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

Trap 4 — The trap of imprecision
Introduction Part II: Popular traps
Paper structure and purpose

Under the pressure of a conference- or manager-imposed deadline, you may be tempted to prepare the related work section from abstracts, not from the full text of the papers you had no time to read. Abstracts do not contain all the results, they do not mention assumptions or limitations, and they do not justify the methods used. As a result, your sentences will resemble this one: “Many people have been working in this domain [1−10], and others have recently improved what their predecessors did [11—17].” Reviewers will see through the smokescreen. Stuffing the reference brackets with reference numbers that exceed three, not only points to abstract skimming, but it may also be symptomatic of insufficient knowledge, shoddy science, or unsound methodology.

Abstract skimming, or dotting your paper with the references of articles you have not read, will hurt you in many ways.

· Errors will creep into your paper.

· Because they find your domain knowledge too superficial, reviewers are tempted to lower the value of your contribution.

· Your research will be disconnected from other research efforts.

· Your story will lack detail, and therefore, interest.

· Readers are usually quick to detect authors who write with authority from the level of detail and precision in their paper. If your words lack precision and assurance, readers and reviewers will doubt your expertise, and question your credibility.

If any of the words from table 5 are found in your introduction, you may have fallen into the trap of imprecision. But if these words are immediately justified (’Several technologies, such as…’), they are fine.

Figure 5

Words that are potential indicators of a lack of precision in scientific writing.