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

Mumblespeak and other sins
Avoiding jargon
Scientific style

The most common type of verbosity that afflicts authors is jargon. This syndrome is characterized, in extreme cases, by the total omission of one-syllable words. Writers with this affliction never use anything—they utilize. They never do—they perform. They never start—they initiate. They never end—they finalize (or terminate). They never make—they fabricate. They use initial for first, ultimate for last, prior to for before, subsequent to for after, militate against for prohibit, sufficient for enough, and a plethora for too much. An occasional author will slip and use the word drug, but most will salivate like Pavlov’s dogs in anticipation of using chemotherapeutic agent. (We do hope that the name Pavlov rings a bell.) Who would use the three-letter word now instead of the elegant expression at this point in time?

Stuart Chase (1954) told the story of the plumber who wrote to the Bureau of Standards saying he had found that hydrochloric acid is good for cleaning out clogged drains. The bureau wrote back, “The efficacy of hydrochloric acid is indisputable, but the chlorine residue is incompatible with metallic permanence.” The plumber replied that he was glad the bureau agreed. The bureau tried again, writing, “We cannot assume responsibility for the production of toxic and noxious residues with hydrochloric acid, and suggest that you use an alternate procedure.” The plumber again said that he was glad that the bureau agreed with him. Finally, the bureau wrote to the plumber, “Don’t use hydrochloric acid; it eats hell out of the pipes.”

Should we liken the scientist to a plumber, or is the scientist perhaps more exalted? With that doctor of philosophy degree, should the scientist know some philosophy? We agree with John W. Gardner, who said, “The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water” (Science News, p. 137, March 2, 1974).

We like the way that Aaronson (1977) put it: “But too often the jargon of scientific specialists is like political rhetoric and bureaucratic mumble-speak: ugly-sounding, difficult to understand, and clumsy. Those who use it often do so because they prefer pretentious, abstract words to simple, concrete ones.”

The trouble with jargon is that it is a special language, the meaning of which is known only to a specialized “in” group. Science should be universal, and therefore every scientific paper should be written in a universal language.

Of course, you will have to use specialized terminology on occasion. If such terminology is readily understandable to practitioners and students in the field, there is no problem. If the terminology is not recognizable to any portion of your potential audience, you should (1) use simpler terminology or (2) carefully define the esoteric terms (jargon) that you are using. In short, you should not write for the half-dozen or so people who are doing exactly your kind of work. You should write for the hundreds of people whose work is only slightly related to yours, but who may want or need to know something about your work.