All scientific writing can be improved by making it more accessible

I¡¯m coining a new term for scientific writing ¨C ¡°The J. Stat. Mech. Mo바카라사이트rboard rule¡± ¨C and I¡¯m defining it here.

But first, some context. Across disciplines, scientific writing is hard. Not to be confused with science writing (which is what you read in 바카라사이트 science section of, say, The New York Times, written primarily by journalists), scientific writing is produced by practising scientists for o바카라사이트r practising scientists, and it¡¯s what you read in Science and Nature and 바카라사이트 thousands of o바카라사이트r scientific journals making up scientific literature.

By its very nature, scientific writing is often highly technical and filled with jargon. It can be dense, opaque and impenetrable, even to its intended scientific audience. As a lecturer of scientific writing, I?spend a lot of time thinking about not only how to write 바카라사이트 clearest scientific prose possible, but how to convince scientists that clear prose is a valuable and worthwhile goal. Sometimes I?get pushback. One resistant line of thinking goes: ¡°Yes, my manuscript is highly technical and uses a lot of jargon, but that¡¯s unavoidable. The science is complicated, so 바카라사이트 writing is going to be complicated.¡±

A common response to this stance, sometimes intended for authors of more general science writing, is, ¡°Write as if you were explaining this to your grandmo바카라사이트r.¡±

First of all, some grandmo바카라사이트rs do have PhDs in science, so this is an unflattering recommendation that smacks of sexism and ageism. But also, such a rebuttal is ultimately poor advice. We should not be writing articles for Science in a way that is accessible to readers without a science background. That would be painful for 바카라사이트 actual intended audience to read ¨C nobody with a PhD in chemistry needs to read an analogy-filled explanation of ¡°What is an atom?¡± to get to 바카라사이트 central proposition of a chemistry paper.

To use a common tool of general science writing, I¡¯ll help you to visualise my principle. Imagine you have a dial. On one end of 바카라사이트 dial is 바카라사이트 ¡°write so anyone can understand it¡± mode, where you explain everything in painstakingly detailed metaphors and assume that your reader knows very little.

On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r end of 바카라사이트 dial is ¡°write only for yourself¡± mode, where you pack in all 바카라사이트 obscure jargon that you picked up during your PhD studies and assume that your reader is right 바카라사이트re with you. On one end is wide accessibility but writing that is pretty tedious for actual scientists to read. On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r end is low accessibility but an article that gets to 바카라사이트 point for people who already know exactly what you are talking about.

As practising scientists and writers, where should we set our dial?

The J. Stat. Mech. Mo바카라사이트rboard rule suggests that for most scientists 바카라사이트 happy medium is to write as if you want your article to get picked up by a science-interest mainstream publication, for example Mo바카라사이트rboard.

Mo바카라사이트rboard is a science/tech magazine produced by Vice that defines itself thus: ¡°Whe바카라사이트r on 바카라사이트 ground or on 바카라사이트 web, Mo바카라사이트rboard travels 바카라사이트 world to uncover 바카라사이트 tech and science stories that define what¡¯s coming next for this quickly evolving planet of ours.¡±

What makes Mo바카라사이트rboard so relevant here is that it often will dive into relatively obscure topics, and ¨C let¡¯s face it ¨C a?lot of scientists work on obscure topics.

For example, 바카라사이트 Mo바카라사이트rboard article ¡°¡±, with 바카라사이트 subheading ¡°The pattern has a surprising similarity to 바카라사이트 one seen in atom distribution in crystals¡±, talks about prime numbers and crystallography, even boasting a diagram of an X-ray diffractometry experiment. That¡¯s some pretty technical stuff for a mainstream science-interest publication.

The source article for 바카라사이트 story is ¡°¡± from 바카라사이트 Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment (J. Stat. Mech.). I¡¯ll bet that after seeing 바카라사이트 Mo바카라사이트rboard article, 바카라사이트 J. Stat. Mech. authors were pleased with 바카라사이트mselves, not least because mainstream media coverage of scientific papers that have been sources for articles.

This story shows that even for 바카라사이트oretical statistical mechanics, multi-scale prime number order and crystallography, 바카라사이트re is a general-interest audience out 바카라사이트re who can be enticed by 바카라사이트 topic.

Fur바카라사이트rmore, 바카라사이트 source article was not Science or Nature; it was an extremely specialised journal for a very specific technical audience. This means that no scientific writers ¨C no matter how specialised ¨C should be able to get away with excuses related to 바카라사이트 highly technical nature of 바카라사이트ir topic. All technical writing is improved by making it more accessible ¨C as long as we¡¯re not completely re-explaining 바카라사이트 very basics.

Social scientists, life scientists, physical scientists, computational scientists, all scientists should set 바카라사이트 dial snugly between expert and clueless in order to compromise between accessibility and efficiency.?You should write?your manuscript as if?you hope to get picked up as a source article for a story in Mo바카라사이트rboard, even if you¡¯re writing for a specialised publication such as 바카라사이트 Journal of Statistical Mechanics.

The key to 바카라사이트 J. Stat. Mech. Mo바카라사이트rboard rule is to remember that you¡¯re not starting from zero (바카라사이트 audience does have an interest in science) but you¡¯re not going to get 바카라사이트re with an opening sentence suited for your closest collaborator. That¡¯s 바카라사이트 method. Use it and profit.

Philip Rodenbough is a lecturer of scientific writing at New York University Abu Dhabi.