Although it is an oft forgotten step on the “Scientific Method” posters found on the walls of typical middle school science classrooms, scientific communication is an absolutely critical part of the scientific process. Good scientific writing is the key to good scientific communication.
How is scientific writing different from science writing?
Scientific writing is writing by scientists for other scientists. Scientific writing should be technical, formal, and concise. Scientific jargon is not only acceptable, but expected. The goal of scientific writing is to report results and observations, along with the methods used to obtain them, and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. This type of writing is typically subjected to peer review and published in scientific journals.
Science writing is writing about science for a more general audience, usually written by a science journalist or freelance science writer. Science writing should be less technical and less formal, but still supported by scientific evidence. Scientific jargon should be clearly defined and used sparingly. The goal of science writing is to clearly convey scientific information and concepts to the general public or a particular lay audience. This type of writing is typically subjected to a more general editorial process and published in magazines, newspapers, and popular science websites and blogs.
Why is scientific writing important?
Science is, at its core, a communal enterprise. The most groundbreaking results are meaningless if not communicated clearly to the rest of the scientific community.
Science is about asking testable questions, then designing and performing tests that will answer them. Scientific rigor is about determining the reproducibility of the results of those tests through repetition. This is why good science cannot be done in a vacuum (metaphorically speaking – quite a lot of good science involves literally doing things in a vacuum). The same scientist performing the same experiment the same way multiple times, or performing an experiment with lots of replicates, or using a large sample size, are all good ways of showing the reproducibility of results. However, scientists are human beings. They make mistakes. They have implicit biases. A true measure of reproducibility is an independent repeat study, preferably more than one. That can’t happen if the results are never reported in the first place, or if the results and methods are not reported clearly enough for other scientists to feasibly repeat them.
What separates scientific writing from other forms of scientific communication?
There are many different ways that scientists share information with one another. The most obvious is simply talking to one another. Another important one is presenting at scientific conferences. Presenting is a great way for scientists to share their newest results with their peers, and to get feedback about how they could improve the work they are doing. Attending scientific conferences allows scientists to learn a lot about the latest developments in their fields, and to pose questions directly to those presenting the work. These conferences also provide excellent opportunities for scientists to meet with each other, make connections, and establish potential collaborative partnerships. However, presenting at a conference is usually considered to be a first step in sharing results with the scientific community, with the understanding that the presenter will eventually go on to publish the work in a scientific journal or a peer-reviewed conference proceedings volume. The feedback received after giving a presentation is invaluable when it comes to preparing the work for publication.
Scientists are skeptical by nature, and that skepticism is what separates science from pseudoscience and speculation. Scientists generally trust each other, but that doesn’t mean they just take each other at their word when it comes to reporting results; nor should they. It’s wonderful to hear about new research in a scientific presentation, but presentations are not generally subjected to the same level of vetting as a paper in a scientific journal. There is a screening process for most conference presentations, but typically only a title and abstract is submitted for review. This review is often based as much, if not more, on how the research fits into the overall theme and program subtopics of the conference as on the quality of the abstract (and sometimes, entertainment value may also play a role: see Triassic Kraken).
The peer review process (a subject which will get its own blog post on another day), sets scientific papers apart from other forms of scientific communication. The research published in a scientific journal has been reviewed independently by other scientists (at least two) who were not directly involved in the study, and thus do not have a personal stake in the work being published. In order for the work to have been published, other experts in the field of research had to have found that the methods used were reasonable and thorough, the results made sense and could have reasonably come from those methods, the conclusions drawn are supported by the results, and no other obvious alternative conclusions could be drawn from the same results. Disclaimer: This is an idealized description of how peer review is supposed to work, but the system is far from perfect (also another post for another day).
Literature Review
Literature review is an important part of the research process, as it allows scientists to build on what has been done before, rather than starting from scratch. Scientific writing for publication in peer-reviewed journals forms the meat and bones of the body of scientific literature. Journal papers, despite being frequently trapped behind paywalls (another topic to be discussed in a future post), are the most accessible source of thorough scientific information. Some conference websites will allow presenters to upload their presentation slides and notes so that other scientists can download them, but often only the abstract is available. Even when slides and notes are available, the presenter’s full explanation of the material is still missing. In the best-case scenario when a presentation is recorded and available to watch later, by their very nature, presentations are never as detailed as a journal paper. The details in a journal paper are also more trustworthy, as original information is vetted by the peer review process, and background information can be verified by cross-referencing the cited works.
The Challenges
One other thing that separates scientific writing from other forms of scientific communication is the unique set of challenges that it entails. Scientific writing has a particular style that does not come naturally to many people, and is frequently absent from high school and even undergraduate composition courses. There are also language barriers for many scientists who want to publish in journals that are not in their native language. Even if the writing itself is good, preparing a manuscript for publication comes with many considerations.
There is the issue of selecting a journal to target for publication, and each journal has its own requirements and restrictions. What is the impact factor of the journal? Is the study significant enough for a broad-reach journal like Nature or Science, or is it more of a niche item that belongs in a more specialized journal like RANGIFER (Research, Management and Husbandry of Reindeer and other Northern Ungulates)? Does the journal require a submission fee or article processing charge? Is it an open access journal? Will the scope of the study fit within the page or word count limits of the journal?
Then there are all of the challenges that come with creating figures. Do they look good? Do they present the data in a clear and meaningful way? Are error bars included? Are statistically significant patterns apparent? Where do the figures fit within the text? How many figures are allowed by the journal? How much precious page space do they take up? Do they need to work if the journal is printed in greyscale? Do the captions make sense?
There can be political and personal battles regarding authorship. Who will actually write the paper? Who will get the coveted spot as first author? Should it be the grad student who led the study, or the P.I. who secured the funding for it? Who deserves to be listed as an author, and who should just be mentioned in the acknowledgements?
After all of that, the paper still might not survive the peer review process. Or, if the reviewers ask for revisions, a lot more work may need to be done before resubmission. Reviewers may also give conflicting feedback, making it difficult to find a balance that will please everyone.
These challenges do not exist to make scientists’ lives difficult. They exist for quality control. They are barriers to prevent bad science from being published. Of course, sometimes bad science makes it through, but the challenges of scientific writing and peer review go a long way to weed out flawed studies, speculation, falsified data, and unreasonable conclusions.
Persevere
The most important part of scientific writing is to actually do it. A lot of good science languishes in the dark because it never got published. The P.I. was too busy. The postdoc’s fellowship ended and he got a job. The grad student finished her thesis and was too exhausted to go through the publication process. There was a lot of negative feedback after the seminar talk, and the presenter got discouraged. The professor transferred to another university. There are a million reasons why scientists sometimes fail to make it through the daunting process of scientific writing and publication. This author is personally guilty of never getting back to the paper that was two-thirds completed before going on maternity leave then changing jobs and moving.
Things happen. Scientists are people too. The important thing is to keep trying. Maybe your last paper got rejected. Figure out what went wrong, fix what needs fixing, and try again. Don’t give up, and if you need help, Blue Dot Writing has your back.