Have you ever written a fairly simple statement in a paper, then replaced a word with a more complex synonym to try to make it sound more interesting or intelligent? Almost everyone has done something similar countless times. However, they have rarely succeeded in actually improving their work with this strategy.
Beginning scientific writers often try to use more complex words and phrases when simpler ones would be fine because it makes their papers longer and because they think that it makes them sound sophisticated. In reality, wordiness tends to obscure the meaning of a message and makes the author seem less objective (see “Objectivity” on this page). Scientists therefore greatly prefer writing to be as concise as possible while still providing all the necessary information.
For example, when applying for a research grant, the proposal instructions may say something like:
“In no more than two pages, (1) provide your thesis title, (2) summarize the objectives of your thesis, (3) summarize work already accomplished, (4) summarize work planned for the term of the fellowship, and (5) explain the relevance of your work to analytical chemistry” (Robinson et al. 2008).
Before they learn to write concisely, many students would not be able to get past the third request before hitting the page limit. However, if you know how to say a lot in only a few words, your proposal could be extremely successful.
| Note: Although contractions (e.g. “can’t”) make your writing more concise, do not use them in a journal article-style paper or research proposal. They are not appropriate in academic style. |
[bg_faq_start]
Omit needless content
The easiest way to keep your writing concise is to avoid all of the words and phrases we might be accustomed to using but that don’t add any substantive content to your writing. For example, compare the following two statements:
a. It is interesting to note that the fascinating creature called the common poorwill is actually known to hibernate in the wintertime, going into a deep sleep during the coldest months of the year.
b. Common poorwills hibernate in the winter.
Sentence a is clearly longer, but does it convey any more information than sentence b? Not only do they communicate the same thing, but b also is more convincing than a since it omits any opinion of the author (such as “interesting” and “fascinating”).
The following sections will outline ways to identify and remedy this type of wordiness.
Use adjectives and adverbs sparingly
Although common in casual speaking and writing, adjectives and adverbs don’t often add much substance to academic writing. Novice writers usually also use them in a way that adds subjectivity to a statement, even further detracting from their usefulness. Take, for example, the following statements:
a. Both of the two samples had very similar concentrations. (9 words)
b. The two samples had similar concentrations. (6 words)
In (a), “both” adds no meaning to the statement because it is purely redundant. “Very,” too, does not change the meaning of the sentence, but it does show that the author is making a personal judgement call about how similar the concentrations are; “similar” alone is an appropriately descriptive and objective assessment. (In a discussion section, an author may choose to describe items as being “highly” similar but should make the subjectivity explicit when doing so.)
| Often unnecessary adjectives and adverbs |
|
The following words also seem to add meaning but only do in rare situations:
- “very” or “extremely.” These terms are only useful when distinguishing between two similar qualities of varying degree, such as “high-energy” and “very-high-energy.” Never use these words to magnify the importance of something, such as in “very interesting” or “extremely large.”
- “respectively.” Although it is sometimes necessary, it is often overused. If your meaning is clear without it, you don’t need it!
- “obviously.” This word doesn’t tell your reader anything except how you feel about an idea. (Instead, you should convince them something is obvious through logic and evidence.)
Also be aware that “significantly” should only be used when a statistical analysis has proven a difference to be of significant value.
Avoid excessive hedging
Although hedging (see the section on “Accuracy” on this page) is a critical tool for establishing trustworthiness and professionalism in scientific writing, there is also a limit to its value. For example, the hedging in the following statement is over-the-top:
“The results suggest that it may be possible to start to show how lasers may be used in such a way.” (21 words)
Really, all this statement says is the following:
b. “The results suggest how lasers may be used in this way.” (11 words)
Version (a) has so much hedging, however, that it is hard to figure out the point! You should try to hedge your statements enough to show the limits of your knowledge but no more.
Focus on the science, not the scientists
Be sure that the important scientific information is always the central subject of your sentences. Beginning scientific writers often include the names of authors and their papers when referring to others’ work, which uses up lots of valuable space. Although citations are critical pieces of information, the details of the reference should be left to your references section.
Compare the following statements:
a. In their paper entitled “Bilayer Manganites Reveal Polarons in the Midst of a Metallic Breakdown,” Massee et al.4 describe an experiment they did that helps elucidate the transition of charge carriers from polaronic metal states to insulating ordered states. (39 words)
b. Charge carriers can transition from polaronic metal states to insulating ordered states. (12 words)
Not only is (a) much longer than (b), but the actual information presented in it is hard to locate. Never refer to the title of a work in the text of your paper, and only refer to authors’ names when it clarifies an idea or helps the reader more easily recognize one. Examples of when it might be appropriate to use authors’ names can be found under “Objectivity” on this page.
Avoid empty transitional statements
A common bad habit is to introduce sentences or ideas with transitional statements that don’t add any meaning to the idea itself. You might think that these types of phrases aid the flow of thought for your reader, but in science, they only take up valuable space (both physically and mentally!). Note that this does not include content-driven transitions, as discussed later in this section.
| Examples of unnecessary transitional statements | |
|
|
Ordinal language, or words that indicate order or position in a series (such as “next,” “then,” or “first”), should also be avoided in journal articles. They are unnecessary, taking up valuable space while communicating little. Consider the following two statements:
a. “The powder was first slowly added to the solution and then stirred continuously for 10 minutes. Next, the temperature was raised 1 ˚C per min until it reached 39 ˚C, after which the bottle was capped and finally frozen at -20 ˚C overnight.” (43 words)
b. “The powder was slowly added to the solution and stirred continuously for 10 minutes. The temperature was raised 1 ˚C per min to 39 ˚C. The bottle was capped and frozen at -20 ˚C overnight.” (35 words)
Statement (b) manages to communicate the order of events without using ordinal language and is therefore more concise.
Some transitional statements are valuable, however, in that they create linkages between ideas that help concisely aid a reader’s understanding and create flow. If a transitional statement shows contrast, shows cause and/or effect, provides examples, signals time, or refers to a previous idea, AND is concise, using it is probably to your advantage. Below we provide a list of common, valuable transitional statements and their functions, adapted from Robinson et al. (2008).
| Useful transitional statements for creating linkages | ||||
| Function | Phrase | Function | Phrase | |
| To show contrast |
|
To provide additional information |
|
|
| To add emphasis or clarify |
|
|||
| To give examples |
|
|||
| To show cause and effect |
|
To signal time |
|
|
| To refer to something previously stated |
|
|||
| To describe a typical case |
|
|||
Choose simple words or phrases over complex ones, if they can convey the same meaning
It can be easy to fall into the trap of using longer or more complex words and phrases when we don’t need to, often either because we want to add more variety into our writing and make it more interesting or because we’re merely accustomed to saying things a certain way. But every word counts when publishing a paper, presenting a poster, or submitting a research proposal, so if there is any way to clearly state what you’re trying to say in fewer or more simple words, do it!
Below is a list of some unnecessarily long words and phrases and more concise counterparts with which you can replace them. Although this list is far from exhaustive, it should give you an idea of the types of phrases you should be careful to avoid. Try finding one of these longer words or phrases in your own writing and come up with a more simple and concise word to replace it.
| Replace: | with: |
| taking into account | considering |
| there is no doubt that | doubtless |
| in a careful manner | carefully |
| clearly calls into question | challenges |
| there is the possibility that | possibly |
| a large majority of | most |
| are in agreement | agree |
| due to the fact that | because |
| completely necessitates | requires |
| elucidate | show |
| as shown in a paper published by X | [citation only] |
| has the capacity to | can |
| in order to | to |
| a number of | many/several |
| despite the fact that | although |
| by means of | by |
| if it is assumed that | if |
| reported in the literature | reported |
| it is clear that | clearly |
| subsequent to | after |
Next time you write a paper, be sure to read back through it and pay special attention to finding words and phrases that can be omitted without sacrificing any of the meaning of your statement.
Avoid ornate descriptions
The goal of scientific writing is to convey information, not to entertain your reader. Thus, you should be able to paint a vibrant picture of the experimental process through the precision of your scientific statements rather than through colorful descriptions. As always, if the same information can be conveyed without certain words, get rid of them!
Compare the following two sentences:
a. Because of the long, arduous process of extracting the data from such intricate instrumentation, it was instead determined that HPLC should be the instrument of choice for gathering useful information for the completion of the project.
b. HPLC was used.
The same important information is conveyed in each sentence, yet the latter is far more concise. Instead of having to search for the meaning in the first sentence, it is explicit in the second. (Although the second sentence does not explain why HPLC was used, it is rare that such information would be needed in a journal article.)
[bg_faq_start]
Pro-1: Practice exerciseRevise the following paragraphs for conciseness by crossing out any unnecessary words and replacing any wordy phrases with shorter ones.
[bg_faq_start] Possible Solutions
[bg_faq_end] [bg_faq_end] |
[bg_faq_end]
[bg_faq_start]
Group information wisely
Breaking up sentences and combining the information in them differently can help make your writing more concise. Try to group information in a way that reduces the need for repetition by focusing the sentence or paragraph on what the most important part of your message is. For example, read the following statement adapted from Kleeman, Riddle, and Jakober (2008):
“…Studies on the organic composition of particles emitted to the atmosphere have identified molecular markers for motor vehicle exhaust, which are a major particle source.5-8 Combustion of biomass markers, the second most important source of particles, have also been identified.9-11 Finally, cooking of food, which is an important source in developing countries, also produce identifiable molecular markers.12-15” (57 words)
Much of this paragraph is repetitive, made that way because of the way the thoughts are organized. One strong indication that this statement can be grouped more wisely is the phrase, “have also been identified,” which follows “have identified molecular markers” and precedes “also produce identifiable molecular markers.” Is there a way to merely list all of the things that have been identified as molecular markers?
“…Studies on the organic composition of particles emitted to the atmosphere have identified molecular markers for major sources, including motor vehicle exhaust,5-8 biomass combustion,9-11 and food cooking.12-15” (27 words)
Grouping all of the important information together into a list shortens the passage by over half! Plus, it showed us that some information, such as “an important source in developing countries,” is not important for the message the author wants to get across and can be omitted.
For longer or more complex lists of information, parentheses, colons, and numbers are all tools that can help you group information while keeping your meaning clear.
| Poorly grouped information | Wisely grouped information | Adapted from |
| Fullerol particles, which are C60 hydroxide molecules comprised of chains of C60(OH)m when m = 22-26, in addition to fullerene C60, which had a purity greater than 99.5%, were obtained from MER Corporation, which is located in Tucson, AZ. (39 words) | Fullerol particles (C60 hydroxide, C60(OH)m, m = 22-26) and fullerene C60 (99.5+% purity) were obtained from MER Corporation (Tucson, AZ). (20 words) | Lecoanet, Bottero, and Wiesner (2004) |
| If the severity of the treatment is controlled, the mineral acids, HNO3 and H2SO4, purify raw SWNT-containing material from impurities, as can be seen in samples #1 and #3. The removal of other impurities such as polyaromatic shells requires much higher-strength acid treatments, as found in samples #6 and #8. (50 words) | If the severity of the treatment is controlled, the mineral acids (HNO3, H2SO4) purify raw SWNT-containing material from impurities (samples #1, #3). The removal of other impurities such as polyaromatic shells requires much higher-strength acid treatments (samples #6, #8). (39 words) | Monthioux et al. (2001) |
| We used viral DNA load as a parameter to reflect reverse transcription as the first step of the viral life cycle. Integration-dependent production of a functional viral Tat transactivator was the next step we studied in the viral life cycle, which was shown through β-galactosidase expression. p24 capsid production in the infected cells has been shown to effectively reflect expression of late viral genes [5] and synthesis and proteolytic processing of the Gag/Pol precursor [6], so we used it here for that purpose. The release of p24 in the supernatant shows the last distinct step in the life cycle of a virus, the assembly of the virion and budding. (97 words) | We then scored infection through a series of parameters reflecting sequential steps of the viral life cycle: viral DNA load (reverse transcription); β-galactosidase expression (integration-dependent production of a functional viral Tat transactivator); p24 capsid production in the infected cells (expression of the late viral genes, synthesis and proteolytic processing of the Gag/Pol precursor); and p24 release in their supernatant (virion assembly and budding.) (63 words) | Mangeat et al. (2003) |
| The Appenine collision is also known to control the clockwise rotation of Sicily and Calabira, islands separated by the Strait of Messina. Apennines, which rotated counter-clockwise until the end of the Pleistocene,8 was also affected by the Apennine collision.7 Finally, this contact led to the intense fragmentation of the Calabrian Arc in NW-SE striking blocks.7,9-10 (55 words) | The Apennine collision also controlled (1) the clockwise rotation of Sicily and Calabria, (2) the counter-clockwise rotation of the southern Apennines,7 that ceased at the end of the Pleistocene,8 and (3) the intense fragmentation of the Calabrian Arc in NW-SE striking blocks.7,9-10 (42 words) | Loreto et al. (2013) |
Sometimes, you will need to break up sentences in order to make them more concise. If you are combining two different thoughts in one sentence, connecting them can often become wordy. For example, compare the following two statements:
a. “After filtration, ionization, and dialysis produced a purified solution, a spectrophotometer was then used to characterize the product.”
b. “The solution was filtered, ionized, and dialyzed. The purified product was analyzed by spectrophotometry.”
Students often tend towards (a) because they dislike short, choppy sentences. But in many cases, (b) is preferable because it is more concise and because it shows the sequence of events without using ordinal language (see “Avoid empty transitional statements,” above).
So if something seems too wordy, but you can’t figure out how to make it more concise, try completely reorganizing how your pieces of information are grouped and use some of the above tools, if necessary.
Establish abbreviations
Imagine you were writing about an experiment involving a separate absorption and multiplication region avalanche photodiode. Every time you needed to refer to the instrument you would use up lots of valuable space! Perhaps one of the easiest ways to save space in a paper is to use acronyms or abbreviations to refer back to longer words that you use repeatedly. So if we name our separate absorption and multiplication region avalanche photodiode “SAM-APD,” we save ourselves a lot of space and anxiety.
There are a couple of guidelines for the best way to do this. However, every journal has its own specifications for using abbreviations that you should pay attention to when publishing.
| How to use abbreviations in a paper | |
| Guideline | Example |
| 1. Abbreviations that are very well-established in your field do not need to be defined unless that word/phrase is the topic of your paper. (If you are unsure, check published articles on a similar topic to see if they define the abbreviation or not.) |
In a microbiology paper, you don’t need to define “DNA” unless your paper is about DNA itself.
|
| 2. Define an abbreviation only if you use it enough times to save considerable space. | If you only refer to “carbon nanotubes” twice in your paper–once in your introduction and once in your conclusion–you should not define an abbreviation for it. If you use it multiple times in every section, it is definitely worth abbreviating. For in-between cases, use your discretion. |
| 3. The first time you use an abbreviation, you must define by writing out the full term followed by parentheses containing the abbreviation. Do not define it again afterwards. | After defining “human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)” once in the body of your paper, do not refer to “human immunodeficiency virus” again. If you need to subsequently define a modified version of the abbreviation, define it using the abbreviation, such as: “We studied HIV strains lacking either the vif gene (Δvif HIV) or the vpr gene (Δvpr HIV).” |
[bg_faq_end]
[bg_faq_start]
Use nominalizations
A nominalization is a noun formed from a verb or an adjective–for example, the noun “distillation” is a nominalization of the verb “distill.” Although the noun forms can often be longer than the verb forms of words, when used correctly, nominalizations can make your writing more concise. For example, compare the following two statements:
a. After the samples were irradiated, they were degassed. (8 words)
b. After irradiation, the samples were degassed. (6 words)
Two words might not seem like a big difference, but the space you save will add up throughout a document. In addition, nominalizations allow you to further shorten sentences by turning other details into noun modifiers, such as “metal-to-metal” in sentence (b), below:
a. The ability of the metals to bond to one another is critical for the substances to completely react. (18 words)
b. Metal-to-metal bonding is critical for reaction completion. (7 words)
Sometimes, nominalizations can makes statements less concise, so be sure that you’re only using them to save space! If you have to use a verb form of “do” to make a nominalization work, it will probably make your sentence wordier and should be avoided. For example:
a. They synthesized the product with 90% yield. (7 words)
b. They did a synthesis of the product with 90% yield. (10 words)
[bg_faq_end]
[bg_faq_start]
Pro-2: Practice exerciseUsing all of the techniques you have learned in this section, rewrite the following sentences to be as concise as possible (without omitting any content that seems especially important!).
[bg_faq_start] Possible solutions
[bg_faq_end] [bg_faq_end]
|
For more practice, try this worksheet from Duke University’s Scientific Writing Resource: https://cgi.duke.edu/web/sciwriting/dukeWriting_lesson3.pdf.