I remember in one of my previous positions that a 'professional writer' was hired as a consultant to improve our (the scientists) writing. The key messages were to use first person and present tense. While this can be done it makes experimental science sound like a real 'boys own adventure'. As a journal editor I can appreciate the improved readability but I think a journal full of such papers describing what might be fairly mundane experiments would soon become tedious. I think therefore that in general current somewhat dull, uninspiring and 'matter of fact writing is appropriate for the scientific record - i.e journals read by other scientists.

There is however room for vast improvement in the ways that we scientists communicate our science to a lay audience. This is frankly a difficult task for any scientist due to the lens with which she/he looks at the world. The truly invaluable writers are those who can translate science into 'plain language'.

Even within the formal constraints required for a scientific audience the well written articles take us straight to their key message, and are more engaging.

I agree - be creative and engaging. Reading papers shouldn't be a chore. It should be an engaging story of something new about the world. Technical details, data, equations etc. are not only unavoidable, they're crucial of course: but should be put in a context, not just listed or threw at the reader.

Above all, strive for clarity.

I remember in one of my previous positions that a 'professional writer' was hired as a consultant to improve our (the scientists) writing. The key messages were to use first person and present tense. While this can be done it makes experimental science sound like a real 'boys own adventure'. As a journal editor I can appreciate the improved readability but I think a journal full of such papers describing what might be fairly mundane experiments would soon become tedious. I think therefore that in general current somewhat dull, uninspiring and 'matter of fact writing is appropriate for the scientific record - i.e journals read by other scientists.

There is however room for vast improvement in the ways that we scientists communicate our science to a lay audience. This is frankly a difficult task for any scientist due to the lens with which she/he looks at the world. The truly invaluable writers are those who can translate science into 'plain language'.

I think that all depends on the objectif (goal) and public of a scientific communication: for science valorization or popularization a narrative style and a less technical terminology together with illustrations and examples is certainly highly relevant. For "pure" scientific information purposes (i.e. within a concerned scientific community), however, I think that other cognitive challenges are central and, hence, an other style of relating and writing.

To fail to tell a story is to fail to communicate effectively. There are ways to make the story appear totally objective, factual, and dry; or ways to make it appear exciting; they are very different stories, but they are both stories. Always understand the arc and what will be most convincing.

the more technical we are, the more non-technical audience we're encountering. This paradox requires a different approach and that's why we need to tailor the message to something more.

Scientific writing must tell a story, no doubt about it. Reporting scientific results is a communication process. Well, simply written papers are more engaging and therefore more efficient in wrapping up the scientific method. Science ends when the results are actually relevant for something or somebody. Also, with most of science being funded by tax-payers money, it is an ethical obligation for scientists funded through these programs to make their results more readable for people other than their direct peers in their research fields.

As everybody else has said - there is no excuse for having badly written papers. The days of judging a paper's authority by how dry it is are dead and gone - although some traditionalists have not admitted this yet. However, there is a real need to ensure that accuracy is not sacrificed for good flow. Scientific papers must always be scientific papers - and these become the platform on which our credibility is built upon. When it comes to popular writing then we have a lot to learn. A popular article is not just an abstract of a scientific paper - it needs to draw on all the tools of the story teller's art, including drama, suspense, elements that people can identify with, and most of all should focus on illustrative anecdotes rather than averages! There is a great book on science communication called "Don't be such a scientist" that can be highly recommended.

The sciences need to develop more good and creative writers wherein their writing style is as exciting as their discoveries. The goal should be to engage readers and inspire them to know more rather than bore them to death and lose interest in the subject matter.

Writing is an art, it should have a personality, a voice. And yes, the art of writing also includes technical writing which is bo-horing. Let's change that, please. Write with passion but back it up with kickass data.

Yes, this should be an issue for broader discussion. simply, you can look at it from two angles.

1) As a scientist, I think one should be able to produce the knowledge that can be shared. The current "formulaic approach" (IMRAD) may be a necessity though it is only clear and familiar among the science community. So, for those who are not familiar with such structures, I think scientists should be able to produce materials that can easily be understood.

2) The other case- should scientists be going down to organizing their findings in story telling style. In some cases Yes but not always. Often, these days we have "communication specialists" who play around the hardcore knowledge generated and produce media briefs, policy briefs, blogs, stories, tweets, etc. This implies, doing the research and communicating the research to all the necessary levels are not the same issues. Communication also needs special skills which scientists may not possess. That is why we often see job titles such as science communicator or communications specialist in big research organizations. These people are not researchers but they package the knowledge generated in proper manner so that it fits the audience under discussion.

In sum, to me the scale matters and the audience matters more.

I think Alessandro made the best point in that scientists want to be published and they should get their work published other wise 'it didn't happen' right? The problem is that not all research is exciting and glamorous endeavors. This leads authors to self-censor or have paper rejected, especially when it comes to negative results. While it may be better to publish interesting stories (especially in communicating science laypersons), dry articles are important for advancing science too.

There seems to be a feeling that scientists, per se, as writers are dull and boring - I do not believe this is the case. Remember most papers are written to relatively strict journal guidelines. From my editorial perspective the aim of a paper is to get all the relevant experimental information down, methods, data, interpretation in as few words as possible. PAGES COST MONEY - at least in the print journal realm. Frankly, I do not want most articles I read to be 'exciting' I want the information as concisely as possible.

While each experiment we do is a valuable contribution to our overall scientific knowledge few of the experiments we do are earth shattering or worthy of front page news.

Thanks to all for your comments and opinions (which are quite interesting and varied).

Most of you understood what I was asking. By story, I don't mean a first-person narrative, overblown hype, or flowery or unscientific language ("It was a dark and stormy night outside the laboratory..."), especially for a journal article. Instead, I'm referring to a structure that makes the reader want to read every word through to the end. This approach need not sacrifice scientific rigor or replace the traditional IMRAD framework.

Telling a good story means putting the science information into a context that excites the reader, whether scientist or layperson. Even if your work is not earth-shaking, it can still be told in an interesting and even exciting way. Why would anyone strive to describe their work in a mundane way?

How we frame our information differs depending on the intended audience, of course. For a non-scientific audience, the story may need to include an everyday example or a personal, human story to drive home the relevance to the reader or to explain the science in terms that the non-specialist understands. This requires some effort and creativity, but everyone seems to acknowledge the necessity of telling a good story for a lay audience. For the technical audience, however, there seems to be a reluctance to use storytelling tools, perhaps because it conjures up the impression of possible exaggeration or twisting of the facts to fit a preconceived notion. But that is a narrow interpretation of storytelling. For the scientist reader, a good story might involve an unresolved science question, which the author puts into a brief historical context in the introduction (i.e., here's how we've gotten to this point and why it's important to pursue this question) and then proceeds to answer it by gradually revealing each piece of data and then putting them all together like a jigsaw puzzle; the story is concluded with a return to the historical setup and an explanation as to how this new work fits into that larger picture. That is what I mean by story.

The best authors (at least the ones I want to read) go the extra mile to make me

want to keep reading for the sheer pleasure of it (as opposed to those who write a

pedestrian, formulaic paper just to get another notch on their publishing

rifle). Their papers have a clear storyline that weaves together all the necessary scientific components into a satisfying whole. Of course, for a technical article you must have a good story to tell in the first place, with convincing data and a compelling argument (particularly challenging for negative data, but not impossible). How you lay it all out for the reader, though, will determine whether they enjoy the experience or find it more akin to getting a root canal.

I find that students, writing their first journal paper, are often perplexed as to how to frame their information (or even what their main message is). They founder around and end up with a jumbled mess or a boring litany of facts and figures. However, if they have to get up in front of a live audience and describe their work, they seem to naturally tell a more coherent and compelling story. We appear to instinctively know how to tell a good story, but somehow, during the process of scientific writing, that creative part of the brain is poleaxed (at least for some writers).

It's interesting that John Linnell mentioned Randy Olson. What started me thinking about storytelling and scientific writing is a new book by Olson and two coauthors: Connection: Hollywood Storytelling Meets Critical Thinking and a new app designed for storytelling-challenged scientists (among others): Connection Storymaker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gw78fVeeYs).

"How to write consistently boring scientific literature" Oikos (2007) is an ironic paper on this topic by Danish ecologist K Sand‐Jensen.

ABSTRACT:

Although scientists typically insist that their research is very exciting and adventurous when they talk to laymen and prospective students, the allure of this enthusiasm is too often lost in the predictable, stilted structure and language of their scientific publications. I present here, a top-10 list of recommendations for how to write consistently boring scientific publications. I then discuss why we should and how we could make these contributions more accessible and exciting.

Garry, thanks for the reference...and a good laugh.

I forgot one key point - and that is you own passion for your science, your study animal, or the application of science must come across. Enthuiasm is infectious!

As for getting the scientific message across to lay people, it is really difficult to explain science in easy terms. I have been trying it on my webpage and think that some might understand what I am trying to tell. But the problem is that many people don't feel the need to truly understand what was done but just want a quick one-line. We found that A affects B which is important for C. I've started using a glossary which pops-up definitions of terms that may be unknown for lay people which I hope makes it easier for them to read. The posts on my webpage that have little scientific content but are easy to read (about determining the species of insect for example) are still the most popular. I guess that there is not much more we can do than provide the proper information and help those lay people truly interested to find some decent information.

I want to thank Karen McKee for good question.

My area of interest is Computer Science (CS) and therefore I want to answer in this context. I'm a follower of Donald Norman' view about "Research-Practice Gap" (see the link http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/the_research-practice_gap_1.html ).

I want to cite one phrase: "There is an immense gap between research and practice. I'm tempted to paraphrase Kipling and say "Oh, research is research, and practice is practice, and never the twain shall meet," .... The gap between these two communities is real and frustrating ... ". Currently this gap is huge tragedy and catastrophe in CS: the more papers the more this gap. From this point of view, I try to find any ways to reduce this gap. My proposal is the following: it is necessary to stimulate developing Online Tools in the Internet for users without ane special knowledge. To describe my proposal more cleary I want to cite one phrase from my answer from a discussion on the link https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_your_opinion_on_the_current_conference-driven_publication_model_in_CS

"Assume that you want to buy a household appliance. This appliance has a text description for users to apply correctly. I want to ask you: What do you want to learn more about? Do you want more to use appliance in practice or read description only without any using appliance? Why I gave this example ? Sometimes it seems to me that the most of CS papers offer and present only appliance description and care only about quality of descriptioin. But, where is the appliance, that is the program for solving the problem? The answer is 'NO'. Thus, the CS paper is the description without the appliance. I don't think that it is good. In my understanding, the better description the more mockery at people (users, practitioners). We must offer not only description as the paper but and appliance as the program, that is, we must present an updated version of paper as "PROGRAM + PAPER" like "APPLIANCE + DESCRIPTION". In other words, the paper has to be integraded with the program and to present a single object, but the paper has to be addition to the program and subordinated to the program. The program has to be primary, but the paper has to be secondary. I already offered a variant of presenting "PROGRAM + PAPER" as "ONLINE TOOL + PAPER". Then all users could solve their tasks using

ONLINE TOOL, but researchers could read the theory (methodology, solution approach and so on) from the paper too. Thus, all interested people would be happy (or satisfied at least)"

In my view, Online Tools is the best way to present a paper in available form for all users (non-technical audience).

I think the voice/mood of the write up depends on the field, topic, journal, etc. there might not be a sole general way to present results. For example, i enjoy reading mathematical papers that tell "stories" rather than the boring ones. A theorem-proof paper can be written in an interesting manner where readers can view it as presenting an ordered sequence of ideas. However, scientific papers should be written in a formal way and not so casual, to maintain the look of credibility - unless someone is rewriting it to present to the general public.

I may be a bit late here, but I think that you should tell a story. What is your big question? What is the question you were addressing in this paper? Why is this interesting? What did you? What did you find? What does it mean? What will you do next?

Scientific writing should be a narrative leading the reader through the story you want to tell. An unusual narrative to be sure, condensed, in the past tense and third person, but you should be able to make it clear to your reader why you are doing what you are doing and why it is interesting.

If you are writing for a journal your scope for experimental writing is very restricted but that can be an interesting challenge. Pascal said "I have only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter" and there is your challenge.

There is no excuse for dull, dry and boring writing. However condensed and constrained the format, you can make it interesting and informative.

After all, one of the most challenging and rewarding literary forms, both as a writer and a reader is the haiku.

Craig-well put. No, you are not too late to the party. I also like that particular quote by Pascal because it gives us one reason why scientists write long, boring papers: it's more difficult and time-consuming to craft a concise, compelling story that clearly articulates what is important about the work.

In the pressure to publish, increasing numbers of scientists seem not to put the necessary effort into writing (even those who should know better). They churn out weak, low quality papers that often fail to convince or inform. In some cases, the author doesn't even try to articulate what the reader should take away from the paper, apparently wanting the reader to do all the work: "Here are my fantastic results; you figure it out." If the author doesn't bother to interpret their own results or explain why they are important, then why should I pay attention to them?

I find it paradoxical that a scientist or student would spend three to four years conducting a study and then plan to spend only a week or two writing it up. When I read such papers, it becomes abundantly clear that the author has not thought deeply about their results. What comes out of this is a mushy narrative that often superficially sounds scientific with a lot of buzzwords and statements such as, "This work provides new insights into [insert topic]." When asked exactly what those insights are, the author cannot say (or repeats more platitudes).

For me, telling a good story means writing a paper that contains a fluent, reasoned, and sustained argument, one that clearly (and in convincing detail) shows how the work expands understanding of a topic. Throughout the paper, the author shows an ability to think critically as well as a comprehensive knowledge of their subject. They don't have to resort to empty phrases, fancy jargon, or hand-waving to convince me, the reader, of the value of their work. And–they can say, in fewer than 25 words, what story their paper tells.

Perhaps a required course in science curricula should be in haiku?

I think every scientist should consider blogging on top of publishing scientific journal articles. Good, accurate, and creative communication is essential to public scientific literacy and right now we are doing a very poor job of that. However, there are many blogs from scientists themselves that provide an accurate yet exciting story of scientific findings and research - and I'm not talking about scientific journal blogs.

I write for a popular magazine based out of London, England called The Urban Times. I sometimes write about my own research, but often write about broad scientific topics that reach a wide, public audience. The writing style is no where near that of what I'd write for a journal and it can often be a challenge to assemble an article made for public interpretation. It has been a highly rewarding experience and I've been fortunate to have taught people things that the otherwise had no idea about. There are many free outlets where scientists can produce their own blog. The key is to promote this blog in you institution and community.

Social media is also a great outlet for scientific communication. Non-scientific posts about natural phenomena or scientific discoveries can reach a huge audience through social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. I often use both to promote my research and to inform people of various aspects of science, from cosmology to biology.

Aside from making science popular, I think that all scientific studies should tell a story. It's what I aim for with all of my research. A good research study tells a good story in a timely manner. To echo Craig, I want to know what your question was, why you asked it, what you found, why it's interesting, and what it's implications are in the big picture, and I think the latter two are very important.

Jeff,

Thanks for your comment. I agree that blogging can be a great way to contribute to public scientific literacy...but also to contribute to a positive public image of scientists and scientific research. Science bloggers (and I'm not talking about journal blogs, either) can put a human face on science.

For students and postdocs, writing for a science blog can help hone critical communication skills that will come in handy later in their teaching and research careers. A blog promotes regular practice writing about science, broadens one's knowledge of a field (and related current events), and helps create a strong online profile, which can raise a young scientist's visibility in the scientific community. In the past, there were few opportunities for young scientists to connect with the public; public platforms (TV shows, popular magazines) were reserved for well-established or famous scientists in their fields. The Internet and particularly science blogs have changed this dynamic.

Although writing a science blog is not for everyone, it is one way a scientist can participate in outreach and show the "broader impacts" of their research (a criterion for funding from NSF and NIH). As you say, there are free outlets that are incredibly easy to use to create a blog.

I currently host three blogs. I post irregularly, but the oldest site has had over 50,000 visitors and gets an average of 5,000 page views per month. That one focuses on the challenges that scientists and students face, particularly women in science, The Singular Scientist (http://www.womeninwetlands.blogspot.com). I'm "outing" myself here because I blog under a pseudonym.

Another blog provides information, tips, and tutorials on science videography, The Scientist Videographer (http://thescientistvideographer.com/wordpress). And the third is something of a travelogue where I post stories about adventure travel, food, wine, and book reviews, Wines and Wetlands (http://winesandwetlands.wordpress.com).

My objective with these blogs is to show what it's like to be a scientist as well as to provide some encouragement to students and young scientists struggling to succeed. I've found blogging to be personally satisfying, fun, and a welcome respite from technical writing. It's also challenging because you must constantly create new content that resonates with readers. Again, blogging is not for everyone, but it definitely has its benefits.

I'd like to thank for all of you since as a mid-young researcher I got useful information from what you are talking about.

A senior researcher ever gave me an advice that there should no references in Method Section. But I disagreed with him. Such sort of “formulaic approach” is a common way but that does not mean it is a “stubborn way”. The eventual aim to write a paper is to tell someone else a story clearly and logically.

I have an experience that I once prepared for a presentation which is based on one of my published paper. When I finished the presentation (using PowerPoint) I got clearer thought about this paper than when I just completed this paper. So I am thinking that start with a presentation (for yourself) when prepare for writing a manuscript may be an alternative to write a good paper.

Lili, it is a good practice to outline your papers before formally writing them. Each author has their own method. Find one that works for you.

Back to Karen's original question. Should we make articles interesting. To me the science itself should be interesting; however, there are some caveats. Using clever phrases and fetching text may be great for a wholly native speaking audience, but this can reduce the understandability of the paper to a wider non-native audience. Avoiding phrases that are regional and cultural should be discouraged without providing enough context for the reader. In this global sharing of ideas we call science, sometimes it truly is best to keep things simple, understandable, and most of all repeatable.

Lili and Anthony, thanks for your comments.

I find that preparing a PowerPoint presentation produces clearer insights about a study and often leads to a better written paper (with a clearer path to the conclusions). I think that the PowerPoint approach works differently (and better) than just a text outline—at least this is true for me. This may have something to do with the visualization aspect of PowerPoint— especially important if you are a visual learner, as I am.

I think the PowerPoint approach also helps to simplify one's "story", which is what we usually do when preparing a talk in which we must get the message across to an audience in 15 minutes or so. When there are time restraints, we automatically drop all extraneous information and data and focus in on things that directly support the central message. This is what we should do when writing a paper, but often don't. It's hard to throw out data that we worked so hard to collect; but if it doesn't contribute to the main conclusion, it will likely be distracting or confusing.

Once I discovered this "PowerPoint effect", I began setting up PowerPoint files for all of my research projects—when I initiated each study. In the file, I followed a typical IMRaD outline but inserted photos, diagrams, and graphs in addition to text. As I progressed in the study, I added more data, statistical results, and initial interpretations as well as ideas for side experiments. This process also encouraged me to continually (re)assess the study's findings and to try out different ways of presenting the data. By the time I was ready to write the paper, I had already identified the best way to show the data and had developed a logical path to the final conclusion.

This approach may not work as well for everyone, but I've found it to be incredibly useful to me. I now use these PowerPoint files as a central repository for each project. In addition, I can easily duplicate them and turn them into real presentations for a conference or extract figures for the manuscript.

--------

Telling a good story about a scientific study does not involve clever turns of phrase, any more than fancy graphics can hide flawed data. Instead, it means putting the information into a context that is more understandable and memorable for the reader. It is of primary importance to keep the message simple and straightforward for your audience, especially non-native speakers of the language (a simple message, by the way, does not mean that it is "dumbed down", just stripped to its core meaning).

A poor communicator presents or writes only from their narrow viewpoint and never considers their audience's ability to understand. A good communicator understands how to connect with an audience—and telling a good science story is one way to accomplish this.

I came across something interesting recently about storylines in scientific writing. Scientific results often can be characterized according to a narrative common to that discipline. For example, Jonathan Phillips in a paper titled “Storytelling in Earth sciences: The eight basic plots”, identifies eight narratives found in the Earth sciences: Cause and Effect, Genesis, Emergence, Metamorphosis, Destruction, Divergence, Convergence, and Oscillation. These plots derive from the characteristics and behaviors of Earth systems described in scientific works; Phillips uses examples from the geological literature to illustrate each one. Similar narratives likely exist for other disciplines. Just being aware of such narratives in a particular discipline can help an author to put their paper into a context familiar to their audience (as well as to consider alternative interpretations of one's data).

---------

Interesting discussion and lots of different opinions!

Karen: I sort of disagree with: >>>This is what we should do when writing a paper, but often don't. It's hard to throw out data that we worked so hard to collect; but if it doesn't contribute to the main conclusion, it will likely be distracting or confusing.