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

Six titles to learn about titles
Title: the face of your paper
Paper structure and purpose

Each stage in the construction of a house contributes to its overall quality. Similarly, each part in an article contributes to the quality of the whole, from the abstract (the architect blueprint) and the structure (the foundations), to the introduction (the flight of steps and the porch), the visuals (the light-providing windows), and finally the conclusions (the house key).

The art of construction is acquired through a long apprenticeship. You may be attracted by the time-saving expedient prefab or by the imitation of other constructions of uncertain architectural quality (the paper your supervisor handed out to you as a template for your first paper). Beware of shortcuts. A hastily assembled paper, once analyzed, often reveals major cracks and faults: its shapeless structure is like baggy jeans that would fit just about any frame; its graphics and other visuals have a mass-produced look and feel.

When your house is built, when your paper is finally published, how will the readers feel after visiting your house? In your lobby, you have left a guest book, in which your visitors can enter their remarks. Here are two entries. Which one would please you the most? And what kind of scientific paper would you associate such remarks with?

To Whom It May Concern,

Concrete slabs and parched grass don’t make much of a garden. I really don’t know how you dare call that plywood platform a porch. It is laughable.

The inside of the house is dark and gloomy. You need more windows. And by the way, I did not take anything from the fridge. There was nothing in it, and it wasn’t even plugged in. I could not find the things you claimed were in the house. I looked everywhere, but everything was in such a mess, I gave up. There were large cracks in some walls (not line cracks). Your house is not safe. And while we are on the subject of walls, why did you paint them all a dull gray? Anyway, I’m out of here. Thanks for the spare key, but I left it behind. I don’t intend to come back.

Dear House Owner,

Your house is such a delight. I wish I had one like that. Your flower garden and your large porch are so inviting. Your indoors are exquisitely designed. Everything is at the right place. I immediately found what I was looking for. But I did not expect the basket of fresh fruit and the cool complementary drinks in the fridge. How lovely! I love your large bay windows. They make the house look so bright and colorful. There is not one dark corner!

Thank you for your spare key. I also took your business card to advertise this lovely house of yours, which makes people feel so welcome.

With deepest thanks,

Professor Higgins

What makes a good house depends on its design, of course, but also on the attitude of the house owner towards his guests. A good writer is one who cares for his readers; someone who anticipates their needs. Good writing is not just a matter of writing skills; it is also a matter of attitude towards the readers.

To construct a satisfactory paper, one must understand the role each part plays for the reader and the writer. And to assess the quality of each part, one must establish evaluation criteria. The next chapters fulfill these objectives. Numerous examples are given to analyze and to help you distinguish good writing from bad writing. By the end of the book, you will be ready to write your paper.

First Impression

Today, as the city’s bowels demonstrate their usual constipation, the pouring rain adds a somewhat slimy aspect to the slow procession of traffic. Professor Leontief does not like arriving late at the lab. He hangs his dripping umbrella over the edge of his desk, at its designated spot above the trashcan, and he gently awakens his sleepy computer with some soothing words “Come on, you hunk of metal and silicon oxide, wake up.”

He checks his email. The third one is from a scientific journal where he helps out as a reviewer. “Dear Professor Leontief, last month you kindly accepted to review the following paper and submit your comments by….”. He looks at his calendar and realizes that the deadline is only 2 days away. A cold chill runs up his spine. He hasn’t even started. So much to do with so little time! Yet, he cannot postpone his response. Being a resourceful man, he makes a couple of phone calls and reorganizes his work schedule so as to free an immediately available 2-hour slot.

He pours himself a large mug of coffee and extracts the article from the pile of documents pending attention. He goes straight to the reference section on the last page to see if his own articles are mentioned. He grins with pleasure. As he counts the pages, he looks at text density. It shouldn’t take too long. He smiles again. He then returns to the first page to read the abstract. Once read, he flips the pages forward slowly, taking the time to analyze a few visuals, and then jumps to the conclusions that he reads with great care.

He stretches his shoulders and takes a glance at his watch. Twenty minutes have passed since he started reading. By now, he has built a more or less definitive first impression on the paper. Even though the article is of moderate length, it is too long for such a small contribution. A letter would have been a more appropriate format than a fullfledged paper. He will have to inform the writer, using diplomatic skills not to be discouraging for he knows the hopes and expectations all writers share. What a shame, he thinks. Had he accepted the paper, his citation count would have increased. Now the hard work of thorough analysis lies ahead. He picks up his coffee mug and takes a large gulp.

The reviewer is a busy person, definitely time-to-result driven. A survey we regularly conduct shows that reviewers take on average 20 minutes to get a “publish or perish” impression of the paper. Naturally, Some get their first impression in a few minutes, while others read everything before forming an opinion.

And indeed, our survey also shows that reviewers only read certain parts of the paper to derive their first impression: the title, the abstract, the introduction, the conclusion, and the structure, which they discover by turning the pages and reading the headings and subheadings. They also look at some visuals and their caption. Forming a first impression on partial cursory reading is an efficient way to save time on the whole review process. Once that impression is derived, the task that follows is narrowed down to the justification of that impression:

1)If it’s a good impression (publish) then look for all the supportive evidence that strengthens your first impression, and minimize any problem encountered by considering it minor;

2)If it’s a negative impression (perish) then look for all the good reasons to postpone publication: identify drawbacks, inadequate data, logical errors, methodology inconsistencies, etc.

The saying is right: “First impressions count!” There is much supportive evidence for it in cognitive psychology. Enter the keywords “Halo effect” or “Confirmation bias” in your search engine, and be ready to be amazed!

In part II, the book selectively covers the parts of a paper that are read during the rapid time when the first impression is formed. This choice has been guided by the comments I received from scientists who have published papers. They stated that the methodology and results sections of their paper were the easiest and the fastest to write. It was the other parts that were difficult and took time: the abstract, the introduction, and the discussion. As to the title, the structure, and the visuals, they recognized at the end of the course that they had underestimated the key role these parts played in creating the first impression.

After reading these chapters and doing the exercises, your writing should have significantly improved. At that time, the difference between making ripples and making waves in the scientific community is less a matter of writing than it is a matter of scientific excellence, which I leave in your capable hands!

Chapter 13 Title: the face of your paper

When I think about the title of a paper, quite naturally, the metaphor of a face comes to mind. So many features of a title resemble those of a face. From your face, people get a first impression of you. Likewise, a title contains the first words the readers will see. It gives them a first impression of how well your paper satisfies their needs and whether your paper is worth reading or not. Your face sets expectations as to the type of person you are. Your title also reveals what kind of paper you have written, its genre, its breadth, and its depth. Your face is unique and memorable. It is found on your passport and various official documents. Your title is unique. It is found in references and databases. What makes your face unique is the way its features are harmoniously assembled. What makes your title unique is the way its keywords are assembled to differentiate your work from the work of others.

When I was 12 years old, I stumbled upon a strange book on the shelves of my local library. It was about morphopsychology, the study of people’s characters as revealed by the shape of their faces. It was fun trying to associate a face with a character. Discovering a paper from its title should also be fun. To include you in the fun, I have turned the following section into a dialogue. Imagine yourself as the scientist being asked the questions. How would you answer?

Six titles to learn about titles

Author: Greetings Mr. Scientist. I’d like to introduce a series of six titles and ask you one or two questions about each one. These titles may be in areas you are not familiar with, but I’m sure you’ll do fine. Are you ready?

Scientist: By all means, go ahead!

Author: All right then. Here is the first title.

“Gas-Assisted Powder Injection Molding (GAPIM)”¹

Based on its title, is this paper specific or general?

Scientist: Hmm, you are right, I know nothing about powder injection molding. The title seems halfway between being specific and being general. “Powder Injection Molding” by itself would be general, maybe a review paper. But, this title is a little more specific. It says “Gas-assisted”, which tells me there are other ways to do powder injection molding.

Author: You are right. GAPIM is used to make hollow ceramic parts. People in that field would be quite familiar with powder injection molding and its PIM acronym. What would have made the title more specific?

Scientist: The author could have mentioned a new specific application for GAPIM.

Author: Good, How do you feel about the use of the GAPIM acronym in the title?

Scientist: I am not sure it is necessary. I have seen acronyms in titles before, but they were used to launch a name for a new system, a new tool, or a new database. The acronym was usually more memorable than the long name it replaced. Unless GAPIM is so well known, people have it memorized and it has become a search keyword, I don’t think it should be in the title.

Author: Thank you. How about this second title: general or specific?

“Energy-Efficient Data Gathering in Large Wireless Sensor Networks”²

Scientist: This title is very specific and its scope is well-defined: it is not sensor networks, it is wireless sensor networks, more precisely large wireless sensor networks. And the paper is only looking at data gathering in these networks. Its contribution, “energy efficient” is placed where it should be, right at the beginning of the title. “Energy efficient” gives me a hint that data gathering is not energy efficient in large networks. By the way, I am wondering whether “large” is the correct descriptor here, maybe “sparsely populated” would be better.

Author: You are perfectly entitled to logically infer that from the title. Actually, all readers generate hypotheses and expectations from titles. How about these two titles: are they both claiming the same thing?

“Highly efficient waveguide grating couplers using Silicon-on-Insulator” “Silicon-on-Insulator for high output waveguide grating couplers”

Scientist: The second title seems to introduce a new technology — Silicon-on-Insulator — to make waveguide grating couplers of the high output kind. Come to think of it, I’m not clear as to what “high output” means. It may be a type of coupler but it may also be a benefit, meaning that other technologies can only deliver lower output. You can tell I’m not an expert in this field either! Now let’s look at the first title. What comes first in the title is usually the author’s contribution, so this paper seems to be more concerned about making the whole system more efficient, using existing silicon-on-insulator technology. In my opinion, these are the titles of two different papers. The first paper published was the one introducing Silicon-on-insulator.

Author: Bravo! You are doing fine. Now look at the following titles. Besides the use of an em dash or a colon to introduce the benefit of Web Services, these two titles are equivalent: which one do you prefer?

“Web services — an enabling technology for trading partners community virtual integration”³

“Web services: integrating virtual communities of trading partners”

Scientist: Um… this is a difficult one. The long five word modified noun in the first title is difficult to read, yet I am attracted by the catchy term ’enabling technology’ even though it isn’t a search keyword. The second title is easy to read. It is shorter, clearer, more dynamic, and purposeful. But is it necessary to put a colon after “Web Services”? The second part of the title does not really explain or illustrate Web services. Could the title be changed to “Integrating virtual communities of trading partners through Web Services”? In this way, what is new comes at the beginning of the title. I don’t think that web services are really new.⁴

Author: The title could be changed to what you propose. You are right; the second title is more dynamic. The use of the verbal form “Integrating” makes it so. Many papers have a two part title separated by an em dash or a colon. The net effect of that separation is to create two places of emphasis in the title: before and right after the punctuation. Otherwise, only the first part of the title is emphasized. Now regarding your remark about the novelty of web services, if web services were indeed new, you could have a two part title. You are doing very well. Only two more titles. Is the following title for a British or an American journal?

“Vapor pressure assisted void growth and cracking of polymeric films and interfaces”⁵

Scientist: Vapor with an “o”. It is for an American journal, isn’t it? If it had been for a British paper, they would have written “vapour”. One has to be careful with keyword spelling nowadays, even if search engines are getting better. Fortunately, the title contains many keywords, so it would be easy to find.

Author: Actually, in this field there is an alternative keyword frequently used also, but by the British. Instead of “vapor pressure-assisted”, they use “moisture-induced”. How would you make sure that both British and American scientists find your paper?

Scientist: Hum,… let me think. Maybe I would use one keyword in the title, and the other one in the abstract. Since the search is often done on title and abstract, the paper has a chance to be found by both communities.

Author: That’s a good idea, but it may backfire. Remember that in order for the reader to see your abstract, they would have had to click on your title, which means that they were attracted by THAT keyword, and not its synonym, which they might not know. Choosing different keywords between the title and abstract would also result in search algorithms such as google scholar giving you a lower rank! Instead, you should use the alternative keyword in the keyword list. That’s what the list is for!

Aside from the synonymous keywords issue, is there anything else in this title you find potentially confusing?

Scientist: This title contains two “and”s. Are there two contributions in this paper: vapor-pressure assisted void growth being one, and cracking of polymeric films and interfaces being the other, or is there only one: vapour assists both void growth and cracking? The second “and” is just as ambiguous: does the adjective “polymeric” apply to films and interfaces, or only to films? I am sure an expert would find the title unambiguous, but non-experts like myself lack the knowledge to disambiguate.

Author: Excellent observation. Titles have to be clear to all, experts and non-experts. Besides and and or, other prepositions can also be quite ambiguous in titles. For example, the preposition with could mean and as in “coffee with milk”, or it could mean using as in “stir the coffee with a spoon”. Whenever you have an unclear preposition in your title, see you if you can replace it with a through, for, using, etc… instead.

The time has come for our last title. It is somewhat tricky. Can you identify the author’s contribution?

“A new approach to blind multi-user detection based on inter symbol correlation”

Scientist: Other researchers are already doing research in this field, and the author is following the pack with a new approach. Personally, I don’t like the word ’approach’ : it is vague. I would use ’method,’ ’technique,’ ’system,’ ’algorithm,’ or ’technology’ instead. They are more specific. And I also don’t like titles that start with ’a new’ something. ’New’ does not specify what is new or what makes it new. Calling the approach new can also be a lie! If the reader picks up this paper within a few years of it being published, then the author’s claim of novelty is correct. But if the paper is being retrieved five years down the line, the reader might be surprised to find in the abstract that the method proposed is already quite dated! Regarding the contribution of this paper, I must say I am at a loss. The inter symbol correlation could be new, but if that is the case, why is it at the back of the title? It should be upfront. “Inter Symbol correlation for blind multi-user detection” is clear. It may also be — and I suspect this is the case — that inter symbol correlation is not new, but the author modified the method. That would explain the use of ’based on’. In that case, why doesn’t he tell us the benefit of the modified method? Something like… “Modifying Inter Symbol Correlation to increase accuracy of blind multiuser detection”…It would be more informative and more compelling.

Author: You are quite good at this. Thank you so much for assisting me in this dialog.

Scientist: Not at all!

Less time than you think

Vladimir often liked to Google his one published paper to see who cited it, or what other people wrote about it. But, that day, instead of typing the whole title, he typed only two of its main keywords, thinking it would be enough. Aghast, he looked at the first page. It was filled with other people’s titles, and there were another ten pages following that one. He started scanning down the list of titles, barely spending a couple of seconds on each one. And then the thought hit him. That was what other researchers did when searching for interesting papers!

“This is terrible,” he shouted.

Ruslana heard him. She asked “What is terrible, darling?”

“Good grief! I spent 9 months doing research, 2 full weeks writing my paper, but if its title does not catch the eyeballs of googling readers, my paper won’t even be read, and I can kiss goodbye to citations and career growth!”

Ruslana helped as helpless people usually do, by stating the obvious.

“Well, you’d better write an attractive title then!”

Vladimir responded:

“Thanks a lot, and how am I supposed to make a title attractive, Mrs Toldoff?”

She escaped by jesting:

“Try lipstick, Darling.”

Actually, Ruslana made an interesting point. The title is the face of your paper. But how do you recognize a face amongst hundreds?

· First, look at a face, face on, not from the back (see technique 1 below).

· Smile. A smiling face is more memorable than a bland one. It is engaging, alive, dynamic (see techniques 2 and 3).

· Do not hide the salient characteristic features by which people recognize your face behind scarves, glasses, or veils (see techniques 4 and 5).

· Find a way to enhance the attractiveness and uniqueness of the face through make-up, special hairstyle, mustache, etc (see technique 6).

But whatever you do, don’t be an impostor and use facial cosmetic surgery to turn into another Michael or Elvis. Each face is unique, and it should remain so.

Why don’t you identify how these solutions also apply to the crafting of a great title? You may even have your own solutions. Here are six techniques that I have found effective.