How can I sound professional?

 

“Microcrystals (average size, 5 × 5 × 2 mm3; fig. S1) of the A2AAR with apocytochrome b562RIL (BRIL) fused into its third intracellular loop (A2AAR-BRIL) (25) in complex with the antagonist ZM241385 were grown (26) and delivered inside LCP using a viscous medium microinjector (7). An x-ray energy of 6 keV (wavelength, 2.07 Å) was used as a compromise between the strength of anomalous scattering from sulfur atoms (K-edge, 2.472 keV), the efficiencies of the Kirkpatrick-Baez mirrors and of the detector, as well as the detector-size and wavelength limits on resolution.” (Adapted from Batyuk et al. 2016)

If the language in this passage seems daunting at first, don’t worry—you’re not alone! To the unaccustomed eye, professional scientific writing often appears dense and awkward; however, when we parse out the writing techniques from the scientific jargon, it becomes clear that scientific writing is not so different from any other type of academic writing.

 

Hopefully it sounds familiar when we say that in your writing you should be accurate, provide evidence for your claims, and be specific in its examples. These guidelines are true across disciplines, genres, audiences and purposes. Mostly, it’s only the technical content of scientific writing that makes it look so different.

a. The IPCC projected in its 2001 report that sea level will rise anywhere between 4 and 35 inches (10 and 89 centimeters) by the end of the century. The high end of that projection—nearly three feet (a meter)—would be “an unmitigated disaster,” according to Douglas. (Adapted from a National Geographic article)

b. Over the last 50 years a total area of 28,000 km2 of ice shelf has been lost, in connection to an increase of about 2.5 °C of the mean annual temperature (Cook and Vaughan 2010). (Adapted from Frezzotti and Orombelli 2013)

Notice that in both of the above examples, the authors cite evidence (the IPCC report; a paper by Cook and Vaughan) and are specific in their examples, despite the fact that the National Geographic article is intended for a general audience while the Frezzotti and Orombelli article is intended for a scientific audience.

 

So—what can you do to sound more professional?

 

  1. Be concise by omitting needless content.
  2. Use visuals appropriately and effectively.
  3. Be clear and specific by using precise language.
  4. Be objective by focusing on the research rather than the researchers.
  5. Be accurate by expressing restraint in your conclusions.
  6. Be fluid by using formal vocabulary and mechanics.

 

 

Conciseness

 

Conciseness—the ability to say a lot in as few words as possible—is one of the most important parts of writing publishable-quality papers and is covered in detail on this page.

 

 

Effectiveness of visuals

 

Because of the complexity of constructing visuals such as figures and tables, we cover them in detail on this page.

 

[bg_faq_start]

Clarity and specificity


When the content of your paper is technically complex, it can be very challenging to get your ideas across clearly. In this section we will cover how to convey this type of information in a straightforward, thorough, and effective way.

 

Using quantitative terms

 

In science, the numbers are often what matter most. For example, by knowing not only that “the yield of product A was higher than that of product B” but also that it was “23% higher,” we can quantitatively compare a reaction resulting in A and B to similar reactions to help determine which might be most useful for future experiments.

You should report a quantitative result over a qualitative description of the result whenever it is appropriate. An example of when it might be inappropriate is if a quantity has no scientific significance, such as:

“The value was 3.4% below the limit of detection (LOD).”

If a value is below a limit of detection or quantification, it cannot be quantified and should therefore be reported as:

“The value was below LOD.”

 

When you can report exact values, only do so to the correct level of confidence. This means that you need to know how to correctly calculate significant figures, the number of digits in a number that carry meaning. Reporting a datum to the correct number of significant figures is important because it conveys the amount of precision of that value and is the only accurate way to report the value. Here we provide a cursory review of significant figures; for a more detailed resource, try this guide from Rice University.

 

Calculating and reporting significant figures
Rule Example
Non-zero digits are significant. 1445 has 4 significant figures; 1440 has 3 significant figures.
Zeros that come after a decimal and are at the end of the number are significant. 1445.00 has 6 significant figures, as does 0.00144500.
Zeros that fall between 2 significant figures are significant. 0.001 has 1 significant figure; 1.000 has 4 significant figures; 1.001 has 4 significant figures.
The number of significant figures of an instrument-reported value is the number of digits reported by that instrument. Your UV-Vis spectrometer reports an absorbance of 0.225. You know the value of the absorbance to 3 significant figures.
When adding or subtracting two numbers, round your answer to the least number of places in the decimal portion of both numbers. 45.06 + 1.00689 = 46.07 (that is, 46.06689 rounded to the hundredths place, the place farthest right in 45.06)
When multiplying or dividing two numbers, the least number of significant digits among the numbers determines the number of significant digits in the answer. 4.021 x 3.11 = 12.5 (that is, 12.50531 rounded to 3 sig figs, the least number of sig figs in both numbers)

 

It is also important that you are able to communicate statistical significance appropriately. You should become familiar with many of the statistical tests you can perform on data and how to calculate them (which won’t be covered in this writing guide). Once you have conducted a statistical analysis of your data, you also must be able effectively translate it into your report. Usually, statistics are reported both in a figure or table as well as in the body of your Results section text.

 

Reporting statistics
  • Statistical significance and/or errors must always be shown in a figure, table, or legend that presents the data.
    • Table 3. CH4 oxidation states (mean ± SEM) calculated from TLEM experiments.
    • Figure 2. Running-wheel activity and sleep time after PTX injection… Significant differences were found in all groups (* p<0.05, ** p<0.01).
  • When reporting a mean value, you must also provide a measure of variability. Variability can either be defined by a standard variable (e.g. “s” or “SD” for standard deviation) or the procedure for calculating error must be described in your methods section. If data is shown in a table or figure, you can refer your reader to it instead of repeating the value.
    • Average distance was 4.3 nm (s=0.2 nm).
    • Average distance was 4.3 ± 0.2 nm.
    • Average distance was 4.3 nm (Fig. 1).
  • Scatter plots with regression analysis should report an R2 value in the legend.

 

Unless your paper is focused on mathematical or statistical operations and manipulations of data, you should keep discussion of statistics to a minimum. Statistical values are useful because they convey the amount of confidence you can have in your data often in a single number. In general, standard statistical analyses do not require explanation of how you performed them or what they mean. Here we provide examples of how statistics are discussed in the context of a results section.

[bg_faq_start]

Click to see examples

 

Results with error and/or significance reporting Reference
On some dates, the AAT recorded multiple consecutive exposures of HD 4732 (Table 3)…. On the four dates that had multiple exposures, the mean velocity spread is 2.9 m s-1Screen Shot 2015-06-26 at 10.53.37 AM
Sato et al. (2013)

The velocities with respect to North America have gradients that vary across eastern Nevada and western Utah (Figure 3). In western Utah, the velocity gradient across the Wasatch, Oquirrh, and Stansbury ranges is similar to that previously reported in several GPS studies [22-24], achieving a mean of 2.8 mm yr-1 west at the Nevada border and mean south rate for Utah stations west of -112° longitude of 0.8 mm yr-1…. West of the NV/UT state line, the velocity gradients change character, with a near-zero increase in east component and an increase of ~1 mm yr-1 when moving west from -114° to -117° longitude. A component of this gradient west of -114° describes clockwise rotation and not deformation.

Figure 3. Velocity profile across eastern Nevada/western Utah Basin and Range. Uncertainty bars are 2σ. Light gray are station names. Dashed vertical lines are the names of selected mountain ranges.
Figure 3. Velocity profile across eastern Nevada/western Utah Basin and Range. Uncertainty bars are 2σ. Light gray are station names. Dashed vertical lines are the names of selected mountain ranges.
Hammond, Blewitt, and Kreemer (2014)
A xylitol-dependent glucose 6-phosphate accumulation through the pentose phosphate pathway and gluconeogenesis was detectable only for much higher xylitol concentrations (Table I).Screen Shot 2015-06-28 at 7.22.48 PM Doiron et al. (1996)

Table 1 displays results from each treatment of the present study. The hatch rates of each replicate (indicated by SD) clearly show the variability within individual spawns; such variability is common in commercial hatcheries.

Screen Shot 2015-06-29 at 10.48.30 AM

Straus et al. (2012)
There were no detectable differences between the populations originating in Georgia or North Carolina at the Georgia location; therefore, data were combined for analysis (Figure 2). Screen Shot 2015-06-29 at 11.39.08 AMAt initiation of the study, seed viability averaged 86%, declining to 63 and 33% at 12 and 24 mo, respectively. Burial of 36 mo or longer reduced seed viability to, 2%. The relationship between Benghal dayflower seed viability and burial time was described by a sigmoidal regression model (R2 = 0.89, P < 0.0001). Riar et al. (2012)
Screen Shot 2015-06-29 at 11.53.57 AMSubchronic inhalation of ultrafine and fine TiO2 particles resulted in a significant impairment of AM-mediated test particle clearance (Figure 5). Control animals had a clearance rate of the test particles of approximately 1% per day, for the animals exposed to the fine particles, the clearance rate was reduced to 0.6% per day; and for those exposed to the ultrafine particles, it was even further reduced, to 0.13% per day. Oberdörster, Ferin, and Lehnert (1994)

[bg_faq_end]

 

 

Using verb tenses appropriately

 

You might be thinking that it seems mundane to be thinking about the difference between verb tenses, but in science, it can be a little tricky. For example, which of the following two statements do you think would be appropriate to use in your discussion section?

a. Changing connectivity between active and isolated components of the subglacial drainage system does not drive seasonal trends in ice velocity on alpine glaciers owing to the dominant control of subglacial channels. (Adapted from Andrews et al. 2014)

b. Changing connectivity between active and isoalted components of the subglacial drainage system did not drive seasonal trends in ice velocity on alpine glaciers owing to the dominant control of subglacial channels.

Actually, the tense you should use depends on the context. If the assertion is something that is widely accepted by scientists in the field of alpine glaciers, then sentence (a) would appropriately use the present tense. However, sentence (b) would be more appropriate this assertion had been shown, only once or so, by a particular published work. In the latter case, past tense communicates that the phenomenon did happen in a study but not necessarily that it is true.

 

Hopefully, you can begin to see how your choice of tense can greatly impact the meaning of your sentence. Is your statement true for all time, or just in the context of your paper? In this sense, your verb tense can also help convey how much confidence you have in a statement. Compare:

a. Dogs have tails.

b. Dogs were reported to have tails.

c. Dogs have been reported to have tails.

These statements seem to have very different connotations. (a) shows complete confidence in the assertion–present tense shows that something is true. In (b), the past tense used shows that dogs did have tails in one case but that this might no longer hold true. This is the case in (c), as well, but the statement is less definitive and therefore even seems to suggests that the author might doubt the idea that dogs have tails. Clearly, it is important to choose your verb tense carefully!

 

Guidelines for using correct verb tense
Tense Appropriate usage(s) Example
Past To describe work that was done in the past “Helium gas was used to purge the chamber.”
To describe specific results in your work “The component of the reduced charge state density decreased by e-2x.”
To share results from others’ work “Similar results were obtained by Author X.”
Present To state accepted scientific knowledge “Type 1 diabetes mellitus is an autoimmune disease.”
To refer to a figure or table “Results from the uterotrophic assay are shown in Figure 4.”
To present an overarching conclusion, implication, or application of your work “We conclude that discharge of the ice sheet is a dominant factor.”
Future To present research objectives (research proposal only) “This work will address the need for more sustainable bioplastics.”
To propose methodology and project timeline (RP only) “Fluorometric assays will be used to detect the presence of the enzyme.”
To predict results and impacts (RP only) “The insights gained from this work will benefit all future astrophysical endeavors.”

 

As you can see from the table above, the future tense is rarely used in journal articles, which should make sense since journals are used to report what has happened whereas research proposals are for proposing a future endeavor.

In sum, it is best to use the present tense for facts and interpretations; use the past tense for results.

 

 

Being unambiguous

 

It is easy to accidentally introduce ambiguity into your writing by using words like this, that, or it without enough context to make it clear what these pronouns refer to. For example, try to distinguish what “it” refers to in the following sentence:

A large channel feature (channel1; Figs. 8b and 9b) was identified immediately north of the dam. It measures approximately 100 m wide on either side of the river with 2–3 m relief. (Adapted from Steelman, Kennedy, and Parker 2015).

What measures approximately 100 m: the dam or the channel feature? In order to make the meaning of the second sentence clear, specificity is imperative:

A large channel feature (channel1; Figs. 8b and 9b) was identified immediately north of the dam. This suspected feature measures approximately 100 m wide on either side of the river with 2–3 m relief.

We also could have written, “The channel feature measures….” in the second sentence, but that sounds a little more redundant. While specificity is important, try to be somewhat creative to avoid being repetitive.

Double check your usage of these types of pronouns in your own writing to ensure that they are completely unambiguous.

 

[bg_faq_end]

 

[bg_faq_start]

Objectivity


When you conduct scientific research, it is critical to make as unbiased choices, observations, and interpretations as possible, which would otherwise affect the accuracy and meaningfulness of your conclusions. Likewise, even if you’ve managed to stay objective during the research phase, subjectivity in your written document will make your work seem nonscientific and untrustworthy. It is therefore crucial to know how to make your writing sound objective, which we will guide you through in the sections below.

 

 

Using personal pronouns sparingly

 

When you think about the purpose of your paper or poster, is it usually to talk about you (doing the science) or about the science (that you did)? In most cases once you get to the undergraduate level and beyond, the science is the most important part of the project. For that reason, scientific writing should usually focus on what was done rather than who did it.

Furthermore, some things happened during your project (such as getting results) while other things are true about your project (such as a comparison of your results to someone else’s). This section will guide you through how to best convey actions so that who did it, what happened, and whether or not it is enduring is accurate and clear.

Using personal pronouns puts us, the scientists, into the project. This might be helpful for a reader to understand why you undertook a project, but is it critical for them to know who was involved in mixing two reagents together? Or to know that you did the data analysis? Not so much. In general, it is best to avoid using personal pronouns whenever possible in scientific writing.

This applies to words like “we,” “they,” and “I,” as well as to the names of other researchers when you cite them. Take, for example, the following statements:

  • We measured the height of the cliff using a laser rangefinder.
  • In their paper, Truan & Canto (2003)2 showed that the two substances are immiscible at 20 K.
  • After addition of ammonium sulfate, I heated the solution to 80 ˚C.

Are any of the people necessary in these statements? What if we said, instead:

  • The height of the cliff was measured using a laser rangefinder.
  • The two substances are immiscible at 20 K.2
  • After addition of ammonium sulfate, the solution was heated to 80 ˚C.

All of the same information is given, but it sounds more formal and objective. As a bonus, in the second case, the version without “Truan & Canto” is more concise!

If there are no people to have opinions about or introduce human error into an experiment, then these things theoretically can’t affect an experiment. Of course, we know that scientists are involved, but their opinions and errors are assumed to be (hopefully minor) factors in all science; they shouldn’t be especially significant in your particular project.

“We” is appropriate in some instances, but not in others. Taking the scientists out of the science helps a statement become more objective, but taking them out of a personal insight or decision can be downright confusing. For example, saying, “It is expected that this method will become routine” isn’t any more objective than saying “We believe that this method will become routine,” but the latter statement is less awkward and more straightforward. Below are some examples of some appropriate and inappropriate times to use the word “we.”

 

Section Use “we”… Example
Introduction To “fill the gap
“Here we use borehole hydraulic heads to explore the response of the unchannelized region of the bed to channelized regions.” (Adapted from Andrews et al. 2014)
Methods To signal a deliberate choice that was made “Similarly to ref. 4, we probe the energy splitting of this doublet spectroscopically using a weak probe beam so that n << 1.” (Adapted from Wallraff et al. 2004)
Results To signal a deliberate choice that was made “Motivated by the high activity of the combination complex 8/TBAI in the formation of propylene carbonate, we evaluated the usable temperature and pressure ranges with more challenging reaction parameters (Table 2).” (Adapted from Adolph et al. 2015)
Discussion To interpret
“We interpret this as mainly owing to differences in root zone depth.” (Adapted from Zhang, Dawes, and Walker 2001)
To signal a decision that was made “We have adopted a level of C/C0 = 0.001 or a 3-log reduction in particle number concentration as a basis for calculating L.” (Adapted from Lecoanet, Bottero, and Wiesner 2004)
To report or summarize findings “In the present study, we confirmed the presence of B. microti in I. ricinus.” (Adapted from Stensvold et al. 2015)

 

Notice that “we” is used most frequently in the discussion section. This should make sense, considering that the discussion section is about interpretation, which unavoidably involves scientists and their personal influence on the project. However, you should use “we” minimally in the other sections, especially the Methods and Results, in which objectivity is most important.

In addition, it is sometimes appropriate to refer to other authors by their names. This is usually the case when referencing someone else’s methodology, such as:

“Proteins were extracted acording to the protocol of Raymond et al,13

if it is important to draw attention to that work itself. Other times, a finding or insight that is widely attributed to a specific paper may warrant an explicit reference to the authors in order for your reader to better recognize the finding/insight/idea you are referring to.

 

Examples of explicit in-text author references
Text Adapted from
The low degree of asymmetry between the upper and lower branches of the Dirac cone implies a nearly constant band velocity vβ = 0.38(3) × 106 m/s, consistent with previous estimates by Jiang et al. [25] (0.46 × 106 m/s) and Riemann et al. [29] (0.25 × 106 m/s). Johannsen et al. (2015)
Rief et al. (10, 24) found that a rate of unfolding of 3 × 10-5 s6-1 and a Δxuu = 0.3 nm reproduced the rate dependency of the force of unfolding of native titin molecules. However, these parameters fail to describe our data (Figs. 2 and 3). Carrion-Vazquez et al. (1999)

[In the following example, the authors reference a particular study numerous times. Naming those authors helps the reader understand the connection between the statements about that study that appear in different sections of the paper below.]

 

Using a microfluidic real-time PCR assay targeting 25 bacteria and 12 parasites, Michelet et al. identified two cases of B. divergens and 19 cases of B. venatorum, analysing 94 pools of Danish questing I. ricinus nymphs sampled in the region of Zeeland, Denmark [9]. However, a few remarkable differences between the two studies could be noted. … On the other hand, B. divergens was found in two cases in the study by Michelet et al. [9], while this species remained unidentified in the present study. … It should also be noted that Michelet et al. [9] used different target genes when screening for Babesia.

Stensvold et al. (2015)
Since the first catalytic system for the copolymerization of CO2 with epoxides released by Inoue et al. [5], a wide range of heterogeneous or homogeneous catalytic systems has been reported and many reviews try to keep pace with the development of new systems in this area [6–8].  Adolph et al. (2015)
The ligand 1–4 and the complex 7 were synthesized according to literature procedures reported by Yamazaki and Higashi [20a].
 Adolph et al. (2015)

 

 

Using appropriate voice

 

When you successfully avoid using personal pronouns, do you notice how your sentence structure changes? For example:

a. We analyzed the data.

b. The data were analyzed.

The sentence changed from active to passive voice. You may have learned in other, non-science classes that the passive voice is weak and should be avoided at all costs. In science, it is perfectly OK! The meaning of this sentence wasn’t changed at all, but the scientists, who weren’t contributing much valuable information to this statement, were removed. In fact, passive voice is used commonly in scientific writing to enhance objectivity and aid conciseness.

Alternatively, you may have learned that you should always use the passive voice in science. This isn’t necessarily true, either. It is perfectly valid to say something like, “ascorbic acid reduces the complex.” Chemicals, enzymes, bacteria, robots…. lots of scientific things do things, and there is no reason to pretend that they don’t by trying to stick strictly to passive voice. The key is to use it when it is preferable to the active voice to aid objectivity and conciseness, which happens to be quite frequently.

Passive voice is often tied with use of the past tense, especially in the Methods section of a journal article or poster. This is because it is most important to maintain objectivity about something that happened (even though you did it) in this section. (You can read more about using the past tense under “Clarity and specificity,” above.) Some common passive-voice–past-tense combinations used in published journal article Methods sections as listed in the table below, which is adapted from Robinson et al. (2008).

 

Common passive-voice–past-tense combinations
  • was added
  • was allowed
  • was assigned
  • was carried out
  • was collected
  • was cooled
  • was determined
  • was  maintained
  • was performed
  • was prepared
  • was recorded
  • was removed

 

[bg_faq_start]

Pro-6: Test yourself

Which of the following sentences use personal nouns and pronouns appropriately in the context of professional scientific writing? For any that don’t, rewrite them to be more objective.

  1. We prepared palladium complexes 2af from the corresponding chiral ligands (1af) and 1,3-diphenylallylpalladium chloride dimer by reaction with silver tetrafluoroborate in acetone (Scheme 1). (Adapted from Armstrong et al. 2005)
  2. Howat et al. (2007) recently reported a rapid and large increase of flow velocity and ice loss for several outlet glaciers and described as dynamic thinning, particularly along the NW and E coasts. (Adapted from Frezzotti and Orombelli 2013).
  3. Thus, in the present work we isolated and identified the mycobiota of four different preparations of Boza, spontaneously fermented, and characterized the dominant yeasts for their biotechnological properties. (Adapted from Caputo et al. 2012)
  4. In light of the underground hydrological system that facilitates drainage of snowmelt, we therefore expect the acidic mineral surface cryosols at our upland site to stay dry during summer. (Adapted from Lau et al. 2015)
  5. When looking more closely at the conserved matches for the miRNAs that do not have a U at position 9, we found an overabundance of a conserved A forming a mismatch to this nucleotide. (Adapted from Lewis, Burge, and Bartel 2005)
  6. The terminology for the structure of molecular clouds is not fixed; here we follow the discussion in Williams, Blitz & McKee (2000). (Adapted from McKee and Ostriker 2007)
  7. To test the wavelength scaling, we measured the nonlinear response for different pump wavelengths. (Adapted from O’Brien et al. 2015)

[bg_faq_start]

Solutions

  1. Palladium complexes 2a–f were prepared from the corresponding chiral ligands…
  2. A rapid and large increase of flow velocity and ice loss has been recently reported for
    several outlet glaciers and described as dynamic thinning, particularly along the NW and E coasts (Howat et al. 2007).
  3. Correct, assuming this passage “fills the gap” in the Introduction
  4. Correct, because an “expectation” involves the scientists explicitly
  5. Upon more careful inspection of the conserved matches for the miRNAs that do not have a U at position 9, an overabundance of conserved A forming a mismatch to this nucleotide was found.
  6. Correct, in most cases, because “we” signals a deliberate choice in terminology, while the authors referenced are useful since people familiar with the field might recognize the names and therefore instantly become familiar with the terminology in question.
  7. To test the wavelength scaling, the nonlinear response was measured for different pump wavelengths.

[bg_faq_end]

[bg_faq_end]

 

 

Using phrasing to help tell a story

 

You can maintain formal objectivity while still priming your reader for the conclusions you ultimately intend to draw. For example, compare the following results reportings:

a. Later sowing altered rutin content in herb by 0.001% on average.

b. Later sowing had essentially no impact on rutin content in herb.

c. Later sowing altered rutin content by no more than 0.0014%.

Each version communicates information about the same set of results, yet they convey different meanings. In (a), the reader is told that an average value of rutin content is of note–in other words, that the presence of rutin is important. The phrasing in (b), on the other hand, communicates that this average value, though still existent, is unimportant and that later sowing is probably similar to whatever the other condition in the experiment was (e.g. earlier sowing). Finally, in (c), the phrasing tells us that although there was rutin content, we don’t find this amount to be very large.

 

As you write, pay attention to the meaning of the information you write about and how it relates to the goals of your project. Try to construct sentences in a way that are consistent with the story you are telling.

 

[bg_faq_end]

 

[bg_faq_start]

Accuracy

 

There is more to reporting information accurately than not presenting false data (although that, of course, is extremely important, too!). Your language is a key factor in avoiding unintentionally faulty or unreliable messages. Novice writers tend to overstate the meaning of their results, which we will help you learn to avoid in these next two sections.

 

 

Avoiding “hand-waving” arguments

 

When you interpret your data in a way that is not supported by evidence, scientists say that you are making a “hand-waving” argument. You can imagine the origin of this term being someone gesturing wildly with their hands while they make a point in order to make it seem more convincing, even though they aren’t backing their argument up with sufficient details. Below is an example of a result followed by a hand-waving interpretation:

Result: Neither strain grew by utilizing organic substrates in the absence of iron, and their growth on iron was not stimulated by the presence of acetate. (Adapted from Emerson and Moyer 1997)

Discussion: This result suggests that organic substrates are complexed with high concentrations of iron in all life forms.

 As we know, a result from two bacterial strains does not suggest a conclusion about “all life forms,” nor does how an absence of iron impacts bacterial growth indicate anything about how organic substrates interact with iron. This discussion point is an extreme example of a hand-waving argument because it draws large, far-reaching, and irrelevant conclusions from a single result.

Although you are unlikely to hand-wave in your papers to the same extent as in the example above, it can be very tempting to stretch the meaning of your data at least a little. After all, the results of the experiments you do in class are usually not incredibly exciting, and it can be nice to imagine that they might mean something significant. But be careful! If you make an assertion that reaches beyond the scope of your data, you will lessen your credibility as a scientist and an author. It is always better to exercise restraint when discussing your data so that the conclusions you do draw are more trustworthy and powerful.

 

 

Using hedging language

 

Hedging is the use of qualifiers to acknowledge that a statement is not absolute fact. The results you obtain in an experiment may suggest a certain conclusion, but they are not absolute truths. It may seem, at first, like hedging makes your argument sound weaker, but it actually makes you more trustworthy.  Take, for example, the following weather prediction:

“Temperatures this summer will be 3 ˚F higher than average. Rainfall will be 1 inch.”

How likely does it seem that this will be true? If the forecaster is wrong, how would that affect how much you trust him? To avoid being wrong repeatedly, forecasters often show more caution by saying things more like,

“Temperatures this summer are likely to be 2-4 ˚F higher than average. Rainfall may reach up to 1 inch.”

By using the words “likely,” “may,” and “up to,” the weather forecaster is showing restraint and, by doing so, sounds more credible. The same is true in scientific writing.

Thus, it remains possible that particle size may be one of the largest contributing factors to the decrease in absorption observed.”

The words “possible” and “may be” are used intentionally to show that we cannot prove that particle size is one of the largest contributing factors, but that it is what our current scientific knowledge has led us to believe. Alternatively, trying to convince your audience of an idea makes you appear biased and therefore not an objective scientist. (Read more about objectivity here.)

In scientific writing, hedging is a critical tool to ensure that you don’t overstate your knowledge and to what extent it applies.

 

Hedging words
  • Can
  • Could
  • May
  • Might
  • Should
  • Would
  • Possible/possibly
  • Probable/probably
  • Potential/potentially
  • Typically
  • Generally
  • Broadly
  • Likely
  • Suggest(s)
  • Indicate(s)
  • Seem(s)
  • Support(s)

 

This is list is not exhaustive but it should help you identify and construct statements that don’t inaccurately overstate what science can tell us. Never use the word “prove” in scientific writing–experiments can “demonstrate” or “suggest” an explanation, but they can never prove that something is true.

Below we provide examples of hedging from published articles. Note which words they use to hedge their arguments and how frequently they are used.

 

“MAT sequences may be useful for improving phylogenetic resolution of species in the Gibberella/Fusarium complex. MAT appears to be more variable than most other gene sequences in a given genome (51) and therefore should enhance phylogenetic resolving power, a clear advantage in unraveling species relationships in the taxon-rich Gibberella/Fusarium complex. In contrast to high MAT gene variability between species, MAT appears to be nearly homogeneous within species (52). Thus, MAT genes have the potential to mark species boundaries.” (Adapted from Yun et al. 2000)
“As mentioned above, dialkyl malonates 1 were monosubstituted successfully by the poorly reactive polyfluoroalkyl halides, indicating that anions derived from malonic esters react very well in this nucleophilic displacement. In addition, among the base-solvent combinations used for performing such perfluoroalkylations, it appears that weak bases such as potassium carbonate and aprotic solvent such as THF or strong bases such as sodium hydride in THF should be used.” (Adapted from Trabelsi, Szönyi, and Geribaldi 2001)
“The mechanical weakness of the Eastern Cordillera basal detachment, as inferred from the presence of melts and fluids, probably separates crustal shortening in an upper-crust imbricate belt [7-9] from a deeper crust with an unknown mode of internal deformation. The continuity of the deep crustal structure across the entire plateau suggests a single crustal thickening process rather than important additional contributions from other processes that involve the mantle [23].” (Adapted from Yuan et al. 2000)
“The higher-energy spectra of the experimental events indicate that a portion of the detected events or all of them are of background nature. Assuming that the whole observed excess is the background plus the sought effect (due to 2ν2β decay of 136Xe) is less than the background error (<37), we have T1/2 (2ν2β) > 2.1 × 1020 years. From the data of EXO experiment [7], T1/2 (2ν2β) = 2.11 × 1021 years, it follows that the number of events from the 2ν2β decay of 136Xe on our setup is expected to be <10.” (Adapted from Belov et al. 2012)

 

You should be sure to hedge your statements whenever your point is not an absolute fact. Hedging is used most often in the discussion section of a paper or poster because the authors are speculating about, but cannot be certain of, the meaning of their results. Hedging is also commonly used in introductions (to indicate the uncertainty associated with talking about others’ results) and in results sections (to describe findings without making them sound like universal truths).

 

[bg_faq_start]

Pro-7: Practice exercise

Choose any primary research article and read its discussion section. Underline all hedging words and phrases and note the contexts in which they are used.

[bg_faq_end]

 

 

Distinguishing between animate and inanimate capabilities

 

It is very common for students to refer to instruments or other inanimate objects as having the ability to perform the functions of a scientist—that is, to analyze data. But in reality, the most they can do is collect data. This is a very important distinction! Do not attribute limitations, capabilities, or errors to inanimate objects. A limitation might be a quality of an object, but that doesn’t mean that the object actively limits the experiment. For example, compare the following two statements (adapted from an example in Write like a Chemist):

a. The GC/MS was unable to detect estrogen in the stream water.

b. The estrogen in stream water was below detection limits.

In statement A, the GC/MS is given the ability (or inability) to detect something. GC/MS is used to detect substances, but it doesn’t have the willpower to do it on its own. As another example:

a. The oscilloscope determined the frequency to be 12 Hz.

b. Using an oscilloscope, the frequency was determined to be 12 Hz.

The oscilloscope provides a measurement of frequency, but only you can determine which value to accept.

This may seem like a nit-picky distinction, but to personify an instrument is simply inaccurate, thus detracting from the scientific authenticity and professionalism of your writing. When in doubt, ask yourself: “Is a human using this object to do something?” If so, make sure that the object isn’t ascribed an action verb.

 

Pro-8: Test yourself

Which of the following statements are inaccurately ascribing animate qualities to inanimate objects? Re-write any such statements to avoid this error.

  1. The acid wash cleaned the glassware.
  2. A probe sonicator lysed the cells.
  3. Data were analyzed by Harmonic Analysis Software.
  4. Soil temperatures were measured using a LiCOR thermistor.
  5. Syringe pumps were operated at a flow of 1 mL/min during particle injection.
  6. This condition requires that samples undergo purification prior to analysis.
  7. The oven heated samples to 55 ˚C.

[bg_faq_start]

Solutions

  1. Inaccurate. The glassware was cleaned using an acid wash.
  2. Inaccurate. A probe sonicator was used to lyse the cells.
  3. Inaccurate. Data were analyzed using Harmonic Analysis Software.
  4. Accurate: the sentence structure implies use by a human.
  5. Accurate
  6. Accurate: something can be “required” or made necessary by the mere conditions of a situation.
  7. Inaccurate. Samples were heated to 55 ˚C using an oven.

[bg_faq_end]

[bg_faq_end]

 

[bg_faq_start]

Fluidity

 

You want your thoughts and ideas to flow smoothly so that someone doesn’t have to re-read each of your sentences multiple times to understand what you’re saying. But sometimes it can be hard to figure out why something you’ve written sounds awkward, so you don’t know what to do to fix it. This section outlines a couple of techniques you can use to try to make your writing more fluid.

 

Sentence structure can be a particularly important thing to think about in professional writing. First, know that a sentence is often easier to understand if the part of the sentence before the verb is shorter than the part after the verb. For example, compare the following 2 sentences:

a. Radiative transfer modeling, with kinematic data from millimeter interferometers, provides a more correct treatment. (Adapted from Downes and Soloman 1998)

b. A more correct treatment requires radiative transfer modeling, with kinematic data from millimeter interferometers.

Because (a) leaves the verb off until near the end of the sentence, it sounds more awkward than (b).

 

A second good rule of thumb is to provide given information before new information in a sentence that includes both new information and something that has already been mentioned. This concept is illustrated in the following 2 examples:

a. The highest PM concentrations of all hopanes and steranes were measured in Sacramento during the evening hours. Measured traffic markers are dominated by the urban background traffic signal since samples were not collected adjacent to roadways, which is is reflected by this trend. (Adapted from Kleeman, Riddle, and Jakober 2008)

b. The highest PM concentrations of all hopanes and steranes were measured in Sacramento during the evening hours. This trend reflects the fact that samples were not collected adjacent to roadways, and so the measured traffic markers are dominated by the urban background traffic signal.

Example (b) is easier to understand since we encounter more familiar information (i.e. the “trend”) first.

 

 

Using formal vocabulary

 

Be sure to always use scientific words and phrases in place of colloquial ones. For example, instead of saying, “we did a graph,” it is better to say that “a graph was constructed.” This might seem obvious in some contexts, but certain words that we’re highly accustomed to can be hard to notice. For instance, the word “experiment” should be avoided in most cases because it suggests a very short-term, single-outcome procedure; instead, it is more formal to refer to your “work” or “project.”

 

Formal words that can be used to replace informal words
Informal Formal Informal Formal
build up/buildup accumulate/accumulation make sure ensure
cut down decrease, diminish, reduce (is) made up of (is) composed of, consists of, includes
experiment project, work said reported
find out, pick up determine, discover show how demonstrate
get obtain see, look into consider, examine, investigate
go into enter set up establish
get rid of, take away eliminate, extract, remove, withdraw start, set up establish, originate
hint at imply, suggest take ingest
huge large, extensive, substantial think, hope anticipate, expect, predict
let on allow way approach, course, manner, process, procedure

 

Look out for these types of informalities in your writing and try to replace them using more formal language. This will also help maintain an air of objectivity (see above) by removing your personal voice from the science.

 

[bg_faq_start]

Pro-9: Practice exercise

Make each of the following sentences more fluid by replacing any colloquial words or phrases with more formal ones.

  1. Both strains had to have vitamins for growth.
  2. The high sensitivity is achieved by getting a big gain for the “on” state. (Adapted from Neubauer et al. 2015)
  3. Ground deformation monitors like GPS turn out accurate readings of fault movement that can be used to reconstruct the detailed structure of the earthquake source. (Adapted from Wei et al. 2014)
  4. The most astonishing things found out were carbon nanotubes holding in C60 molecules or elongated fullerenes (Fig. 27). (Adapted from Monthioux et al. 2001)
  5. These borehole and moulin hydraulic heads are put together with coincident measurements of
    surface ice velocity, bed separation, and air temperature to get to know relationships between ice dynamics and the subglacial hydrologic system. (Adapted from Andrews et al. 2014)
  6. The present experiment talks about two new bacteria isolated from a groundwater-fed iron seep that look like they grow lithotropically on ferrous iron. (Adapted from Emerson and Moyer 1997)
  7. The idea of circuit quantum electrodynamics can also be put to use for quantum information processing and quantum communication and may bring on new ways of single photon generation and detection. (Adapted from Vučković et al. 2003)
  8. The typical ways to do restriction endonuclease digestion and agarose electrophoresis were done like they are described in Sambrook et al., 1989. (Adapted from Yun et al. 2000)

 

[bg_faq_start]

Possible Solutions

  1. Both strains had to have required vitamins for growth.
  2. The high sensitivity is achieved by getting obtaining a big large gain for the “on” state.
  3. Ground deformation monitors like such as GPS turn out provide accurate readings measurements of fault movement that can be used to reconstruct the detailed structure of the earthquake source.
  4. The most astonishing things objects found out discovered were carbon nanotubes holding in containing C60 molecules or elongated fullerenes (Fig. 27).
  5. These borehole and moulin hydraulic heads are put together coupled with coincident measurements of surface ice velocity, bed separation, and air temperature to get to know characterize relationships between ice dynamics and the subglacial hydrologic system.
  6. The present experiment study talks about describes two new bacteria isolated from a groundwater-fed iron seep that look like they appear to grow lithotropically on ferrous iron.
  7. The idea concept of circuit quantum electrodynamics can also be put to use utilized for quantum information processing and quantum communication and may bring on lead to new ways of approaches for single photon generation and detection.
  8. The typical Standard ways to do procedures for restriction endonuclease digestion and agarose electrophoresis were done carried out like they are described in (Sambrook et al., 1989).

[bg_faq_end]

[bg_faq_end]

 

 

Using parallelism

 

Under dry conditions the principal controls on evapotranspiration are plant-available water and canopy resistance. Under wet conditions the dominant controls are advection, net radiation, and turbulent transport. Under intermediate conditions the relative importance of these factors varies depending on climate, soil, and vegetation. (Adapted from Zhang, Dawes, and Walker 2001)

The statement above is easy to read and flows nicely because it was constructed using parallel structure–the repetition of a chosen grammatical form among phrases, sentences, or even paragraphs. In this example, the three sentences were constructed in parallel. You might be able to see this more easily if we line up the corresponding parts of each sentence:

 

parallel structure 2

 

The sentence is constructed in such a way that the same parts of speech (or sometimes the same words!) are strung together in almost exactly the same order. By doing so, the authors made the distinctions between each of 3 conditions in one study very easy to compare.

 

You can avoid redundancy and make sets of information flow more smoothly by using parallel structure and the word “respectively” to connect different pieces. “Respectively” indicates that listed items connect in the same order to nearby listed attributes of the items. Let’s apply this concept to the following paragraph:

a. The FcH+/FcH oxidation potential was negatively shifted by 110 mV upon addition of an excess of pyridine, moved in the negative direction by 140 mV with excess imidazole addition, or, with the addition of excess 2-methylimidazole, shifted negatively by 150 mV. (Adapted from Vecchi et al. 2015)

This statement can be made much more clear if we first rearrange the ideas into parallel form, placing all the parts of speech in the same part of each section of the sentence.

b. The FcH+/FcH oxidation potential was negatively shifted by 110 mV upon addition of an excess of pyridine, negatively moved by 140 mV with addition of excess imidazole, or shifted negatively by 150 mV with the addition of excess 2-methylimidazole.

Now we can see that a lot of this sentence just repeats some minor variation of the phrase “shifted X mV upon addition of an excess of Y.” So, using the word “respectively,” we can condense this into one single phrase:

c. The FcH+/FcH oxidation potential was negatively shifted by 110, 140, or 150 mV upon addition of an excess of pyridine, imidazole or 2-methylimidazole, respectively.

This version is not only the most fluid but also the most concise. However, note that it is also cumbersome to overuse “respectively.” This word is not necessary if the associations among parts of the sentence are obvious without it. Using it superfluously ultimately detracts from conciseness.

 

Information should also be organized so that it has conceptual parallelism, in which ideas on either side of connecting words like and or or have the same level of importance.

a. Peracetic acid (PAA; CH3CO3H) is an antimicrobial disinfectant registered by the US Environmental Protection Agency for use in agriculture, cooling towers, and medicine. (Adapted from Straus et al. 2012)

b. Peracetic acid (PAA; CH3CO3H) is an antimicrobial disinfectant registered by the US Environmental Protection Agency for use in agriculture and medicine, though it is also commonly used to prevent bio film formation in cooling towers.

In (a), “agriculture” and “medicine” are both broad concepts, whereas “cooling towers” are a very specific area of use. To make the sentence conceptually parallel, we grouped the broader terms together in (b) and separated the specific idea.

 

Sometimes, in posters or research proposals, lists are a useful way to organize information. It is important that you maintain both structural and conceptual parallelism in addition to formatting parallelism, in which heading identifiers have the same capitalization and punctuation. Compare the following two sets of lists:

Rock core analysis:

1. Sample locations

2. Classifications

acquiring the GPS data.

Signal Processing

In the above example, the numbering scheme, uses of capitalization and punctuation, and grammatical structure are inconsistent. Instead, we should construct it more like the following:

1. Rock core analysis

1.1. Sample locations

1.2 Classifications

2. GPS data acquisition

3. Signal processing

 

[bg_faq_start]

Pro-10: Practice exercise

Re-write each of the following sentences using parallelism and, if appropriate, the word “respectively.”

  1. The dry limit is represented by BC and the wet limit by AB in Figure 1. (Adapted from Zhang, Dawes, and Walker 2001)
  2. The probe hybridized to a single XhoI fragment that was approximately 2.5 kb in size, as well as a KpnI fragment (~3.7 kb length) and a 5.8-kb EcoRI fragment. (Adapted from Yun et al. 2000)
  3. Other solid-state analogues of strong coupling cavity QED have been envisaged for superconductor systems13–20, in systems involving semiconductors21,22, and even micro-mechanical systems23. (Adapted from Wallraff et a. 2004)
  4. The two main synthesis approaches used are: 1) the in-situ technique, in which the NPs are generated in the presence of polymer and (2) Ex-situ technique: dispersion of separately prepared NPs to the polymer matrix. (Adapted from Tripathi, Kaur, and Jyoti 2015)
  5. CuO is an important industrial material and has been widely used, such as in gas sensors, electrode materials, magnetic ceramics, hydrogen storage materials, solar cells, photo-catalysis, and ZnO selectivity enhancement in hydration and dehydration reactions. (Adapted from Subhan et al. 2015)
  6. Excitation at 370 nm provided PL peaks at 406, 430, and 455 nm, whereas 390-nm excitation resulted in peaks appearing at 428, 456 nm. (Adapted from Subhan et al. 2015)
  7.  A. Topography Evolution
    b. The influence of bed slope
    c. Influence of mass flux.
  8. The distribution function for the case that the splitting probability is given by K(Φ) = k0Φ with unipolarity is shown in panel a. Panel B shows the distribution function if the flux ratio is 2:1, wheras panel (c) shows the situation that the fluxes are equal. (Adapted from Schrijver et al. 1997)
  9. All runs produced the same morphological units, which were (1) rhomboid patterns on the sediment bed extending over the entire width of the unconfined gravity current, (2) a straight-channel run of constant width and depth from the injection point to the slope break; (3) retrogressive erosion patterns at the slope break; and a sediment lobe on the elevated floor associated with the channel progression. (Adapted from Weill et al. 2014)

 

[bg_faq_start]

Possible solutions

  1. The dry and wet limits are represented in Figure 1 by BC and AB, respectively.
  2. The probe hybridized to single XhoI, KpnI, and EcoRI fragments (~2.5, 3.7, and 5.8 kb in size, respectively).
  3. Other solid-state analogues of strong coupling cavity QED have been envisaged in superconducting13–20, semiconducting21,22, and even micro-mechanical systems23.
  4. The two main synthesis approaches used are: (1) in-situ technique: generation of NPs in the presence of polymer and (2) ex-situ technique: dispersion of separately prepared NPs to the polymer matrix.
  5. CuO, which can enhance the selectivity of ZnO in hydration and dehydration reactions, is an important industrial material and has been widely used, such as in gas sensors, electrode materials, magnetic ceramics, hydrogen storage materials, solar cells, and photo-catalysis.
  6. Excitation at 370 and 390 nm provided PL peaks at 406, 430, 455 nm and 428, 456 nm, respectively.
  7.  A. Evolution of topography
    B. Influence of bed slope
    C. Influence of mass flux
  8. Panels a, b, and c show distribution functions for the case that the splitting probability is given by K(Φ) = k0Φ for three situations: the unipolar case, a flux ratio of 2:1 and equal fluxes, respectively.
  9. All runs produced the same morphological units: rhomboid patterns on the sediment bed extending over the entire width of the unconfined gravity current; a straight channel of constant width and depth running from the injection point to the slope break; retrogressive erosion patterns appearing at the slope break; and a sediment lobe on the elevated floor associated with the channel progression.

[bg_faq_end]

[bg_faq_end]

 

 

Transforming parts of speech

 

A nominalization is a noun formed from a verb or an adjective—for example, the noun “distillation” is a nominalization of the verb “distill.” Using nominalizations can help relieve awkwardness in some sentences and improve the clarity of your writing. Compare the following 2 sentences:

a. The ability of the metals to bond to one another is critical for the substances to completely react.

b. Metal-to-metal bonding is critical for reaction completion.

Not only is (b) more straightforward and clear, it is also more concise! We made it this way by forming the nominalizations “bonding” from “to bond,” “reaction” from “react,” and “completion” from “completely.” In addition, we also made an adjective out of “metals… to one another”: “metal-to-metal.” If you find that a section of your writing is very wordy and jumbled, try rearranging some of your ideas using nominalizations of some of your adjectives, adverbs, and verbs to make it more fluid. Nominalizations can also work in reverse, such as in the following sentences:

a. It is always important to do a preliminary mass measurement of a product before doing an analysis of it.

b. It is always important to preliminarily measure the mass a product before analyzing it.

 

The take-away is that changing the structure of your sentences by playing with parts of speech can aid their clarity and fluidity.

 

Practice exercise

Re-write any awkward sentences below so that they are more fluid by changing some of the parts of speech used. Keep in mind that transforming the part of speech of a term will also require that you change the sentence structure in other ways.

  1. A variety of PCR methods were used to enable us to detect DNA from different pathogens (Table 1). (Adapted from Stensvold et al. 2015)
  2. This is probably the case for the Puna plateau, in accord with a suggestion of strong lithospheric delamination for this region15. (Adapted from Yuan et al. 2000)
  3. The ability of the azobenzene strap to photoisomerize undergoes a transformation, when the Fc pivot moves angularly, into the blade zinc porphyrins being able to move such that they are open or closed. (Adapted from Vecchi et al. 2015)
  4. After the inner vesicle fuses, it degrades in a way that is dependent on a series of lysosomal/vacuolar acid hydrolases. (Adapted from from He and Klionsky 2009)
  5. Adding an excess of potassium carbonate and an excess of the starting active methylene compound to the reaction mixture allows complete conversion of the halide. (Adapted from Trabelsi, Szönyi, and Geribaldi 2001)
  6. In order to investigate other possible causes of observed radial velocity variations such as the pulsing of the star and its rotational modulation rather than it moving orbitally, spectral line shape analysis was performed with the use of high-resolution stellar template spectra. (Adapted from Sato et al. 2013)

 

[bg_faq_start]

Possible solutions

  1. A variety of PCR methods were used to enable detection of DNA from different pathogens (Table 1).
  2. This is probably the case for the Puna plateau, in accord with strong lithospheric delamination suggested for this region15.
  3. The photoisomerization of the azobenzene strap is transformed, through angular motion of the Fc pivot, into an open-close motion of the blade zinc porphyrins.
  4. After fusion, degradation of the inner vesicle is dependent on a series of lysosomal/vacuolar acid hydrolases.
  5. This sentence is fine as is; “Addition of excess …” would also be acceptable.
  6. In order to investigate other possible causes of observed radial velocity variations such as star pulsation and rotational modulation rather than orbital motion, spectral line shape
    was analyzed with the use of high-resolution stellar template spectra.

[bg_faq_end]

[bg_faq_end]

[bg_faq_end]