Do you want to maximize the readability of your manuscript? Then you’ve come to the right place. This blog post is a summary of the observations I made while editing countless scientific journal articles. I wrote this with a focus on life sciences in mind, but the principles below can be applied to any piece of writing.
Let’s begin.
1. Put each idea into the appropriate section.
Why do we need sections?
Most authors know that it’s common practice to organize scientific articles into sections. For example, the IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) format is the most common organizational structure that is used for original research articles. When we read a research article, we let IMRaD be our guide. We know exactly what to expect: The Introduction section comprises background information; the Results section, objective findings of the study; and so on.
What can go wrong?
The idea of using the IMRad format is a simple one; however, its implementation can be tricky if one doesn’t watch out for these common pitfalls:
Introductory material leaking into the Results section.
At first glance, this seems like a nonissue. After all, why would anyone want to put background information in their Results section after they’ve spent many hours on a detailed Introduction? In practice, however, authors tend to do this to elaborate on the rationale for their complicated experimental methods. The explanation of their rationale is usually based on other studies, so they start describing those other studies in the Results section.
If you ever catch yourself putting in-text citations in the Results section, stop and ask yourself if that information can instead go into the Introduction. This will help you prevent this pitfall, and also, it’ll indicate to you whether your Introduction needs some revision.
-
Introductory material leaking into the Discussion section.
The tricky thing about the Discussion section is that it requires us to mention other studies, but only in relation to our study. There is a bit of a nuance here: We include references to other studies in the Introduction in order to lay the groundwork for the current study. In contrast, we refer to other studies in the Discussion so that we can compare them to our own study.
Authors can sometimes accidentally provide too much brand-new information right at the end of the paper, where the Discussion is located. Imagine getting to the end of a book only to discover that a new character is being introduced! I think we fall into this trap when we write the article in a way that mirrors our research experience. You may have discovered a key player, such as a protein, at the very end of your experiments, but that doesn’t mean that the background information on that protein should go at the end of the paper. It may make a lot more sense to put that information in the Introduction. Also, this will give the readers a chance to understand the significance of your findings right from the beginning instead of going “Oh! That’s why this protein was relevant! Now it makes sense.” at the very end.
-
Results and Discussion getting mixed together.
These two sections are closely associated, so it can be a bit of a struggle to separate them into two sections. Some journals even allow us to combine the two in one section. That being said, if you’ve decided to separate the two sections, then it’s best to commit to it until the very end of the article. Not doing so might frustrate the reader because of all the repetition. Imagine you read all the findings of the study in the Results section, but when you move on to the Discussion section, there they are again. The same goes for the Discussion: You don’t want to reread the analysis you just read in the Results section. Even if some readers welcome the repetition, others might get confused by the way the paper is organized: “I thought I was reading the Results section, what’s with all the analysis?”
The best way to write these sections is by wearing two hats. One hat for a reporter and another for the interpreter. While writing the Results, imagine that you’re a person who doesn’t know that area of study very well. Therefore, you can’t interpret the findings, you only report them. Then you switch off the reporter, and in comes the analyzer. The analyzer is an expert whose job is to interpret, analyze, and compare.
2. Let your sentences flow clearly in a logical order.
Why should we pay attention to flow and clarity?
To put it simply, sentence flow is a concept that describes how well sentences connect to each other. A paragraph that flows well is easy to read and understand because it contains sentences that are ordered in a logical manner. Clarity, on the other hand, is when we provide just enough information so that the readers don’t have to guess our meaning. Paying attention to flow and clarity will help communicate our ideas more effectively.
What can go wrong?
When reading about biology, we’re usually trying to figure out the mechanism of action. How does a drug interact with another drug? Does this protein regulate a gene? Does this gene upregulate or downregulate another? Oftentimes what we encounter is a network of key factors that affect one another. When describing such a network in words, it’s best to lay it out in simple terms and transition from one idea to the next very carefully. We risk losing flow and clarity if we abandon simplicity, and then readers won’t be able to visualize the network as easily. Readers will do extra work by trying to pick up the clues and decipher the message.
3. Divide your big wall of text into paragraphs.
Why do we need paragraphs?
Creating paragraphs is a simple, yet effective tool. Without paragraphs, all we have is a big wall of text that lacks the framework to present ideas in a logical manner. A big wall of text is like a song that never ends; it starts giving one a headache after a while. Readers need a breather to stop and digest what they just read. Paragraphs give the reader a chance to do so.
What can go wrong?
Authors can forget to create paragraphs because their paper is already divided into IMRaD sections. This is a shame really because the proper use of paragraphs can improve readability substantially. I have never seen a target journal that limits the count of paragraphs one can use in a paper, so there is no reason to shy away from using paragraphs as needed.
4. Don’t be afraid to use short and simple sentences.
Why should we pay attention to the length and complexity of our sentences?
Some sentences are naturally long; others are short. There is no need to ensure that all our sentences are information packed. In fact, variation in sentence length is something that increases readability.
What can go wrong?
Authors can have a tendency to try and cram as much information as they can into one sentence. To make matters worse, they can use a string of long sentences one after the other. When most of the sentences in a manuscript are long and dense, readability takes a nosedive. Surely scientists are very capable of reading complicated sentences all day long, but why should they suffer? It’s ok to divide up long sentences given that this will make ideas more understandable.