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

The deadly outcome of the sum of all traps: disbelief
Introduction Part II: Popular traps
Paper structure and purpose

Stephen D. Senturia, MIT professor and Senior editor of JMEMS wrote in the June 2003 edition of the journal an excellent article entitled: “How to Avoid the Reviewer’s Axe: One Editor’s View”. He writes: “A paper is written in order of decreasing believability”. Therefore, everything in the introduction has to be believable. If the reviewer doubts the origin or sincerity of your words, the accuracy of your sources and numbers, the validity of your claims, the extent of your knowledge, or your fairness in character, then disbelief sets in. It is the fly in the ointment, the tipping point that moves the reviewer’s first impression of your paper from neutral to negative.

Why would reviewers trust results or the interpretation of results if they can’t even believe introductory statements! Nothing written in the introduction should be perceived as deliberately partial (outdated or omitted reference to research papers from rival groups). And nothing should be perceived as speculative. Naturally, we all know the words that express speculation: ’possibly,’ ’likely,’ ’probably,’ etc; But Professor Senturia adds a few unexpected words to that list: ’obviously,’ ’undoubtedly,’ and ’certainly,’ and other strong words of assurance behind which hide mere speculations.

The reader scientist is critical and suspicious for good reasons. Research is expensive and time-consuming. Before taking on board new ideas from other people’s papers, scientists want to be sure that these ideas will answer their needs. All they have to get that assurance are the words of the writer, the peer-review process, and their own experience. Drawing from their prior knowledge, they examine the writer’s work, and since they cannot verify everything presented in the paper, at some point, they need to decide whether to trust the writer or not.

In this decision process, you realize that the reviewer of the paper plays a critical role. Good reviewers have developed a sixth sense after reviewing many papers. They know that some writers desperate to be published lie by omission (that is why the judge asks the witness to swear to tell the whole truth). Such writers omit mentioning the reference to a paper too close to theirs for comfort. They omit mentioning the known (and often crippling) limitations of their method or results. They omit data. They omit to show the results that do not support their hypothesis. Some of these omissions will only be known after readers discover them while trying to reproduce the research results.

The introduction is a good place for reviewers to deploy their antennas in order to pick up any signal pointing to a lack of knowledge or a lack of intellectual honesty. I remember reading an article on presentation skills than claimed that if only one side of an issue is presented, then believability is in the low 10%; but if both sides are presented, believability is in the high 50%. The title of the slide was “fairness”. In Science, it would have been “intellectual honesty”.

The drug info sheet

To be really scared, don’t watch a horror movie. Instead, go into your medicine cabinet, and read the piece of paper folded in eight sandwiched between the two strips of aluminum holding the precious pills that may cure your headache. Take the time to read the microscopic text to build up some really unhealthy anxiety. The warnings are so overwhelming that if the pills don’t cure you, they might just as effectively lead you straight to the emergency room.

If the pharmaceutical companies disclose these limitations, it is to avoid lawsuits and to help doctors prescribe the right medicine. Not stating limitations in your scientific paper won’t kill anyone, but it might damage your credibility, and your chances of getting published!