Interesting article on science writing

[Strange]

"What style of language do scientists really prefer?"

https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/what-style-of-language-do-scientists-really-prefer/

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

We prefer a summary or teaser quote to come along with links (rule 2.7)

[Strange]

Of course. And I have, as you like to remind people, been here long enough to know better.

 

“Our readers are intelligent, well-educated scientists. Why should we make our language dumbed-down, patronising and imprecise in the name of ‘readability’?”

It’s a fair question. Here’s the answer.

 

Many people, when writing in a work context, feel that they’re supposed to use language that is more abstract, impersonal and convoluted than they otherwise would. The idea is that this makes the writing sound more professional. But the result is often that it’s unclear and off-putting, even to highly intelligent readers.

 

Language like that can be made more concrete, more personal and more concise without dumbing down the content, without losing important information, and without making the tone inappropriately casual. In fact, directness and clarity normally sharpen the tone and can even help to add precision. Clearing up overgrown language can show you previously hidden patches of ambiguity.

 

Testing the hypothesis

Scientists like evidence, so let’s have some ....

 

The article provides examples of bad (traditional) scientific writing and clearer equivalents. There are also links to useful resources to learn more.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Strange

[StringJunky]

I read it and I agree that the traditional way is obfuscating, tiring, and easy to lose your place. There's no natural stopping places to have a quick chew on the cud before continuing.