Excerpt from Writing science: how to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded
Table of Contents
Open Table of Contents
Writing in Science
As a scientist, you are also a professional writer
A scientist’s success depends not only on the quality of ideas in their mind or data in hand, but on the language used to describe them. Success is achieved by getting people to cite your papers, which hinges on impact. However, success doesn’t come from writing alone, but from effective writing. In fact, many leaders in various fields stand out because they articulate ideas with clear and effective language, connecting with readers.
Clear Writing and Clear Thinking: Which Comes First?
The common misconception is: to write clearly, you must think clearly first. But no matter how sound your thinking on a particular issue (or how it appears), no matter how detailed your intentions and plans, the act of writing almost always rebels, filled with unexpected difficulties, detours, dead ends, and revelations. Good, clear writing—educational and non-confusing—emerges from a series of struggles, which you might call litigation if you will. Usually, the formula above needs to be reversed: clear thinking emerges from clear writing.
Focusing on clear writing forces you to think more clearly. Improving writing skills will help you succeed, not only because it allows you to express ideas more effectively, making more people aware of them, but also because it clarifies your thinking, making your science better.
The Value of Writing: Giving Science a Voice
Our careers are built incrementally—our peers read our papers, use our ideas; the more papers we publish and get cited, the more successful we are. But our work gets read and cited because our ideas are expressed well enough for readers to understand. Our proposals get funded because we can clearly, powerfully, and convincingly communicate ideas to reviewers.
Therefore, our success comes not only from the inherent quality of these ideas, but from our ability to convey them.
Writing: An Essential Tool in Scientific Research
Although writing papers is crucial, for most scientists, writing papers is something we do afterward. We “write” papers after getting data. This approach is regrettable.
Writing is not just a means of communication, but a tool that needs careful honing, as complex and subtle as techniques like molecular biology. Scientists should study and develop this skill, treating writing like an experimental tool.
Make the Reader’s Job Easy
As an author, your task is to make the reader’s job easy. This might be the foundation of all other principles, so repeat it louder. As an author, your task is to make the reader’s job easy.
Clear writing helps readers quickly grasp your points, rather than getting lost in complex expressions. You provide not a difficult puzzle, but direct and effective scientific information.
Writing is a Process of Repeated Refinement
Bad first drafts are the starting point for every good writer. Excellent work often comes from constant rewriting and editing. Just as an artist can never truly finish a work, only choosing to let go at some point, writing is the same. The process of rewriting not only hones writing skills but also deepens thinking.
Rewriting is the essence of writing. Professional writers revise sentences over and over, constantly adjusting structure. Writing is painful but necessary. From a bad first draft to an excellent third draft requires countless rewrites. This rewriting cycle develops both writing skills and thinking, moving both toward clarity and power.
Science Writing as Storytelling
Good stories can’t be designed; they must be distilled
Scientists tell stories in a formalized structure, different from journalists’ narratives. However, many scientists are uncomfortable with the concept of “storytelling.” This is because “story” is often associated with fiction, while science requires objectivity and coolness. This misunderstanding makes scientists poor at highlighting stories in presenting results, merely “introducing their work.” As a result, even science journalists may struggle to sense a story.
From Scientific Data to Scientific Stories
Papers build stories from data, but data itself isn’t the story. The core of a scientific story is distilling meaning from data, not setting a framework before collecting data. Stories need to emerge naturally from data, not be imposed. Scientific stories aren’t fiction but objective assessments and interpretations of data. The most cited papers and funded proposals are those that tell the most compelling stories.
Why Science Needs Storytelling
Science’s ability to influence public life and policy decisions is in crisis. Science is often misunderstood or distorted, and scientists usually choose to communicate with policymakers by “stating facts,” which is no different from tourists trying to communicate with locals who don’t speak English by speaking louder English. The goal of scientific writing is to transform data into understanding, and scientists’ duty is not only to collect data but to present the stories within the data clearly. Data in papers are supporting characters; the protagonist is the problem you’re solving and its importance. Effective scientific communication requires narrative expression to help readers and decision-makers understand in a more engaging way.
Discover New Stories from Data Boundaries, Refine to Get Good Stories
Exploring data boundaries often reveals more important scientific stories. For example, when Bill Dietrich studied the relationship between soil depth and slope steepness, he focused on outliers in the data, which revealed hidden issues in geological structures and inspired new research directions. Exploring data limits is difficult but brings new perspectives and discoveries.
Writing is a process from complexity to simplicity. Although the final presentation is a concise story, this process requires exploring data boundaries and repeated polishing. If you impose a simple story from the start, you might miss profound meanings in the data. Deep dialogue with data not only finds answers but expands the problem’s context, sparking deeper thinking.
The ultimate goal of scientific writing is to help readers understand complex issues. By carefully listening to data, scientists can uncover hidden stories. In the writing process, repeated revisions not only polish the text but also promote scientists’ thinking abilities and academic growth. Therefore, rather than rushing to publish, take time to think and write, letting the paper tell a meaningful story. A good story can launch a career, while a mediocre one gets lost in the crowd.
Three Key Elements of Scientific Writing
- Content: What kind of story is engaging and memorable?
- Structure: How to organize content for easier understanding?
- Language: How to write stories in an engaging way?
These three elements form the foundation of scientific writing. When scientists realize that writing papers is storytelling, they become not only better writers but also better scientists.
Making a Story Sticky
Make the story “stick in the mind”; a “sticky” idea is more likely to have impact.
To evaluate if a story succeeds, ask yourself: How long does this story stay in my memory?
Some stories are engaging while reading but forgotten immediately, like light reading on a plane. Others take root in the mind, becoming classics passed down through generations. In science, our goal is to write “long-lasting” papers—those that provoke long-term citations. As someone described, a good paper “has legs,” maintaining influence across time.
Why Some Ideas Are More “Sticky”
In the book Made to Stick, Chip Heath and Dan Heath pose a key question: Why are some ideas memorable while others vanish? They summarize six elements that make ideas “sticky,” using the mnemonic “SUCCES”:
- S: Simple: Good ideas don’t need to be complex; they’re clear and straightforward. A core idea in one sentence touches more than lengthy explanations.
- U: Unexpected: Surprising elements break conventional thinking, sparking curiosity. For example, counterintuitive phenomena in scientific discoveries often attract more attention.
- C: Concrete: Abstract concepts are hard to resonate with, while specific examples and details make them easier to understand and remember.
- C: Credible: Strengthen the story’s persuasiveness through data, authoritative citations, or personal experiences, making it convincing.
- E: Emotional: Emotional resonance is a powerful weapon for memorability. Even in scientific writing, themes related to human well-being can touch readers’ emotions.
- S: Stories: Finally, stories themselves are the best tool for conveying information. Through narrative, complex scientific issues are transformed into forms readers easily absorb.