Why are there papers more interesting than others? In a same field and on a same topic?
Other than the research if a paper is considered boring, then i feel it contains the following.
1-usage of passive words and generally bad writing.
2-heavy usage of jargon , rendering the paper difficult to understand for people belonging to related disciplines.
Not telling a story and over generalisation, leaps in the logic - bad reasoning
Style of writing can make any good paper boring. Introduction must generate interest in the mind of the reader. Coclusion should also be brief and clear. Also confirmatory studies can be boring, but they do establish an earlier finding. Command on language is a good asset to make a simple paper more interesting. Topic should also be communicative to the fresh reader. Using bold letters and italics for highlighting key findings can also catch interest of even a casual reader. Dividing 'Abstract' into subsections, as is popular in new journals, helps the reader to read more details. Good editing is the key.
The boring papers are also the ones which have misleading titles . The title would be interesting with a promising and far reaching outcome. However, the abstract would be a let down and the whole paper would be waste of time. Along with that paper which make conclusion like public health efforts need to be focused in this direction at times make irrelevant a conclusions as their paper do not make a public health impact. For amateur readers and students of research use of too many technical words and intensive vocabulary makes the article difficult to understand thus, the reader looses interest.
Hi Faysal, I like your question. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps, so is interest. I think a paper may be more interesting than another, when I can relate well with the style it was written, and its contents can be easily understood to be significant.
Hi Faysal,
you may have a look at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231337390_How_to_write_consistently_boring_scientific_literature?ev=pub_srch_pub
Article How to Write Consistently Boring Scientific Literature
Too many quotations (I've seen a lot papers with quotations only - one quotation follows another one...);
Not enough personal reasoning (if any);
Not having a look beyond the title/general scope of the paper (provided the type & format of paper permits a global perspective);
Poor language (surprisingly, at least to me, most scientists who have mastered relatively complex concepts cannot express themselves very well, or have they mastered anything at all if they are unable to explain it clearly and in a good style);
Long and confusing or short and schematic titles - this is also part of the language problem but also rigid academic rules which do not allow much plasticity
Overall, most papers are boring and so is methodology - that's the problem
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals