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

On a lighter note
Use and misuse of english
Scientific style

The Ten Commandments of Good Writing

From the “do as I say, not as I do” school of thought, here are a few longtime favorites:

1.  Each pronoun should agree with their antecedent.

2.  Just between you and I, case is important.

3.  A preposition is a poor word to end a sentence with.

4.  Verbs has to agree with their subject.

5.  Don’t use no double negatives.

6.  Remember to never split an infinitive.

7.  Avoid clichés like the plague.

8.  Join clauses good, like a conjunction should.

9.  Do not use hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it effectively.

10.  About sentence fragments.

Please, Please Proofread

Whether because of autocomplete, autocorrect, autotranscribe, or an author on automatic pilot, manuscripts often include typographical errors. Some recent examples: “catchers” instead of “catheters,” “lumber puncture” instead of “lumbar puncture,” “Chihuahua terror mix” instead of “Chihuahua-terrier mix,” and “wiener” instead “webinar.” Sometimes the typos seem to have a grain of truth: “play it by hear” instead of “play it by ear,” “author argument” instead of “author agreement” (although we would never argue with our publisher), “eternal applicants” instead of “external applicants” (alas, we’ve known some of the former), and “remail” instead of “email” (in a message from a colleague who has sent far too many).

A newspaper headline told of an “amphibious” baseball pitcher instead of an “ambidextrous” one. The following also crossed our desks: “humane immunodeficiency virus” for “human immunodeficiency virus,” “craps” for “crabs,” “laundry mat” for “laundromat,” and “keyboards” for “keywords.” And we have encountered “captions” instead of “cations,” “edible file” for “editable file,” “venerable populations” for “vulnerable populations,” “heard immunity” for “herd immunity,” “concurring heroes” for “conquering heroes,” “plural” for “pleural,” “knit-picking” for “nitpicking,” and “nerve-wrecking” for “nerve-wracking.”

Although it may seem nitpicking and nerve-wracking, always take the time to proofread.

Odds and Ends

Let us end by again emphasizing the importance of syntax. When comprehension goes out the window, faulty syntax is usually responsible. Sometimes faulty syntax is simply funny and comprehension is not lost, as in these two items, culled from want ads:

“For sale, fine German Shepherd dog, obedient, well trained, will eat anything, very fond of children.”

“For sale, fine grand piano, by a lady, with three legs.”

But look at this sentence, which is similar to thousands that have appeared in the scientific literature: “Thymic humoral factor (THF) is a single heat-stable polypeptide isolated from calf thymus composed of 31 amino acids with molecular weight of 3,200.” The prepositional phrase “with molecular weight of 3,200” would logically modify the preceding noun “acids,” meaning that the amino acids had a molecular weight of 3,200. Less logically, perhaps the calf thymus had a molecular weight of 3,200. Least logical of all (because of their distance apart in the sentence) would be for the THF to have a molecular weight of 3,200—but, indeed, that was what the author was trying to tell us.

If you wish to use English more effectively, consider reading Strunk and White’s (2000) The Elements of Style if you have not yet done so. The “elements” are given briefly (in fewer than 100 pages!) and clearly. Anyone writing anything should read and use this famous little book. (You can read an early edition, by Strunk alone, at www.bartleby.com/141.) After you have mastered Strunk and White, proceed immediately to Fowler (Butterfield 2015). Do not pass go; do not collect $200. Of course, if you really do want to get a Monopoly on good scientific English, buy that superbly quintessential book Scientific English (Day and Sakaduski 2011).