Scientific writing 3.0: A reader and writer's guide - Jean-Luc Lebrun, Justin Lebrun 2021

Why am i writing this paper?
Writer vs. reader, a matter of attitude
The reading toolkit

This title probably conjures up the image of a schoolboy’s pencil-case containing a few chosen items designed to help reading: a pair of glasses for better readability of the footnotes and formulas, a bookmark to help with our failing memory, a bag of pekoe tea to boost our attention when it declines, a LED flashlight to continue reading in the dark when away from electricity. The reading toolkit I have in mind, however, is filled with resources of the invisible kind: time, memory, energy, attention, and motivation. A skillful writer uses this toolkit to minimize the time, memory, and energy needed for reading while keeping reader attention and motivation high.

Chapter 1 Writer vs. reader, a matter of attitude

Allow me to begin this book by asking you a rather startling question: who are you? A reader or a writer?

You’re reading this book, so you must be a reader.

And you’re reading this book so you must be a writer.

More precisely, you are both a reader and a writer scientist. You read papers published in academic journals to deepen your knowledge of the field, learn about recent advances or breakthroughs, or even borrow certain steps from an existing protocol. You may occasionally read out of curiosity, but you never read academic papers for fun. You are a reader with a purpose, a need to fulfil. As for being a writer scientist, you don’t write papers for fun either. So why do you write?

Allow me to introduce you to the archetypal science writer, John.

John enjoys research. He would love for his work to be recognized and to lead his own team as a PI someday. More pressingly, his boss requires him to hit certain key performance indicators (KPI), including getting a number of papers published in high-tier journals each year. So John prepares his papers with the following idea in mind: “I’ve done the research. Now I need to write down what I’ve done so that my work can be documented, officially recognized through citations, and help me hit my KPI.”

Although John’s reasoning may seem logical at surface level, a deeper look reveals several serious issues. Stop reading for a minute, and try to identify the key problem with John’s mindset.

…

All done? Hopefully you’ve identified the main culprit: John focuses only on himself and his needs. He wants his work to be documented. He wants to be recognized and to hit his KPI. To accomplish these self-interested goals, he will write a paper. His goal is writer-centered, not reader-centered, and this attitude introduces tangible flaws in his writing.

Why am i writing this paper?

Before we entertain further thought into the what and the how of John’s flaws, we need to zoom all the way out and answer the fundamental questions that guide his pen.

As a researcher, John must write scientific papers. But why?

Because he needs to hit his KPI targets to keep his job. But again, why?

Because having his work published in journals puts it within reach of other scientists who will use it to further their own research. In doing so, he can indisputably show that he has created value for the scientific community.

And that, ultimately, should be the reason that John is a researcher. He did not take on a career in research because he enjoys the challenges of hitting KPIs — he took on a career in research because of a fundamental interest in furthering science, of making a unique contribution to humankind’s existing knowledge.

The writer-centered approach has John at the base of the pyramid, looking only to reach the next rung. It takes a myopic view of the diagram below, confusing the objective for the end goal.

The longer you spend in research, the easier it becomes to focus on the incremental next step and forget the big picture. Do not write to survive academia. Write to be useful to others. Although seemingly unimportant, this little change in attitude nevertheless could protect against the tangible writing flaws we next describe.