Strengthen your argument
Welcome to Week 3 of the #EpiWritingChallenge! Today we're talking about how to strengthen your argument.
|
|
|
“Countless manuscripts are rejected because the discussion section is so weak that it’s obvious the writer does not clearly understand the existing literature.” - Angel Borja
|
|
|
Whoa! That's an eye-opening statement. But it sets the stage well for today's topic.
Angel Borja is the author of a series on writing, sharing advice from an author’s view, reviewer’s view, and editor’s view.
Pssst...
Speaking of editor perspectives – we’re planning 1 day of “Ask the Editor” as part of the #EpiWritingChallenge. Stay tuned for details.
|
|
Angel Borja told Nature that having a clear message in your writing is important otherwise “misinterpretations may arise later. A clear message is even more important when there is a multidisciplinary group of authors.” But how do you achieve that? He “encourage[s] groups to sit together in person and seek consensus…on the main message, selection of data, visual presentation, and the information necessary to transmit a strong message.”
Brett Mensh, founder of #scicomm Optimize Science, co-wrote a paper about using a structure called “context-content-conclusion” scheme to build a core concept. “It can be a delight to creatively bend the rules,” he writes, “but you need to know them first.”
|
|
Have you ever heard of the “red thread”?
It’s a German concept (der rot Faden des Erzählens) that means “the red thread of storytelling".
Dallas Murphy argues that, in science, the red thread is “What’s new? What’s compelling?”.
Unfortunately, when scientists “write for a journal gatekeeper rather than for a human being, the result is muddy prose.”
Want an example? I love examples. Murphy uses this one.
“Though not inclusive, this paper provides a useful review of the well-known methods of physical oceanography using as examples various research that illustrates the methodological challenges that give rise to successful solutions to the difficulties inherent in oceanographic research.”
→ defensive, scared to make confident statements, turgid, caveats, lists, “fending off criticism that hasn’t yet been made”
“We review methods of oceanographic research with examples that reveal specific challenges and solutions.” → ah, much better.
A strong paper is anchored in the discussion, note several editors.
Here are some gems of advice:
“
|
|
|
Explain why the findings are interesting and how they affect a wider understanding of the topic. Reassess the existing literature – consider if [your] findings open the door for future work. Convince readers that [you’ve] considered alternative explanations.”
-Peter Gorsuch
|
|
|
|
“There is a narrow line between speculation and evidence-based conclusions…when the discussion is all speculation, it’s no good because it is not rooted in the author’s experience.”
-Angel Borja
|
|
|
Science writing doesn’t need to be “stodgy, dry and abstract” notes Zoe Doubleday. Just because it should be “factual, concise, and evidence-based…doesn’t mean it can’t also be creative.”
Telling a story with your science doesn’t mean you have to sensationalize it. Doubleday makes the keen observation that “if science isn’t read, it doesn’t exist.”
How to get better at writing? "Read outside [your] field to better appreciate the craft and principles of writing.”
|
|
|
If you missed the link to George Gopen white papers on clear writing, you can check it out here. If you’re at UNC Chapel Hill, know that he is coming for his annual day-long seminar on Nov 20th. Register here: LINK
|
|
|
Have you ever reviewed, a then rejected, a paper you felt was “too non-scientific” in style?
Did you choose to maintain the status quo?
Peter Gorsuch, managing editor of Nature Research Editing Service, provides caution on creativity, but overall says the same as the previous scientists. “Writers must be careful about creativity…it sounds good but the purpose of a scientific paper is to convey information.” His advice is “to make the writing only as complex as it needs to be.”
|
|
He defines creativity as “flourishes” and “figurative language” – one might argue that writing straightforward science is creative, in its departure from the status quo.
Of course it's all a balance.
|
|
|
I like how Doubleday describes creativity and good science communication
“Try to deliver a paper that you would enjoy reading yourself.”
|
|
|
Remember when we discussed keeping a folder of well-written manuscripts? Looking those over before sitting down to write (or voice-to-text!) is helpful.
|
|
Stacy Konkiel is director of research at Altmetric, London which scores research papers based on digital attention.
Her “biggest piece of advice is to get to the point. Authors spend a lot of time setting up long-winded arguments to knock down possible objections before they actually state their case.”
Building on Borja’s comment regarding interdisciplinary work, she encourages scientists to make your point “in non-specialist language” if possible. “If you write in a way that is accessible to non-specialists, you….open yourself up to citations by experts in other fields and make your writing available to laypeople.”
|
|
Are you thinking – I want my work to be read by scientists in my field. I’m not as concerned with lay people and I don’t care if my work is picked up by the press or social media. (I really hope you’re not).
“Traditional scientific training doesn’t typically prepare scientists to be effective communicators outside academic circles.”
In the past, “when scientists spoke, citizens listened to them in silence, with respect and confidence.” But by the 1970s, “’scientific’ began to take on negative connotations” and began the “separation of science from society.” [Jucan and Jucan 2014] To address this separation, “scientists need to be responsive to the changing needs…of society; society needs to understand and support the positive role in science.”
|
|
Quote of the Day:
"The first draft is you just telling yourself the story."
- Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
|
