"Personal pronouns" in a formal scientific paper ?

[TaoRich]

Hi Folks,

 

Another language question.

 

Which is generally preferred or considered more acceptable:

• "We consider a space alpha ..."

or simply:

• "Consider a space alpha ..."

Should I try to avoid the use of personal pronouns 'as a rule' or it really just a matter of 'use whatever language aids the communication process best' ?

 

I find that using the personal pronouns sometimes comes more naturally as I write.

 

I know that i've seen this style used often before in maths & science texts - but I'm a bit worried that I'm recalling it from my University "teaching/student books" and that it may not be as well accepted at a higher level.

 

Comments & opinions welcome.

 

Cheers

Rich

[John Cuthber]

It depends on the "house style" of the journal.

Scientists used to write papers in the passive voice ie" An experiment was done to find..."

but, increasingly they now write "We did an experiment to find..."

Personally, I usually find the latter more readable.

[ajb]

I have used "we".

 

"In this paper we show..."

 

Also I have used "us".

 

"Let us consider..."

 

As John says, some journals can be fussy about this, others not. Generally, they are all looking for effective use of English. Have a look at similar papers and papers from the journal you are going to submit to. If you are in doubt ask the editor.

[timo]

I've never bothered about "house rules" of a journal so far (even for formatting of the figures - I only started to bother after the publisher screwed it up with the format I sent), and no one has complained about that. I actually doubt that journals have rules about such things. Just write clearly (I like ajb's term of "effective use of English").

Since I happen to have it open in a tab right now: the abstract of our latest paper starts with "We show that...". "We" in this case means the authors. And the statement "We show that X" is simply better to read than "In this work, X will be shown". I do not like the "we" meaning the author and the reader, as is the style in many textbooks. When reading a textbook or a paper, it simply doesn't feel like the author and me exploring this wonderful wold of *yawn* together. So this "we" is very strange for me. So I would definitely prefer "Consider a space alpha" in the first post's example. Single authors talking about themselves in plural: no offense, but that I find rather weird.

[ajb]

Single authors talking about themselves in plural: no offense, but that I find rather weird.

 

Nosism, so far I have tended to do this. I have used "we will show..." (for example) rather than "I will show". I am not really sure why I have done this.

Edited February 19, 2011 by ajb

[lemur]

Nosism, so far I have tended to do this. I have used "we will show..." (for example) rather than "I will show". I am not really sure why I have done this.

 

We often feel either arrogant/egoistic/narcissistic or vulnerable by using the singular "I." Ironically maybe, I think it helps to overcome egoism/narcissism to practice making "I" statements simply as a factual description. E.g. "I used 'we' at the beginning of this post to refer to people who do what I was describing." Personally, I don't see what's wrong with using direct descriptive statements, though. Why not just refer directly to what you're talking about instead of preluding it with a reference to yourself and/or your co-authors?

Edited February 19, 2011 by lemur

[Mr Skeptic]

Some journals (and quite a few professors) want science papers written in the passive voice. If nothing else, it serves as a constant reminder that what is being stated is supposed to be factual and objective. It also makes personal opinion plain to see as it must refer to the author while the rest of the paper does not. However, I prefer the use of personal pronouns, at least in some cases, since they seem to make the paper more readable and sometimes less wordy.

[DrRocket]

Clarity and content are more important than the choice of pronouns.

[TaoRich]

Thanks again for clear coherent comments and helpful discussion.

 

'use whatever language aids the communication process best' ?

That was my own initial opinion.

 

effective use of English

... supported by ajb

 

Clarity and content are more important than the choice of pronouns

... and grounded rather nicely by DrRocket

I am truly impressed by the level of interest and effort that people share here in trying to help me and others.

 

Big up guys. Respect.

Edited February 20, 2011 by TaoRich

[TaoRich]

Nosism

ajb You broke Dictionary.Reference.com

 

 

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/nosism

No results found for nosism:

Did you mean Nazism?

http://wordsmith.org/words/nosism.html

 

nosism (NO-siz-em) noun

 

The use of 'we' in referring to oneself.

 

[From Latin nos (we).]

 

As it's often used by editors, it's also known as the "editorial we".

It's also called "the royal we" owing to its frequent use by royalty.

 

Mark Twain once said, "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'."

[John Cuthber]

Clarity and content are more important than the choice of pronouns.

 

So, do you go for the active voice which is generally clearer or the house style passive voice which generally isn't as clear?

The difference is, as much as anything, the use of personal pronouns.

 

If the content isn't up to scratch the paper will probably be rejected anyway.

All doubt can be removed by submitting it here.

http://www.universalrejection.org/

[ajb]

We often feel either arrogant/egoistic/narcissistic or vulnerable by using the singular "I."

 

I think it maybe to do with sounding egoistic and arrogant.

 

Why not just refer directly to what you're talking about instead of preluding it with a reference to yourself and/or your co-authors?

 

Until "I" am convinced that "I" should not use "we", then "we" will not use "I".

 

I am sure I could reword things, but I have yet to have a referee or editor comment on this.

 

If the content isn't up to scratch the paper will probably be rejected anyway.

All doubt can be removed by submitting it here.

http://www.universalrejection.org/

 

And then you can submit it to Rejecta Mathematica, assuming it is a paper of a mathematical nature.

Edited February 20, 2011 by ajb

[Klaynos]

It is felt by the authors of this post that the passive voice is more pleasant to read and write. We would like to acknowledge that content and clarity is more important than notes on style and that consistency is key to clear writing.

[imatfaal]

I often use the passive voice just to annoy #@!$ing microsoft word and I do not consider rephrasing so as to double the injury.

[the tree]

"consider a space alpha" is something I'd expect to read in an exam paper, I don't want to be told what to do whilst reading an article.

[Mrs Zeta]

I find it interesting that the editorial 'we' is also used in scientific journals in other languages. For sure in Italian and Greek that I know of. It is a polite way to avoid claiming all the credit for something, where others may have contributed indirectly.

[Marat]

The basic rule is that no publication which makes claim to objective validity should ever involve references to oneself in the singular. That is appropriate only for personal letters, autobiographies, or confessional literature. The editorial 'we' is appropriate as a way to refer to assumptions made by the author(s) or to generally accepted knowledge or theories. The passive voice is always to be avoided, since as you can see from this use of the passive, it not only costs more words to say what could have been said with the active voice, but it also sounds wooden. (Cn.: "Always use the passive voice.")

 

What really bothers me now is that many journals insist on 'gender neutral' pronouns and mean by that that feminine pronouns have to be used 100% of the time, thus overturning the long-held grammatical rule that masculine pronouns referred either to men or neutrally to all people. How it is 'neutral' to use ONLY feminine forms when these emphatically defy the former grammatical rule of male pronouns referring to anyone is beyond me. If only English-speaking editors realized that in many foreign languages, grammatical 'gender' has nothing to do with real gender (e.g., in German, 'the guard' (die Wache) is feminine; 'the uterus' (der Gebaermutter) is masculine; and 'the young girl' (das Maedchen) is neuter), perhaps they would let up on this new ultra-feminist verbal abhoring of everything with the least trace of maleness to it. ("As the fireperson fell from the ladder, she screamed, alerting the fisherperson to abandon her boat and come to the rescue with her sister fisherpersons.")

[John Cuthber]

I counted the words in the first sentence of Marat's last post and I found that there were twenty two.

It may be felt by others that the observation made earlier in this post is subjective, or it may not.

 

 

Re.

"It is felt by the authors of this post that the passive voice is more pleasant to read and write. We would like to acknowledge that content and clarity is more important than notes on style and that consistency is key to clear writing."

LOL

[TaoRich]

re:

"It is felt by the authors of this post that the passive voice is more pleasant to read and write. We would like to acknowledge that content and clarity is more important than notes on style and that consistency is key to clear writing."

I'd convey that same information as:

"The passive voice is more pleasant to read and write. Content and clarity is more important than notes on style - consistency is key to clear writing."

 

I seldom preface anything I say with "In my opinion ...".

If I'm feeling confident enough to express my opinion, I express it factually, and with conviction.

Edited February 22, 2011 by TaoRich

[ajb]

I seldom preface anything I say with "In my opinion ...".

If I'm feeling confident enough to express my opinion, I express it factually, and with conviction.

 

I have expressed a personal opinion in a paper accepted for publication. This is not any issue, as the point I expressed was that I thought a particular way of thinking or really a convention is in some sense more natural. This was not stated as a mathematical statement, metamathematical maybe. It could also be your opinion that a method, or branch of mathematics needs further exploration. Again, this would be OK to state, provided it has some relevance to your work.

 

 

So, I see no problem making personal opinions known in a paper.

[John Cuthber]

I'd convey that same information as:

"The passive voice is more pleasant to read and write. Content and clarity is more important than notes on style - consistency is key to clear writing."

 

I seldom preface anything I say with "In my opinion ...".

If I'm feeling confident enough to express my opinion, I express it factually, and with conviction.

 

If I were expressing that opinion, I'd get the number right. "Content and clarity are more important than notes on style".

[CharonY]

In many style guides you will find that the active voice is recommended (certainly in grant proposals). In the end, it does not really matter as clarity is the main priority. That being said, in most papers that I have read (or written) the active form is more usual with a pronoun to indicate things that have been done. E.g. "we assumed that to be the case and we did that and that to test this hypothesis".

Note that "Consider XXX" is very distinct from "We conisder XXX". The latter is what you did (or started off with) the first is a more general theoretical consideration of a given problem.

There are not many single-authors in my field (almost exclusively reviews), but those that were usually use "I". However, many feel awkward doing so.

 

In any case, it is rare that reviewers or editors get hung upon language, as long as it is clear.

 

PS: Gebärmutter is female in German.

[TaoRich]

Note that "Consider XXX" is very distinct from "We consider XXX".

The latter is what you did (or started off with) the first is a more general theoretical consideration of a given problem.

 

a more general theoretical consideration of a given problem

Yep.

 

That's what I am doing ... it's a "theoretical thought experiment" and not a "we performed the following actions".

 

I'm asking my reader to consider a possible scenario, rather than expounding on what we/I have physically investigated.

 

If I were expressing that opinion, I'd get the number right. "Content and clarity are more important than notes on style".

 

Well spotted.

 

Can I draft you as a sub-editor/proof reader when I've finished my paper ?

 

 

 

 

[guitarborist]

Each discipline and each publication has it's own formal and tacit governance.

 

In 35 years or so contributing to Geology-related papers I've never avoided first person pronouns. As stated by previous posters, clarity is paramount.

 

We are not automatons and 'our' human perceptions are as much a variable as any other.

 

an aside... pronouns becomes murkier is when referencing another paper. After stating the paper is it referred to after that actively? ('He shows that or....the study shows that). Again, clarity probably trumps most the time.

 

A senior doctor emeritus once told me to never push back against an editor unless actual content becomes ambiguous but, when content is an issue, then fight like a charming tiger. "Thanks for pointing out that awkward phrasing...by the way, when I referred to 'whatever', I purposely wanted to use the word.....".

Edited February 23, 2011 by guitarborist

[CharonY]

Heh dealing with editors (or reviewers for that matter) requires a different vocabulary . Sometimes it does not pay to be too clear at that point .