How to write and publish a scientific paper - Barbara Gastel, Robert A. Day 2022

Some finer points
Use and misuse of english
Scientific style

Misuse of Words

Avoid self-canceling, contradictory, or redundant words. Recently, someone was described as being a “well-seasoned novice.” A newspaper article referred to “young juveniles.” A sign in a stamp and coin dealer’s shop read “authentic replicas.” If there is any expression that is dumber than “7 a.m. in the morning,” it is “viable alternative.” (If an alternative is not viable, it is not an alternative.)

Certain words are wrongly used thousands of times in scientific writing. Some of the worst offenders are the following:

affect/effect. Almost always, affect is a verb, and effect is a noun. Example: “The barometric pressure affects this process. However, the effect is small.” A mnemonic to help remember the distinction is RAVEN, for “Remember: Affect Verb, Effect Noun” (www.mnemonic-device.com/languages/affect-and-effect). (Exceptions are the noun affect, meaning external expression of emotion, and the verb effect, meaning “produce,” as in the expression “effect change.”)

amount/number. Use amount when you refer to a mass or aggregate. Use number when individual entities are involved. “An amount of cash” is all right. “An amount of coins” is wrong.

fewer/less. Use fewer for countable items and less for uncountable ones. Example: “fewer coins,” but “less money.”

it. This common, useful pronoun can cause a problem if an antecedent is not clear, as in the sign that read: “Free information about VD. To get it, call 555-7000.”

like. Often used incorrectly as a conjunction; it should be used only as a preposition. When a conjunction is needed, substitute as. Like I just said, this sentence should have started with As.

only. Many sentences are only partially comprehensible because the word only is positioned correctly in the sentence only some of the time. Consider this sentence: “I hit him in the eye yesterday.” The word only can be added at the start of the sentence, at the end of the sentence, or between any two words within the sentence, but look at the differences in meaning that result.

quite. Next time you notice this word in one of your manuscripts, delete it and read the sentence again. You will notice that quite is quite unnecessary.

varying. The word varying means changing. Often used erroneously when various is meant. “Various concentrations” are multiple defined concentrations that do not vary.

which. The word which is properly used in a nonrestrictive sense, to introduce a clause that adds information but does not make the preceding term more specific; that introduces a clause that adds specificity. Examine these two sentences: “CetB mutants, which are tolerant to colicin E2, also have an altered.…” “CetB mutants that are tolerant to colicin E2 also have an altered.…” Note the substantial difference in meaning. The first sentence indicates that all CetB mutants are tolerant to colicin; the second sentence indicates that only some of the CetB mutants are tolerant to it.

Style manuals in the sciences commonly include sections on words that tend to be misused; browsing through such a section can be time well spent. Also, such style manuals often provide guidance on using language that is inclusive and otherwise unbiased. Because guidelines on this topic keep evolving, we recommend looking at a continually updated online version of such a manual or checking the manual’s website for updates.

Noun Problems

Another frequent problem in scientific writing is the wordiness that results from using abstract nouns. This malady often can be corrected by turning the nouns into verbs. “Examination of the patients was carried out” should be changed to the more direct “We examined the patients”; “separation of the compounds was accomplished” can be changed to “the compounds were separated”; “transformation of the equations was achieved” can be changed to “the equations were transformed.”

An additional problem with nouns results from using them as adjectives. Normally, there is no problem with such usage, but you should watch for special difficulties. For example, there is no problem in understanding “liver disease” (even though the adjective hepatic could be substituted for the noun liver). The problem with such usage is illustrated by the following sentences from an autobiography: “When I was 10 years old, my parents sent me to a child psychiatrist. I went for a year and a half. The kid didn’t help me at all.” There once was an ad (in the New York Times, of all places) with the headline “Good News for Home Sewers.” It could have been an ad for a drain-cleaning compound or for needle and thread.

The problem gets still worse when clusters of nouns are used as adjectives, especially when a real adjective gets into the brew. “Tissue culture response” is awkward; “infected tissue culture response” may be baffling. (Just what is infected?) Baffling too are these gems from job ads: “newborn hospital photographer” and “portable toilet route driver.” Sometimes you can resolve the confusion by inserting a hyphen to show which words function together as an adjective. Consider, for example, the headline “Technology Can Help Drought Hit Farmers.” (How odd to use technology to aid drought in hitting farmers!) Inserting a well-placed hyphen yields a much more reasonable headline: “Technology Can Help Drought-Hit Farmers.” (Similarly, we think the author who wrote of the “animal owning public” actually meant the “animal-owning public.”)

(By permission of Johnny Hart and Creators Syndicate, Inc.)

Like hyphens, commas can change the meaning of phrases. An author wrote that all samples in a study had been evaluated by “a single, board-certified pathologist.” Presumably, the comma should have been deleted. With the comma included, the phrase means not “the same board-certified pathologist” but rather “a pathologist who is single and board certified”—a description less suited for a scientific journal than for an online dating site.

Euphemisms

In scientific writing, euphemistic words and phrases normally should be avoided. The harsh reality of dying is not improved by substituting “passed away.” Laboratory animals are not “sacrificed,” as though scientists engaged in arcane religious exercises. They are killed, and that’s that. The CBE Style Manual (CBE Style Manual Committee 1983) cited a beautiful example of this type of euphemism: “Some in the population suffered mortal consequences from the lead in the flour.” It then corrects this sentence, adding considerable clarity as well as eliminating the euphemism: “Some people died as a result of eating bread made from the lead-contaminated flour.” An instructor gave graduate students the “mortal consequences” sentence as a test question in scientific writing. Most were simply unable to say “died.” On the other hand, there were some inventive answers. They included “Get the lead out” and “Some were dead from the lead in the bread.”

Dangling Modifiers and Other Syntactical Sins

It is not always easy to recognize a dangling participle or related error, but you can avoid many problems by paying proper attention to syntax. The word syntax refers to that part of grammar dealing with the way in which words are put together to form phrases, clauses, and sentences.

That is not to say that a well-dangled participle or other misplaced modifier isn’t a joy to behold, after you have developed a taste for such things. Those of you who use chromatographic procedures may be interested in a new technique reported in a manuscript submitted to the Journal of Bacteriology: “By filtering through Whatman no. 1 filter paper, Smith separated the components.” Those wishing that lab animals could do research themselves might be pleased to read about the endeavor “to evaluate the fecal microbiome in cats using PCR.” Along similar lines, a headline stated, “Researchers Detect Land Animals Using DNA in Nearby Water Bodies.” But some animals might indeed be this smart: A draft of an essay by a veterinary school applicant read, “While in high school, my cat began to develop kidney disease.”

In Hampshire, England, the fire department received a government memorandum seeking statistical information. One of the questions was, “How many people do you employ, broken down by sex?” The fire chief took that question right in stride, answering “None. Our problem here is booze.”

Here’s another headline, from the Washington Post: “Antibiotic-Combination Drugs Used to Treat Colds Banned by FDA.” Perhaps the next FDA (Food and Drug Administration) regulation will ban all colds, and virologists will have to find a different line of work.

A manuscript contained this sentence: “A large mass of literature has accumulated on the cell walls of staphylococci.” After the librarians have catalogued the literature in the staphylococci, they will have to start on the fish, according to this sentence from a manuscript: “The resulting disease has been described in detail in salmon.”

The first paragraph of a news release issued by the American Lung Association said, “’Women seem to be smoking more but breathing less,’ says Colin R. Woolf, M.D., Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto. He presented evidence that women who smoke are likely to have pulmonary abnormalities and impaired lung function at the annual meeting of the American Lung Association.” Even though the annual meeting was in the lovely city of Montreal, we hope that women who smoke stayed home.

And finally, some favorites from an email discussion list: A student wrote that she was seeking housing “for me, my two dogs, and my rabbit that has a washer-dryer.” (We hadn’t realized that rabbits do laundry.) A technician said that she was looking for a “large or medium dog kennel for a researcher.” (Hmmm, is office space that scarce?) And another list member wrote that “due to moving, internship salary, and a lack of need for it,” she was highly motivated to sell the item that she was advertising. (Gee, if you don’t need your internship salary, we know someone who would like it.)

Metaphorically Speaking

We suggest that you largely avoid similes and metaphors. Use them rarely in scientific writing. If you use them, use them carefully. We have seen mixed metaphors and noted how comprehension gets mixed along with the metaphor. (Figure this one out: A virgin forest is a place where the hand of man has never set foot.) A rarity along this line is the “self-canceling metaphor.” A favorite was ingeniously concocted by the eminent microbiologist L. Joe Berry. After one of his suggestions had been quickly negated by a committee vote, Joe said, “Boy, I got shot down in flames before I ever got off the ground.”

Watch for hackneyed expressions too. These are usually similes or metaphors that have grown tired from overuse (for example, “timid as a mouse”). Interesting and picturesque writing results from the use of fresh similes and metaphors; dull writing results from the use of stale ones.