Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Volume 32, Issue 11, November 2017, Pages 803-805
Journal home page for Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Scientific Life
Publishing with Objective Charisma: Breaking Science’s Paradox

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.06.011 Get rights and content

Good writing takes time, but in a research environment where speed is master, is it a superfluous pursuit? Scientists spend most of their working life writing, yet our writing style obstructs its key purpose: communication. We advocate more accessible prose that boosts the influence of our publications. For those who change, the proof of their success will be science that is read, understood, and remembered.

Section snippets

Science Writing Paradox

Peer-reviewed publications are the universal currency for communication and knowledge creation among scientists. But they generally comprise dense, uninspiring language that can be laborious to wade through and difficult to understand, coined as ‘The Official Style’ [1]. This sentiment is not only echoed in academic books, publications, essays, and numerous online posts (e.g. 2, 3, 4), but reinforced by the existence of ‘how to read publication’ guides (e.g. [5]). These guides brace the reader

Why the Paradox Needs Breaking

Good writing takes time, but in a research environment where speed and efficiency are master, is creativity a superfluous pursuit? Some have challenged the traditional notion of efficiency, advocating distraction and idle time to promote creativity and embolden scientific thinking and discovery [6]. We similarly propose that time spent encouraging Ingredient X will do the same. As scientists we can relate to publications within our own discipline that are difficult to read. They are dense and

Sensationalism Is Not Ingredient X

Bringing Ingredient X into the limelight does bring us to a tenuous point. Sensationalism is the antithesis of good science, and while this adversity to sensationalism is necessary, it drives a cultural stigma that creative and engaging writing is not objective, or at best, effort placed in producing and teaching it is superfluous to need. Good data at the end of the day should speak for themselves and do not need to be sold by an artistic craft. However, the sensationalist style of writing

How Do We Bring Ingredient X into Our Writing?

If we start at the humblest of beginnings, good writing needs to be valued by the reader, the editor, the educator, and, most importantly, the writer [4]. Good science writing is admired when it appears, but few can explain why [12]. While admiration is a critical start it will not generate progress, which requires conscious recognition of why the writing is good [12]. As readers we need to collect and savour good writing and learn from it, and as writers we need to believe we can write better 3

Concluding Remarks

Shifting a status quo is not a short-term challenge, but if we collectively recognise and value Ingredient X objective charisma will filter through to the everyday of our discipline. We can argue that scientists are not trained writers or that not everyone is a naturally gifted writer, but we cannot dispute that we spend most of our working lives writing and, like any skill in science, some people will be more interested in it than others. Ultimately, readily absorbable writing saves time for

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the many science practitioners (university and government), PhD students, science communicators, and editors-in-chief, in particular Tim Blackburn, Tim Coulson, and Mark Burgman, who provided feedback on this topic. They also thank Paul Craze, Steve Pinker, and Helen Sword for their advice and encouragement in producing this piece.

References (15)

  • R.A. Lanham

    Revising Prose

    (1979)
  • H. Sword

    Stylish Academic Writing

    (2012)
  • S.L. Montgomery

    The Chigao Guide to Communicating Science

    (2003)
  • S. Pinker

    The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century

    (2015)
  • A. Ruben

    How to read a scientific paper

    Science

    (2016)
  • M. Scheffer

    Dual thinking for scientists

    Ecol. Soc.

    (2015)
  • H. Ledford

    How to solve the world’s biggest problems

    Nature

    (2015)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (30)

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.