is not to worry for now. Just try as much as you can to use them in your writing. The more you practise, the more they will come automatically.

To make you feel better, here are two examples in which native English speakers have difficulties with the use of scientific English. In the first, the editor of Nature mislays his own principles. In the second, the level of English in manuscripts written or proofread by native speakers is criticised by peer reviewers.

2.2.1An example from a former editor of Nature

Remember too that even experienced writers are not perfect and can sometimes forget their own principles. Even a writer as experienced as an editor of “Nature” can mislay his principle of writing for an international readership. The text entitled “A word in your ear” (Campbell, 1998) provides an ironic example. The editor's text was aimed at encouraging established scientists to take more care in their conference presentations. The editor stressed the importance of the “clear transmission of ideas”, an admirable initiative. Sadly, though, the editor did not pay attention to his own suggestions. The vocabulary contains some uncommon words (see box 2.4) and most of the sentences are too long. For instance, look at all those complex negative sentences at the end of paragraph 3 and the beginning of paragraph 4. The one at the end of paragraph 3, in a modified form, is used as an illustration in section 2.1.5. Are there other sentences which you found difficult to comprehend? How would you improve their clarity?

In short, everyone can have an off-day. The goal is to make such off-days as rare as possible. Constant practice in applying the guidelines and suggestions from chapters 1 and 2 is the best way of achieving this goal.

2.2.2Reviewers are humans too

In addition to examining the level of the science in a manuscript submitted for publication, reviewers are also asked to comment on the authors' level of English. Over the years, I have noticed that some reviewers appear to use the authors' affiliations as a criterion to judge the English. Indeed, almost all the native English-speaking scientists that I know in Vienna have had at least one manuscript returned with the comment that the English should be revised by a native speaker. Presumably, the reviewers did not expect well-written English manuscripts from Viennese scientists. These native English speakers included a fellow of the Royal Society, a former chair of the EMBO Science & Society Committee and me. Thus, if a reviewer suggests English revision you are in good company! In each of the three cases above, we all simply wrote back that the English had been checked by a native speaker (which was true) without making any language changes. This course of action has also been recommended by Janet Carter-Sigglow (1997), working in the translation centre of a research institution in Germany.

In short, if you receive unpleasant remarks about your level of English, do not despair. Read through your text again and see whether the reviewer is correct. Obtain the opinion of an English native-speaker and accept their comments. If they agree with the reviewer, then your manuscript will have been improved; if not, then you can write back in the way that I mentioned in the last paragraph.

Finally, reviewers themselves are also human. Here are two reviewers’ comments on the standard of English in two manuscripts written and/or read by English native speakers.

“Finally if authors should improve their English lnguage that will be helpful.”

(The misspelling of the word “language” was in the original comment)

“This study is better to understand the concepts of how they determine protein degradation in some proteins. The data are interesting, however it is not suitable for publication unless language extensively was edited."

Both manuscripts were not surprisingly returned to the journals concerned without any English language corrections.

Box 2.4Vocabulary of “A word in your ear” (Campbell, 1998)

The editor of “Nature” wrote the text cited in (Campbell, 1998). 20 words from the text (printed in blue) that may be unfamiliar are explained below. You may also be unaware of the identity of Ionesco mentioned in the text. He was a Romanian and French playwright who liked to make fun of ordinary situations and felt that much of life repeated itself without purpose.

dumbfounded – speechless with surprise

exasperate – annoy

convey – transmit

bestow – place a talent upon someone

overwhelm – overload with something

intricate – made with a complex design which is difficult to understand

sustain – keep going

ply – follow

considerable – significant or a large amount

bemoan – complain about pore

over – study closely and seriously

dismantle – take something apart

equation – an expression that certain quantities are equal to each other. They usually contain an equals sign (=). a + b = c is a basic equation.

tenure – have a permanent position, especially at a university

breed – a type or variety. This word is very important in genetics.

relish – look forward to and enjoy

nurture – look after and train

commendably – doing something in a way which deserves praise

conscientious – doing something very carefully

ineptness – inability

2.3Take-home messages from Chapter 2

The take-home messages from this chapter are simply the eight headings from section 2.1. Write them down yourself without referring back to the chapter.

2.4References

Articles

Campbell, P. (1998) A Word in Your Ear. Nature 394, 403.

Carter-Siglow, J. (1997) Beyond the language barrier. Nature 384, 509.

Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? Engl. Specific Purp. 45, 40–51.

Books

Bronowski, J. (1973) The Ascent of Man.

O'Toole, F. (2018) Heroic Failure.

Strunk, W., Jr. and White, E. B. (1918) The Elements of Style.

Websites

www.bartleby.com/141

www.pubmed.gov

2.5Improvements to exercises

2.5.1Improvements to box 2.1 "Shortening sentences by splitting them into two”

1. To be a good scientist, you have to be tolerant and patient when experiments or interpretations do not turn out as you had predicted. You must be able to stand high levels of frustration.

2. 62% of certified drug addicts believe that cannabis has effects on the behaviour of car drivers and machine operators which lengthen their reaction time. 45% of students shared this opinion whereas only 38% of customers interviewed at discotheques were aware of this negative effect of cannabis.

3. Finally, the correlation has been clearly shown. However, some parameters remain to be examined and further investigations should be done.

4. This results in texts which are extremely difficult to read. In addition, they also reveal to the world that their authors are clueless about paragraph structure.

2.5.2Improvements to box 2.2 “Positive and negative sentences”

1. The experiment failed.

2. All variables tested remained constant.

3. This hypothesis lacks supporting evidence.

4. The variation was always less than 1%.

5. All alternative explanations seemed implausible.

6. Car drivers ignore both the fear of global warming and the number of fatal accidents.

7. This method is safe.

8. Everybody overlooked the discrepancy between the two sets of data.

9. The desired compound was absent from all the samples.

10. The mixture contained at least eleven substances.

2.5.3Improvements to box 2.3 “Omit needless words!”

1. Figure 1 shows that the incidences of heart disease and television viewing correlate well.

2. 20% of the world population lacks clean water and sufficient food.

3. The effect of compound X on blood pressure remains to be determined.

4. Another important reason for this optimisation is to eliminate pollution.

5. Synergy will significantly reduce the amount of funding required.

6. Much work has demonstrated that the spherical Earth travels around the similarly shaped Sun.

Or: The Earth orbits the Sun.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.