 |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Techniques for Clear Scientific Writing and Editing
Gary Westbrook, Senior Editor, The Journal of Neuroscience
Linda Cooper, McGill UniversityEveryone has experienced the joy of reading about exciting research. Unfortunately, in many cases, such findings can be buried in obscure language. Writing that is clear and simple enables researchers to share their interesting findings with a wide audience; this is particularly relevant in a highly interdisciplinary field such as neuroscience.
In previous articles, we reviewed suggestions for effective writing (see past editions of the SFN Newsletter). To extend the principles of clear writing in science, here are a few editing techniques to help researchers write concise and effective manuscripts.Tips for Revising Sentences
Overuse of the passive voice is a common problem in writing. Although the passive has its place—for example, in the Methods section—in many instances it makes the manuscript dull by failing to identify the author’s role in the research. Other weak writing practices are the overuse of prepositional phrases, the verb “to be,” nominalizations, and noun strings. Using too many prepositional phrases causes information overload that can confuse readers. Overuse of the weak linking verb “to be” creates unnecessarily long and imprecise sentences. Sentences with many nominalizations (noun forms of verbs) result in texts that are difficult to understand. Energize your text by transforming the noun forms of verbs back into verbs and avoid noun strings (nouns modifying nouns), which result in too much compressed information that is confusing to readers. Consider, too, where to put new and important information. Generally, readers look for new information at the end of sentences, the end of paragraphs, and the end of abstracts. Help the reader locate your most important point by placing it in these stress positions.Examples of Principles at Work
1. Use direct, active-voice sentences.
Original: Only at synaptic sites the co-localization of GLu1 and NR1 with the PSD-95 complex was observed.
Revised: We observed that GLu1 and NR1 co-localize with the PSD-95 complex only at synaptic sites.2. Limit prepositional phrases.
Original: This growth factor is important to the survival of the motoneurons in the spinal cord but not in the cranial nucleus in the brainstem.
Revised: This growth factor helps motoneurons survive in the spinal cord but not in the cranial nucleus.3. Limit use of the verb “to be.”
Original: This mechanism is an important factor in our understanding of cytomegaloviral infections in the brain.
Revised: This mechanism will help us understand how cytomegaloviruses infect the brain.4. Avoid noun forms of verbs (nominalizations).
Original: Significant ipsilateral cortical activation was seen with stimulation in previous PET studies.
Revised: Previous PET studies show that stimuli activate the ipsilateral cortex.5. Limit noun strings (nouns modifying nouns).
Original: Community information feedback mechanisms are important if governments want scientists to explain how they spend taxpayers’ money.
Revised: Governments should create effective mechanisms for scientists to explain how they spend taxpayers’ money.6. Put new and important information toward the end of sentences.
Original: Whereas mutating four CREs in the promoter did not block up-regulation, site-directed mutagenesis of all five CREs in the promoter blocked this up-regulation almost completely.
Revised: Site-directed mutagenesis of all five CREs in the promoter blocked this up-regulation almost completely, whereas mutating four of them had no effect.
|
|
|
|
 |
|