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

The Do-unto-others-as-others-do-unto-you Inversion
Writer vs. reader, a matter of attitude
The reading toolkit

Ironically, we find reading most scientific texts somewhat unpleasant. But when comes our turn to write one, we espouse the same unpleasant style of writing. We dislike overabundant data but include it in our own papers. We dislike having to hunt through documents for the meanings of acronyms, but are not shy to use acronyms liberally in our own writing. Why must we act like the writers whose work we dislike reading?

Some scientists use dense prose and intimidating vocabulary, assuming that such writing conveys the level of expertise and sophistication necessary to be published. “Complexity is inevitable and scientific,” they say. “If the complexity of science makes it difficult to communicate, so be it.”

These scientists, however, are often proven wrong. There are wonderful examples of Nobel Laureate scientists³ describing the most complex of topics in the most comprehensible ways. Complexity creates a reader-writer chasm that often translates into inaccessibility. The chasm calls for a bridge; Alas, writers all too often rely on their readers to build it.

Though these words may sting, they are difficult to deny. In the absence of formal training on how to write a scientific manuscript, many turn towards published journal papers for examples of good writing. Learning by example is a worthy pursuit, but how well can one learn when the source of examples is itself plagued by many poorly written papers? Should we not try to raise the standards of scientific writing? After all, you did not pick up this book to be an average scientific communicator; you picked it up to be an exemplary one. The golden rule applies: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Reader-centered is the right attitude.