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.)

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).

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.

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.

The Key To Scientific Writing In English: Paragraphs with a point

"The beginning (often just the first sentence) should state clearly the subject of the paragraph...The first sentence...is the key."
–Robert A. Day, Scientific English: A guide for scientists and other professionals, 2 ed. (Oryx Press, 1995)

You're a scientist. You've studied English and you can read scientific papers in English. You understand the speakers at international conferences and enjoy talking with your colleagues from other countries. But your papers are returned with comments like, "Please improve the English."

I know scientists who have been asked to improve the English in their papers even after they have paid for professional translation. Some have even had their paper checked by a native-speaker or a professional proofreading service. But then their paper was returned with a comment like this: "Please have this paper checked by a native speaker or a professional proofreading service." When I've looked at their papers, I've seen that the problem wasn't grammar or vocabulary. The problem was organization.

Learning how to organize their paragraphs with good English-language style has helped my students and editing clients more than anything else. Their reviewers' comments have become more positive – some reviewers have even thanked them for writing their papers so clearly. I've been able to understand their papers more easily, which makes it easier to find and correct the little errors in their grammar and vocabulary. And my students have also noticed the change in their own writing – "Yes! It's clearer now," is a typical comment that I hear when students see the change in their writing.

There are usually just two types of paragraphs in good English-language science and technical writing: 

1. Most paragraphs begin with the main or most important idea, then add details. The main idea of the paragraph is usually clearly written in the first sentence. If this idea is complicated, sometimes two or even three sentences are necessary. This structure often works well in the results section: give an overview of a result, then then details. For example, start by writing that predictions from modeling agreed well with experimental observations, then give details about how well they agreed. 
2. Some paragraphs begin with an introduction to the main idea, add details, and build to a conclusion at the end. This often works well in the discussion section of a paper: Start with one of your results. Discuss the result, perhaps by comparing your result with results from similar studies. End with a conclusion, perhaps by suggesting why your results differ from those of other studies.

There are three reasons why this style of organizing paragraphs works so well. First, when you put the main or most important idea at the beginning, readers instantly know what the paragraph is about. This helps them to clearly understand the relationships between all the ideas that you are presenting. This clarity will help if you or your readers have any problems with the English in the paragraph.

The second reason why this style works well is because readers expect important information to be in certain places. In English, these places are the beginning and the end of paragraphs and sections. Some of my readers might be wondering why their high school teachers taught them to organize paragraphs in a different way, or didn't teach them that paragraphs need organization. This is because their native languages organize texts in a different way. This kind of organization is a part of each language, just like grammar and vocabulary. In fact, organization is so important that the study of how different languages organize texts is a part of discourse analysis, which is a sub-field of linguistics. So don't make the mistake of assuming that texts are organized the same way in every language. If you do, you risk confusing your readers. Many papers that I've read were confusing because the writer put unimportant details in places where we expect important ideas to be in English.

The third reason why this style works well is because your readers can quickly find the information they are looking for. The beginning of each paragraph tells what it is about, so it is easy for the readers to find what they want. And if you make things easy for your readers, you increase your chances of getting another citation.

Starting with next Sunday's post, we'll look at some examples of paragraphs and articles from the scientific literature, and have some different exercises that will help you with paragraph organization. Until then, here's an exercise to test your understanding of this lesson:

EXERCISE: Which paragraphs in this post are like the first type of paragraph above? Which are like the second? Keep reading to find the answers.