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

Trap 5 — The trap of judgmental words
Introduction Part II: Popular traps
Paper structure and purpose

Some adjectives, verbs, and adverbs are dangerous when used in the related work section of your paper. The danger comes from their use in judgmental comparisons. Adjectives such as ’poor,’ ’not well,’ ’slow,’ ’faster,’ ’not reliable,’ ’primitive,’ ’naive,’ or ’limited’ can do much damage. Verbs like ’fail to,’ ’ignore,’ or ’suffers from’ are just as judgmental. Negations like ’may not’ or ’potentially unable to’ cast doubt without a shred of evidence. They make your work look good at the expense of the work of others who came before you. Sir Isaac Newton did not write: “If I have seen further, it is because they were all as blind as bats”. The people whose work you judge will one day read what you wrote about them, and be understandably upset.

Does it mean that all adjectives are bad? No, they are just dangerous. Every adjective is a claim; and in science, claims have to be justified. How would you explain and justify the adjective ’poor’?

What adjectives (if any) are to be used? Adjectives that compliment (with reason) the authors or their work, adjectives that reflect undisputed public knowledge, adjectives supported by data, visuals, or quotes, and adjectives you define.

Here are eight ways to avoid direct judgment on the findings of a particular paper:

· State agreement or disagreement of your results/conclusions with another paper’s results/conclusions, or state that your results/conclusions are coherent with, in accord with, or at variance with those found in another paper.

· Use facts and numbers to justify your claims. Do make sure to be fair and compare apples with apples.

· Define your uniqueness, your difference (nothing is comparable to what you do — maybe because you are exploring an alternative never tried before).

· Quote another peer-reviewed paper that independently supports your views (a review paper maybe), or quote the limitations as stated by the authors of the paper you are comparing yours with.

· Show you improve or extend someone’s work, not destroy it.

· Bring balance to your views: recognize the value of an existing method in a sentence’s main clause while mentioning its limitation in a subordinate clause as in ’Although this method is no longer used, it helped kick-start the work in this field’. Avoid inverting the clauses as in ’Although this method helped kick-start the work in this field, it is no longer used.’

· Compare visually, thus avoiding the use of judgmental words. Be respectful of people’s earlier work.

· Change the point of view and the evaluation criteria. Show that with the new criteria (that you have justified), the method you are comparing yours with is no longer as effective.

Scientists of old were very gracious. Let’s learn from Pascal, Benjamin Franklin, and Santiago Ramón y Cajal.

Pascal

Blaise Pascal is not only a great scientist but also a great Christian philosopher, and a man with the right attitude. Here is a translation of one of his thoughts dealing with correcting people’s mistakes, followed by a similar recommendation from Benjamin Franklin:

“When one wishes to correct to one’s advantage, and reveal how mistaken someone is, one must observe from which angle that person is looking at things, because, usually, from that angle, things look right, and openly admit this truth, but present the other angle from which the same things now look wrong. The one who is corrected is satisfied for no mistake was made, it was simply a matter of not being aware of other perspectives.”

Benjamin Franklin

Extract from chapter 8 of Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography:

“I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradiction to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbid myself, agreeably to the old laws of our Junto, the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion, such as certainly, undoubtedly, etc., and I adopted, instead of them, I conceive, I apprehend, or I imagine a thing to be so or so; or it so appears to me at present. When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition; and in answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appeared or seemed to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.”

Santiago Ramón y Cajal

In his book “Reglas y Consejos sobre Investigación Cientifica: Los tonicós de la voluntad”, Santiago Ramón y Cajal recommends indulgence because methodology is the source of many errors. He never doubts that the author has talent, commenting that, if the author had had access to the same equipment he used, he or she would have arrived at the same conclusion. In any case, the author’s work was published, and his own efforts contributed to the advancement of science, whether they were crowned with success or not.