Scientific knowledge should be accessible to all, and if you are one of those communicating science you are obliged to educate and correct misconceptions [1][2]. Achieving this can be done through clear and precise writing, founded in proper grammar, a broad understanding of the English language and attention to detail [3]. Let’s be clear, I am not perfect and I am constantly modifying my own humble musings. For example, my first draft of this blog was entitled, ‘My worst writing habits’.
At Niche, a team of talented writers help keep me on my toes. Dr Caitlin Tolbert, our House Editor, maintains the standards and quality of our work, holding us all accountable if we overuse Oxford commas or incorrectly substitute ‘which’ for ‘that.’ Her eagle-eyes can spot a spelling mistake even before you put pen to paper (who still does that?).
Below, Caitlin shares a few grammar and writing tips to help you avoid common writing pitfalls.
Overuse of nominalisations
Nominalisation involves changing verbs or adjectives into nouns. Using nominalisation can add objectivity to the text as it emphasises the action or process rather than who performed the action [4]. It also helps to present complex ideas or techniques in a clear and concise manner. For instance:
"The primary objective was the assessment of overall survival at 24 months."
The verb ‘assess’ has been transformed into the noun ‘assessment,’ so now the focus is on the outcome being measured rather than the action being taken to measure it.
However, writers often overuse nominalisation in trying to maintain the formal, professional tone required for scientific documents. This can be detrimental to your musings since overusing nominalisations weighs down sentences, making it difficult to maintain the active voice and creating hard‑to‑follow sentences [5]. How can we check if nominalisations have been overly used? One approach is to check the suffix (i.e., does the term end in ‘-ment’, ‘-ent’, ‘-ion’, ‘-ence’, ‘-ance’, ‘-ity’, ‘-ant’ or ‘-ancy’?) and the surrounding verbs to see if a singular or stronger verb could be used.
For instance, instead of writing ‘conducted an evaluation’, ‘evaluated’ could be used instead.
Words like ‘a/an/the’ and ‘of’ are frequently added to sentences to support nominalisations, creating wordy and dense sentences. Reducing their use generally improves readability by nominalising the verb and using its ‘-ing’ form (i.e., a gerund). For example:
"The establishment of such guidelines, including the development of interventions, requires an assessment of the literature, along with characterisation of potential risk factors".
Using the ‘-ing’ form of the nominalised verbs reduces wordiness and improves readability as follows:
Establishing such guidelines, including developing the interventions, requires assessing the literature and characterising potential risk factors.
Inconsistency
Consistency requires an eye for detail and is essential for producing high‑quality documents. Inconsistency creates a sloppy document, causes ambiguity and can confuse the reader [6]. For example, referring to participants in a trial as subjects in one section of a clinical study report and as patients in another section may cause the reader to question which cohort is being studied. In addition to ensuring that names/wording of terms are used consistently, other checks include making sure terms are properly capitalised and punctuation is applied correctly throughout.
Correct formatting of a document is a job that should never be left to the last minute, especially if there is a deadline fast approaching. Using the correct document template containing recommended styles consistent with the style guide that you are using can save a lot of heartache in the long run [7]. All our Niche templates are bespoke to ensure consistency with our style guidelines and we have our IT support on hand to assist with any technical issues with the template should they arise. That is why we always recommend our in‑house document templates to our clients.
‘Which’ versus ‘that’
Formal and technical writing follow specific grammar rules and proper syntaxes that determine the correct structure of sentences. Conversational spoken English permits interchanging ‘which’ with ‘that’ without so much of a raised eyebrow, but there is a rule to follow. It is fair to say that incorrect use of ‘which’ and ‘that’ within a sentence is one of Caitlin’s pet hates, but getting it right is very simple; using ‘which’ or ‘that’ in a sentence depends on whether the following clause is non‑restrictive or restrictive, respectively [8].
A restrictive clause contains information essential to understanding the subject of the sentence. In this instance, use ‘that’. A non‑restrictive clause conveys additional information that is preceded by a comma, and excluding this phrase would not change the main context of the sentence. In this instance, use ‘which’.
Missing or misused commas
Comma misuse is a common grammatical error and can obfuscate the subject of a sentence [9]. A misplaced comma may change the connotation of a word and alter the intended meaning of a sentence. No doubt we are all familiar with the light‑hearted anecdote used to illustrate this very point, about a panda bear that walks into a bar with a gun; ‘he eats, shoots and leaves.’
There are rules governing comma usage that just have to be learnt, including:
- Use a comma before a coordinating conjunction that connects independent clauses.
- Use a comma after a dependent clause that precedes an independent clause.
If a sentence sounds as it should when read aloud, you probably have the commas in the right location.
Not using spell check
Seasoned writers quickly learn not to trust Microsoft’s spell check. Despite its limitations it remains a valuable tool and should always be used when finalising a document [10]. Spell check also helps when aligning a document to different language conventions (e.g., UK versus US English spelling). For UK English, we recommend using the Collins, Oxford or Cambridge English dictionary, and for US English, the Merriam‑Webster dictionary.
Damning habits
Master the tips above and sainthood is surely just a few steps away. To be certain to earn Caitlin’s canonisation you will also need to exorcise these damning habits from your repertoire:
- Typographical and spelling errors
- Undefined abbreviations
- Improperly formatted abstracts
- Missing reference citations
- Contractions
- Incorrect verb tense
- Comparisons of unlike things
- Missing or out‑of‑order figure and table citations
- Incorrect use of italics
Hint – always proof‑read your work.
In closing
Scientific writing uses complex language. Describing data often requires a dry, formulaic and precise writing style [11]. Please reach out if you want to hear more about the importance of adopting a writing style that is engaging, clear and maintains the interest of its audience.
References
- Brownell SE, Price JV, Steinman L. Science communication to the general public: why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 2013;12(1):E6–E10.
- Illingworth S, Allen G. Effective science communication: A practical guide. Emerg Top Life Sci.2020;4(6):749–58.
- Gopen GD, Swan JA. The science of scientific writing. Am Sci. 1990;78(6):550–8.
- Halliday MAK, Martin JR. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press; 1993.
- Sword H. Stylish academic writing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2012.
- Day RA, Gastel B. How to write and publish a scientific paper. 8th ed. Cambridge University Press; 2016.
- AMA Manual of Style Committee. AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors. 11th ed. Oxford University Press; 2020.
- Strunk W Jr, White EB. The elements of style. 4th ed. Pearson; 2000.
- Truss L. Eats, shoots & leaves: The zero tolerance approach to punctuation. London: Profile Books; 2003.
- Hengl T, Gould M. Rules of thumb for writing research articles. FAO; 2002.
- Glasman-Deal H. Science research writing for non-native speakers of English. London: Imperial College Press; 2010.
