Clear Comparisons Make Your Data Meaningful

Comparisons are crucial. They fill Abstracts, Results and Discussions: comparisons between groups, between theory and observation, between your study and others, and so on. With well-written comparisons, you demonstrate the clarity and logic of your analysis, and provide meaningful information; without good comparisons, your data lack meaning.

The example of an unclear comparison that I'm going to use comes from the abstract of a published, peer-reviewed paper. Because I don't want to embarrass the author, I've changed or omitted certain details, including the species, so this example does not present a real scientific finding. However, I have kept the structure of the comparison the same. 

An analysis of hematological indicators in puppies of breeds X and Y

Hematological indicators A, B, and C are used to determine the overall health status of dogs and to diagnose many diseases. The normal ranges of these indicators differ with age and sex, and recent studies also indicate that, in healthy adults of breeds X and Y, the values of these indicators can be outside what were previously considered to be the normal ranges for all dogs. However, it is not known if the levels of hematological indicators A, B, and C in healthy puppies of breeds X and Y can be outside the established norms. To answer this question, [...samples were taken from certain groups at certain times, etc.]. We found that, especially during the 2nd and 3rd months of life, the mean level of hematological indicator A was significantly higher in breed X (P < 0.05). [more details, which do not explain this comparison] 

Problem 1:
Higher than what? Higher than the established norms, than at birth, than in breed Y? The unknown and the research question suggest that the writer means "higher than the established norms", but we need to be sure. 

Solution:
Write complete comparisons: not "this was higher," but "this was higher than that." 

Problem 2: 
How much higher? Let's assume that the author is using "significantly" in the correct scientific sense, to indicate a "statistically significant" difference, not a "large" or "important" difference (Hofmann 2014). So we know that there probably is a real difference between the mean level of indicator A in breed X and whatever the author was comparing it to. But we don't know if this is a big or important difference. What if the difference is so small that it will be difficult to detect with the equipment that most veterinarians have? A "negative result" like this is still valuable, and the tendency not to publish negative results from medical studies is unscientific, unethical, and dangerous (Evans et al. 2011), but the result needs to be made clear. 

Solution: 
Remember, your readers need to know the size of the effect or the difference, not just that there probably is an effect or a difference (Evans et al. 2011, Nuzzo 2014). Be precise, and include information on both the size and the statistical significance, for example: 

"Although the difference was significant, the mean level of hematological indicator A was only slightly higher in breed X at 4 weeks of age than at 2 weeks of age (4 weeks [mean, standard deviation], 2 weeks [mean, standard deviation], P < 0.05)."  

Conclusion: 

Before you submit your paper, check it for these kinds of errors. It's easy to forget and write an incomplete or unclear comparison, and I've done it many times myself—in fact, a student found one in my writing just this Friday! 

References:  
Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I, Glaszou P. 2011. Testing Treatments: Better Research for Better Healthcare. Pinter & Martin, Ltd: London. p.88–89, 96–7, 163.
Hofmann, AH. 2014. Scientific Writing and Communication: Papers, Proposals, and Presentations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 17, 270.
Nuzzo R. 2014. Statistical Errors: P values, the 'gold standard' of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. Nature 506:150-152.

Better Ways to Graphically Present Your Data

Here's the title and the abstract from an article that shows you how to make your figures "worth a thousand words" (emphasis added):

Beyond Bar and Line Graphs: Time for a New Data Presentation Paradigm

Figures in scientific publications are critically important because they often show the data supporting key findings. Our systematic review of research articles published in top physiology journals (n = 703) suggests that, as scientists, we urgently need to change our practices for presenting continuous data in small sample size studies. Papers rarely included scatterplots, box plots, and histograms that allow readers to critically evaluate continuous data. Most papers presented continuous data in bar and line graphs. This is problematic, as many different data distributions can lead to the same bar or line graph. The full data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. We recommend training investigators in data presentation, encouraging a more complete presentation of data, and changing journal editorial policies. Investigators can quickly make univariate scatterplots for small sample size studies using our Excel templates.

The authors not only provide Excel templates, but also instructions for how to make better figures with GraphPad PRISM. I hope you find them useful.

Reference

Weissgerber TL, Milic NM, Winham SJ, Garovic VD (2015) Beyond Bar and Line Graphs: Time for a New Data Presentation Paradigm. PLoS Biol 13(4): e1002128. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002128

Is it hard for you to communicate in English? Good, you can win $500.

I'd love to see a scientist who's an English-language learner win one of these awards from PLOS (emphasis added):

"PLOS is offering up to ten travel awards to early career researchers to communicate their work at an upcoming conference. To be eligible researchers must have published with PLOS, be presenting work at a scientific conference, and currently be part of a graduate program or have received a graduate degree within the last five years.

"If you are an early career researcher, we invite you to share your thoughts on what is the biggest hindrance for communicating science and what you or your peers can do to address this issue. Apply for a chance to win $500 to offset travel expenses associated with presenting work at a scientific conference taking place between August – December 2015.

"The deadline for submission is June 30, 2015."

Vocabulary

• To be eligible means to be allowed to enter the competition.
• A hindrance for communicating is something that prevents or stops you from communicating your science.
• When they write that they will offset travel expenses, they mean that they will pay you the $500 after you show them proof that you've been at the conference.

I encourage you to go to the official PLOS blog for more details. Let them know how much harder you have to work because you're learning English, e.g. the extra time you need for writing. Good luck!

A Lesson from a Nobel-Prize Winner: How to tell the story of your results

Many scientists don’t realize it, but a good scientific article is like a novel: they both tell a story [1]. A well-written research article tells us about the search for the answer to a question. When we read the article, we’re introduced to what is known and unknown, which leads us to the research question. Then we follow the action of the Methods and Results, until we reach the climax: the answer to the question. The story finishes with a Discussion of what the answer means, which usually suggests new questions for new heroes (other scientists) to pursue—and these heroes don’t reward the story-teller with gold, but with citations!

One of the great heroes of science, Nobel Prize Winner Shinya Yamanaka, and his colleague, Kazutoshi Takahashi, give a master class in scientific storytelling in an article [2] that was a key to Yamanaka’s Nobel Prize. (If you want to download the article so that you can read the whole thing, you can get it for free from Cell’s open archive.)

How can I quickly check if a word or phrase is correct scientific English?

You try to write your papers clearly, precisely and correctly. You go to English lessons; you regularly read articles from well-edited journals* — not just for the science but for the language too. But sometimes you’re not sure what’s correct and you need the right word or phrase immediately. So what can you do?

Here’s a way you can quickly search well-edited journals to find the correct word or phrase. In this example, let’s imagine that you’re not sure if “ultrasound disintegration” or “ultrasonic disintegration” is correct.

Keep This Book In A Safe Place! A review of "Eloquent Science"

For my work as a teacher of scientific English, I have a shelf full of textbooks, manuals, and references. But one book is never there when I need it: "Eloquent Science" (Schultz 2009). This is because my wife takes it. Without asking.

Yes, even though Ania’s first language is Polish, and the book is in English, she takes it. And, even though she’s a veterinary scientist, and the subtitle of the book is “A practical guide to becoming a better writer, speaker and atmospheric scientist”, she leaves it on her desk or in her bag. Without telling me where it is, of course.

So I went to my wife and said, “Why are you always stealing my book?”

Things got exciting. Anyway, after a serious talk about how married couples share (I nodded), we got to the part you want to hear about. Ania told me that Schultz covers all aspects of writing research articles, plus posters, presentations and how to write reviews of other scientist’s papers. He writes clearly and briefly, with many lists and tables, so you don’t have to spend unnecessary time reading.

Are you using your favorite word incorrectly? (Other misuses of “parameter”)

The word parameter has been corrupted. Originally, it was just a mathematical term, but now it’s used in a vague way by the general public (Burchfield 2000, 570). Politicians and journalists love to talk about “the parameters of a situation” — it sounds so scientific! However, even a basic introduction to statistics for people who are afraid of mathematics will warn you that this is not the correct technical usage of the word (Rowntree 2000, 83).

Unfortunately, imprecise usage of the word parameter has infected the scientific world. In my last post, I explained what a parameter is and how it's different from a variable. But parameter is also confused with other words. For example, after reading that post, Mariusz Kowalewski of the University of Zurich emailed me that he often sees people writing parameter when they mean factor. (Thanks, Mariusz, for pointing this out.)

Are you using your favorite word incorrectly? ("Parameter" or "variable"?)

Parameter. It’s a word that sounds impressive. And you can find it everywhere in the scientific literature. Scientists describe the parameters of a sample, list diagnostic parameters, and even calculate the parameters of various shapes. The word just feels good — don’t you feel like a serious scientist when you write “parameter” or dream of telling a plenary session of your peers that you have pinpointed the parameters of a problem?

But do you really, precisely know what parameter means in English? Have you noticed that the word parameter is used differently in high-impact journals and low-impact journals? Have you read what the Council of Biology Editors (now the Council of Science Editors) has written about the correct usage of “parameter” and “variable” (Council of Biology Editors 1994, 115)?

Before we go any further, take a moment to write down or tell yourself precisely what you think parameter means in English. (Hint: None of the examples above are correct.)

Put a precise verb near the beginning of each sentence

Here is the beginning of a sentence adapted from an article about decontaminating polluted soil that I helped to edit:
  
"Higher effectiveness of removal of both metals in soil X than in soil Y..."

How do you think the sentence ends?

Maybe like this: 
"Higher effectiveness of removal of both metals in soil X than in soil Y...was probably due to the fact that more of the metals were in mobile fractions in soil X than in soil Y."

Or this: 

"Higher effectiveness of removal of both metals in soil X than in soil Y...was achieved with the use of a 3:1 ratio of washing agents A and B."

Or this: 

"Higher effectiveness of removal of both metals in soil X than in soil Y...was observed when the pH of the washing solution was less than 6."

Or something else? The point is, you don't know what the sentence is about until you get to the verb, and in this sentence, we have 14 words with no verb. 

Unlike some other languages, English sentences should have a precise verb near the beginning (e.g. Zeiger 2000, 22-26; Harmon and Gross 2010, 198-211; Schimel 2012, 112-122, 137-140). This makes them easier to understand. English-language sentences that put an imprecise verb at the end are harder to understand and are considered to be in poor style.

The original sentence was like this (with a few minor grammar errors corrected):

To learn how to organize your articles, study articles in high-impact English-language journals

In the fields that I'm familiar with—biology, biotechnology, and medicine—there is often a huge difference in the quality of writing between what is published in high-impact journals, and what is published in little journals. It seems to me that it's probably a positive feedback cycle: Because high-impact journals are more prestigious, more people want to publish there, so the editors can afford to demand clearer, better-organized writing. Because the writing is better, more researchers read the articles and find useful information and ideas in them. This leads to more citations, maintaining these journals' high impact factor. I think that it's not only the quality of the science that makes journals like Nature, Science, and British Medical Journal so popular and prestigious; it's also how clearly the ideas are presented in the pages of those journals.

The articles in these kinds of journals are worth using as models, even if you don't think that your study will be published in such a prestigious journal. First, you can be almost certain that the English in these journals is correct. Second, the way that the ideas are organized and presented in these journals will help you make your ideas clearer and more interesting to a wider range of readers, which will help your research get the attention it deserves.

I suggest that you find some articles that you find interesting in high-impact journals, and then make an outline of the main ideas in the article, to see how the authors organize their ideas. This will teach you how to outline and organize your own articles. To show you how to do it, I've made an outline of the main ideas in the introduction to an article entitled Oxytocin bolus versus oxytocin bolus and infusion for control of blood loss at elective caesarean section: double blind, placebo controlled, randomised trial (Sheehan et al. 2011) from BMJ (British Medical Journal).

Before you write your article, write one sentence that will guide you

My scientific writing students and my editing clients often seem to get lost while writing their articles. It's as if they set out to cross the forests of Siberia without a map and compass, or a GPS, and with no clearer goal than the hope of reaching an ocean someday. And whereas some people might enjoy months or years of footloose wandering through a real wilderness, my clients generally don't enjoy the feeling of being lost while writing. So what I try to do is show them some techniques that will help them write a clear, focused article that is organized like those that are in many high impact journals.

Pre-writing will help you get it right

"On my list of maladaptive practices that make writing harder, Not Outlining is pretty high…Get your thoughts in order before you try to communicate them to the world of science." (Silva 2007, 71)

Scientists need to organize their thoughts before they ask a native-speaker or an editing service to help them with their English grammar and usage. If the ideas in a scientific paper are disorganized or disconnected, the paper can be rejected or returned for revision because it is too difficult for the editor or reviewers to understand, even though there are few or no grammar errors.

To help organize and connect their ideas, almost all good writers do some kind of pre-writing that helps them to create, record and organize ideas. Pre-writing is especially important to prepare yourself to write in a second language, or to make sure that your ideas will be understood after translation. If the micro-scale aspects (vocabulary, grammar, etc.) of your writing are weak, you can compensate for this by strengthening the macro-scale aspects (organization and the connections between ideas).

Speaking engagement this weekend

Because of a speaking engagement this weekend, I will not be posting any new material until next weekend.

A good scientific article is like an organism, not a molecule

If you were sick, would you go to a biochemist or a doctor? I would go to a doctor, because in addition to biochemistry, she would have studied physiology, histology, anatomy, pathology, and many other subjects. A doctor understands how the body works at both the micro- and macro-scales.

What does this have to do with writing? Well, the problem is that when treating a "sick" piece of writing that needs to be improved, both students and teachers of scientific English often act like biochemists instead of doctors. They focus only on the micro-scale aspects of the writing such as whether a noun should be preceded by "a" or "the". This could be compared to treating a patient with a severe spinal deformity by giving him calcium supplements, then smiling and wishing him luck as you wave goodbye. Although the calcium supplements may indeed help the bones in his spine to become stronger, and weak bones may be part of his problems, he probably needs surgery and physical therapy to be able to stand up straight and breath easily. In the same way, grammar and vocabulary are important, but not enough for good writing. Macro-scale aspects, such as the way sentences, paragraphs and sections are organized and connected in good English writing, are also necessary to tell the story of your research.

How to explain the novelty of your research (Part 2)

The first post in this series looked at language that can be used when there is a knowledge gap. This post will focus on language you can use when there is an inconsistency in current knowledge, or a problem.

Here are some examples:

• "However the definition of compost and biowaste stability is a matter of some debate." (MacLeod et al. 2008)
• "The effects of sex steroids on the GH-IGF system reported to date are enigmatic." (Hansen et al. 2013)
• "The use of artificial media and amended soils in ecotoxicity studies remains a subject of debate." (Maderova et al. 2009)

To indicate an inconsistency or problem in current knowledge, these examples all use a word that implies some kind of doubt or controversy. A similar word that would also work well is "conflict", as in: "Reports on X appear to conflict." Because these sentences all summarize the state of the art in their field, they would work well at the beginning of a paragraph full of examples, as Maderova et al. do in their article.

EXERCISES 
Read some studies in your field that were written by researchers working in English-speaking countries. Do they make clear what is unknown? How do they make it clear? With the pattern we have seen today, or with different language?

COMING UP
I am going to take a break from writing during the next two weekends, so my next post will be on January 5th, 2014.

SOURCES
Hansen AM, Kittilson JD, Martin LE, Sheridan MA, "Environmental estrogens inhibit growth of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) by modulating the growth hormone-insulin-like growth factor system." General and Comparative Endocrinology (2013): doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygcen.2013.11.013 [unedited manuscript that had been accepted for publication]
Maderova, Lenka, Julian JC Dawson, and Graeme I. Paton. "Cu and Ni mobility and bioavailability in sequentially conditioned soils." Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 210, (2010): 63-73.
MacLeod I, Savage AL, Pahl O, Baird J, "Decline in microbial activity does not necessarily indicate an end to biodegradation in MSW-biowaste: A case study." Bioresource Technology 99 (2008): 8626-8630.

How to explain the novelty of your research

Good introductions to scientific papers always answer several questions for the readers. One of these questions is the following: What is unknown about your research topic? What is a gap in current knowledge, or a problem, or an inconsistency? (e.g. Zeiger 2000, 107-109; Booth et al. 2003, 224; Swales and Feak 2004, 244; Schultz 2009, 34; Valiela 2009, 139-140; Harmon and Gross 2010, 3-13: Schimel 2012, 35-65)

In last week's post, you might have noticed some similarities in the language that the authors used to answer this question. Here are some of those sentences; they all effectively explain the knowledge gap with language that is easy to use:

A) "However, there are no scientific reports comparing the use of these three freely available Excel-based tools for evaluation of the stability of reference genes in Hymenoptera." (Scharlaken et al. 2008)
C) "In column leaching processes, kinetics of HM [heavy metal] desorption/dissolution may become a more important factor than under batch extraction conditions; yet few studies have addressed this aspect." (Sun et al. 2001)
E) "Investigations of optimal operational factors and proper control of the composting process have been reported by several researchers, but studies investigating the thermal balance of this process are rare." (Ahn et al. 2007)

These sentences all share two elements:

1. words that are used for contrast (however, yet, but), and 
2. either the word "no" or what Swales and Feak (2004, 258) call "quasi-negative" language (no scientific reports, few studies, studies…are rare). 

The contrast word signals the reader that the focus of the introduction is changing from what is known to what is unknown. The word "no" or the "quasi-negative" language stress that little or no research has been done in this area, highlighting the novelty and originality of the authors' work. This helps to convince the editors and reviewers to accept the article, and the readers to read the article and perhaps to cite it. Because it is so important to highlight the knowledge gap, the ideal place to put these sentences is in one of the "power positions" of English discourse: at the beginning or at the end of a paragraph (Zeiger 2000, 99-100).

An important part of the grammar of these sentences is the difference between countable and uncountable nouns:

• With countable nouns, you should use "few", e.g. few studies, few reports.
• With uncountable nouns, you should use "little", e.g. little research, little data.
• You can use "no" with countable and uncountable nouns.

EXERCISES:
Read some studies in your field that were written by researchers working in English-speaking countries. Do they make the knowledge gap clear? How do they make it clear? With the pattern we have seen today (contrast word + no/"quasi-negative language"), or with different language?
Try to use the language pattern in this post to explain the knowledge gap that your next paper will attempt to fill. Remember to put this sentence at the beginning or the end of a paragraph.

SOURCES
Ahn, H. K., T. L. Richard, and H. L. Choi. "Mass and thermal balance during composting of a poultry manure—Wood shavings mixture at different aeration rates." Process Biochemistry 42 (2007): 215-223.
Scharlaken, Bieke, Dirk C. de Graaf, Karen Goossens, Marleen Brunain, Luc J. Peelman, and Frans J. Jacobs. "Reference gene selection for insect expression studies using quantitative real-time PCR: The head of the honeybee, Apis mellifera, after a bacterial challenge." Journal of insect Science 8 (2008), available online: insectscience.org/8.33
Sun, B., F. J. Zhao, E. Lombi, and S. P. McGrath. "Leaching of heavy metals from contaminated soils using EDTA." Environmental pollution 113, no. 2 (2001): 111-120.

REFERENCES
Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. The craft of research. University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Harmon, Joseph E., and Alan G. Gross. The craft of scientific communication. University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Schimel, Joshua. Writing science: how to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded. Oxford University Press, 2012.
Schultz, David M. Eloquent Science: A practical guide to becoming a better writer, speaker & atmospheric scientist. American Meteorological Society, 2009.
Swales, John M. and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. The University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Valiela, Ivan. Doing Science: Design, Analysis, and Communication of Scientific Research. Oxford University Press, 2009.
Zeiger, Mimi. Essentials of writing biomedical research papers. McGraw-Hill, 2000.

Examples of how to answer the readers' questions in your introduction

In the previous post, we looked at the characteristics of a good introduction to a scientific research article. Good introductions should answer 3-4 questions for the readers (e.g. Zeiger 2000, 107-109; Booth et al. 2003, 224; Swales and Feak 2004, 244; Schultz 2009, 34; Valiela 2009, 139-140; Harmon and Gross 2010, 3-13: Schimel 2012, 35-65):


1) What is the current state of knowledge about your research topic?
     
     1a) Why is this topic important, interesting, or both?
2) What is unknown about your topic? What is a gap in current knowledge, or a problem, or an inconsistency? 

3) How did you attempt to fill the gap, solve the problem, or resolve the inconsistency?

Today we will start to look more closely at the language you can use to answer these questions. To help us do this, I have made a collection of sentences from articles that my students and editing clients have been reading recently.

EXERCISE:
Please sort the following sentences. Does each sentence answer question 1, 1a, 2, or 3? Or does it answer some combination of questions, for example, 1 and 1a? Make a note on a piece of paper as you read each sentence, for example: A – 2, B – …

A) "However, there are no scientific reports comparing the use of these three freely available Excel-based tools for evaluation of the stability of reference genes in Hymenoptera." (Scharlaken et al. 2008)
B) "Analyzing the thermal balance with a range of aeration rates would thus prove useful in designing and operating a composting system efficiently and controlling heat loss." (Ahn et al. 2007)
C) "In column leaching processes, kinetics of HM [heavy metal] desorption/dissolution may become a more important factor than under batch extraction conditions; yet few studies have addressed this aspect." (Sun et al. 2001)
D) "In this study, we carried out an intensive evaluation of 10 commonly used housekeeping genes in 13 different human tissues, and outlined a procedure for calculating a normalization factor based on multiple control genes for more accurate and reliable normalization of gene-expression date." (Vandesompele et al. 2002)
E) "Investigations of optimal operational factors and proper control of the composting process have been reported by several researchers, but studies investigating the thermal balance of this process are rare." (Ahn et al. 2007)
F) "Most studies have been conducted in small samples of women and few have compared the upper genital tract frequency of nongonococcal/non-chlamydial microorganisms between women with and those without endometritis or salpingitis." (Haggerty et al. 2004)
G) "Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), the infection and inflammation of a woman's fallopian tubes (salpingitis) and uterine lining (endometritis), is a frequent and morbid condition among young women." (Haggerty et al. 2004)
H) "Preterm birth (PTB), defined as delivery at less than 37 weeks of gestation, continues to be one of the major unsolved problems in obstetrics." (Stout et al. 2013)
I) "The present study was carried out to examine the mass and energy balance under two different aeration rates, which were set to maintain oxygen levels in exhaust air above 10 and 15%." (Ahn et al. 2007)
J) "The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficiency of EDTA extraction of Zn, Cd, Cu and Pb." (Sun et al. 2001)
K) "Previous researchers recommended a variety of aeration rate ranges to optimize the composting process." (Ahn et al. 2007)
L) "Statistical algorithms such as geNorm, Normfinder, and BestKeeper have been developed to assess the appropriateness of reference genes." (Scharlaken et al. 2008)
M) "The aims of this study were to monitor bioavailability and toxicity from a range of Cu- and Ni- amended soils by measuring the activity of a bioluminescent microbial biosensor Escherichia coli HB101 pUCD607." (Maderova et al. 2010)
N) "The use of artificial media and amended soils in ecotoxicity studies remains a subject of debate." (Maderova et al. 2010)
O) "We tested the hypotheses that bacterial vaginosis and bacterial vaginosis-associated microorganisms are independently associated with endometritis in the PID [pelvic inflammatory disease] Evaluation and Clinical Health (PEACH) Study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial designed to compare the effectiveness of inpatient and outpatient treatment for mild to moderate PID." (Haggerty et al. 2004)


Keep reading to find the answers.

4 Keys To Writing A Successful Introduction

• What is a good introduction to an English-language paper about scientific research?
• How is a good introduction different from a literature review?
• Why is an introduction necessary?

To answer these questions, we will look the characteristics that are shared by all good introductions to research articles.


An introduction to a scientific research article should answer 3-4 questions for the readers (Zeiger 2000, 107-109; Booth, Colomb and Williams 2003, 224; Swales and Feak 2004, 244; Schultz 2009, 34; Valiela 2009, 139-140; Harmon and Gross 2010, 3-13: Schimel 2012, 35-65):



1) What is the current state of knowledge about your research topic?
 
     1a) Why is this topic important, interesting, or both?

2) What is unknown about your topic? What is a gap in current knowledge, or a problem, or an inconsistency?

3) How did you attempt to fill the gap, solve the problem, or resolve the inconsistency? 



Question 1 is always answered in successful introductions. There should be enough information so that readers of the journal can understand the knowledge gap that you are trying to fill (Lindsay 2011, 24; Schimel 2012, 56). Remember that you should not give too much information; this is not a textbook, nor a test of how much you know about the topic.

Question 1a is not always answered; however, it is often answered (Zeiger 2000, 108-109; Swales and Feak 2004, 244) and several authors recommend that you do answer it (Harmon and Gross 2004, 11-13; Schultz 2009, 34-35; Valiela 2009, 139; Schimel 2012, 40-42). Explaining why your topic is important and interesting can help convince the editor to send your article out to the reviewers. It can also convince readers to finish reading your paper. Although many students of English do not answer this question, it is easy to answer if you learn a some key words and phrases that are relevant to your field.



Question 2 is always answered in a successful introduction. The answer helps convince the journal editor, the reviewers, and the readers of the novelty of your work. By clearly describing the knowledge gap, you create space for your article in the crowded, competitive world of modern research (Swales and Feak 2004, 243-244). Sadly, my personal observations agree with what Schultz (2009, 194) has written: many English-language learners do not answer this question well. Improving your answers to question 2 may be the key to improving your introductions.



Question 3 needs to be answered, and this is almost always done at the end of the introduction, as most students know. This information must be included because everything else in the introduction builds up to it. For English-language learners, it is important to learn how to answer question 3 briefly and precisely.



To sum up, a good introduction answers key questions for the readers. Although an introduction cites the literature, it should be different from a literature review. This is because a good introduction defines a knowledge gap; it prepares and motivates the readers to read about your research; and it helps convince the editor and the reviewers to accept your article. For these reasons, a good introduction is necessary. The language you need to write a good introduction will be an ongoing topic of this blog.

EXERCISE:
Read some introductions written by native-speakers. Find the parts where they answer the above questions. Is there any useful language you could use? Can you rewrite the sentences with the useful language so that they describe your research?

COMING SOON: Some examples with useful language.

REFERENCES:
Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. The craft of research. University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Harmon, Joseph E., and Alan G. Gross. The craft of scientific communication. University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Lidsay, David. Scientific Writing = Thinking in Words. Csiro Publishing, 2011.
Schimel, Joshua. Writing science: how to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded. Oxford University Press, 2012.
Schultz, David M. Eloquent Science. American Meteorological Society, 2009.
Swales, John M. and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. The University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Valiela, Ivan. Doing Science: Design, Analysis, and Communication of Scientific Research. Oxford University Press, 2009.
Zeiger, Mimi. Essentials of writing biomedical research papers. McGraw-Hill, 2000.

Advice From Wiley-Blackwell Author Services: Repeat key words

The idea of trying to repeat words can seem strange to students of scientific English who come from non-English-speaking cultures. These students understand that a clear and direct style will help them to communicate with readers around the world, but they still feel uncomfortable repeating words.  The students' cultures often value varied and inventive expression more than English-speaking cultures do, and put less emphasis on clear and direct communication. Some of my Polish students have told me how their high school teachers took away points if they repeated words—"Never, never repeat words!" one student told me, shaking his finger as he imitated his teacher. The problem is that many synonyms in English have very specific meanings, so if you use a synonym, you change the meaning enough that your writing is no longer accurate and precise.

Therefore, it is important to repeat key words (the words that express the most important ideas in your article). This makes your writing clearer and more precise, and it helps connect your ideas so that other scientists can follow your thinking. It also has an additional benefit: if you repeat key words, you have a better chance of being read and cited.

I first saw this information on how repeating key words increases your chances of being cited on David M. Schultz's Eloquent Science blog. Schultz had posted a link to a page on Wiley-Blackwell Author Services which I excerpt below:

Optimizing your article for search engines will greatly increase its chance of being viewed and/or cited in another work…The crucial area for optimization is your article's abstract and title, which are freely available to all online…most [search engines] now scan a page for keyword phrases, giving extra weight to phrases in headings and to repeated phrases…In search engine terms, the title of your article is the most interesting element. The search engine assumes that the title contains all of the important words that define the topic of the piece and thus weights words appearing there most heavily. This is why it is crucial for you to choose a clear, accurate title. Think about the search terms that readers are likely to use when looking for articles on the same topic as yours, and help them by constructing your title to include those terms…The next most important field is the text of the abstract itself. You should reiterate the key words or phrases from the title within the abstract itself. You know the key phrases for your subject area, whether it is temporal lobe epilepsy or reconstruction in Iraq…Use the same key phrases, if possible in the title and abstract. Note of caution [author's emphasis]: unnecessary repetition will result in the page being rejected by search engines so don't overdo it. The examples below illustrate the difference between an abstract which is well-optimized and one which is not. [I recommend that you look at the examples in the original.]

In other words, as Schimel (2012, p. 5) has written, "It is the author's job to make the reader's job easy." Think about what words your readers are likely to search for. Put those key words in your title, and repeat those key words in your abstract. This will make it easy for readers to find your article. When you're writing your article, find the clearest, most precise words to explain your important ideas to your readers. Repeat those those key words; this will make it easy for your international readers in China, Argentina, Egypt or Germany — they don't want to be forced to use their dictionaries again and again. Remember, if you mean "bacteria", but instead you write "microbes", "microorganisms" or "prokaryotes", just to avoid repetition, your papers may be repeatedly rejected or returned for revision. Okay, I think I've repeated myself enough — after all, the Wiley-Blackwell Author Services page warns that we shouldn't overdo it ;-)





CALL FOR COMMENTS: Please help make Better English for Scientific Impact a better resource for teachers and students everywhere. If you find a good example of precise, clear scientific writing, post a reference to it in the comments and it may be included in a future lesson. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please post them too.

REFERENCE:
Joshua Schimel, Writing Science: How to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded (OUP: Oxford, 2012), 5.

Good Paragraph Organization: An example from a classic article

We have a classic article for our first example of scientific writing with the kind of good paragraph organization that I explained in my last post. The article is the original short communication in which Watson and Crick proposed what is now an accepted structure for DNA (you can get the complete, original article for free here). I have deleted all the sentences except those at the beginning, and sometimes the end, of each paragraph. This way you can see how the most important sentences are in these places.

Before we look at their article, think about what you know about the structure of DNA. Then as you read the article, notice how the beginnings and endings of the paragraphs are almost like an abstract. These sentences summarize what most scientists know about the structure of DNA, plus some details that are of basic importance to geneticists, cell biologists, biochemists, and others in similar fields. This is how you should write your articles: the beginnings (and sometimes the endings) of paragraphs should be almost like an abstract of your work.