Why critical reading is critical for your writing

07 February 2018

Why critical reading is critical for your writing

It is hard to emphasise exactly how important your reading will be, when it comes to your writing. If you are sitting with a blank page in front of you and feel that you have nothing to draw on, then think again. All of the reading that you have done to get to this point has already helped you more than you think. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere (formula writing blog) your chapter or manuscript is likely to resemble the formula that many others already follow, and standing on the shoulders of those giants (citation blog) will help you again. But it’s possible that your reading isn’t helpful if you aren’t being sufficiently critical.

When you read, it’s worth making all sorts of comments about what you’re reading. Of course you should be trying to follow the story that the authors are trying to tell, but you should also be using it as an opportunity to learn tips and tricks of writing. Once you are actively writing, and I’d suggest that this should have been right from the very beginning of your studies, you should be actively thinking about how the authors are writing. Are they writing well? Are parts written poorly? Then the critical part is to cogitate, albeit briefly: what works, what doesn’t and why.

When I started reading papers, I made photocopies (1 sided was as sophisticated as it got) from volumes of books and made notes in pencil on back and front of those pages as I read. I understand that most of you will be working on pdfs which offer possibilities to add notes in text boxes that go alongside. I question whether the cognitive advantages that you get from writing by hand will be achieved by typing, and if I ever find out I’ll link to this blog. But I did learn many years back in my psychology classes at Liverpool University that making handwritten notes on what you read will help build them into your memory. Thus, if you make notes on style, you are likely to remember them in the same way that you remember the paper and its contents. An alternative to typing everything is to make notes in a notebook. That way you get the advantage of building your memory with your own writing, and you can easily find everything in the same place when you forget where you read the fascinating insight.

 It’s important to emphasise that you should not copy and paste parts of someone’s paper that you like. It’s easy to do, but any copying could be your undoing if you later forget and paste your ‘notes’ into your manuscript. It’s so easy to plagiarise like this that the only way to really avoid it is by being very strict with yourself. Making notes by hand will force you to look away from the written text while you write, and you’ll be unlikely to inadvertently copy anything. The advantages of writing notes by hand then make it greatly advantageous to restricting yourself to your computer (tablet or cell!).

 So how should you read critically in order to help with your writing? I’d suggest that this is as simple as highlighting or making a quick note each time you see something that you like, or dislike. I used to underline text in pencil, and then make an illegible comment in the margin. What was singled out? For example, instead of using a taxonomic list (I don’t like lists) and long citation string to describe lots of different studies that had previously made the same point, a co-author (in a recent review study) organised them all into the same categories we were presenting in a review. The result was that the reader was reminded of our categories at the same time as seeing how well others had already covered these same topics. Another example is the way in which one of my students imaginatively linked the subjects between their paragraphs (I do like links). Lastly, it may be a theme that the author manages to develop over several paragraphs or pages, but if you’ve spotted what it is that you like, write it down and commit it to memory. The very fact that you start to see things in other people’s writing that you like and admire means that you’ve managed to start reading critically. Keep this up, and it will help your writing no end as you open up your mind to critical reading.

 You don’t have to restrict yourself in what you can learn while reading other people’s papers. Think about the stages in writing a paragraph (blog entry here). Look at the paragraphs you are reading and see if you can spot the subject and summary sentences. Maybe they are absent from the entire paper, or maybe they are present in every paragraph. Does it help enhance the readability of the paper? What about the times when authors break the rules? Can you see in your reading that the majority of authors follow rules? Do they follow the formula? What is the power in shaking it all up? If it works, try and analyse why it works. Then you will be reading critically.

What if I’m having problems recognising anything good or bad in what I read?

It’s going to be hard for me to teach you how to read and think at the same time. A little like walking and chewing gum, it comes with experience. And if you do fall over, stop chewing for a while and wait until you’ve got into your stride before having another go. Thinking is all part of the reading process, and while I agree that it might be hard to think on multiple levels while you read, it is possible. For example, consider what other worthy things you’ve thought about while reading this blog. If you’ve not stopped to check your phone, or think about eating or drinking something, well done. It might be worth creating an atmosphere with less other stimulants while you read. If you only have your reading material and notebook, you’ll be able to concentrate all of your thinking on them instead of getting distracted.

 There is also a possibility that you are struggling to get insight with your reading because English isn’t your first language. The subtleties of some of the usage of English may be passing you by. Because of the large number of words, it is possible to write something in English in many different ways. The overall aim is to convey the largest amount of information possible in the smallest number of words, while enhancing the context, meaning and readability. It’s not easy, but the only way you’ll ever get good is by starting, and reading and writing as much as possible.

 If you are still struggling, a really good way forward is to start a journal club with your colleagues. It is probable that you aren’t the only one who is having difficulties. There may already be a journal club in your institution which may (or may not) be a good place to go. What you do need is a safe space in which you aren’t afraid to say when you don’t understand. Think of it as a book club for scientific papers. After all, it may be that no-one understands and the paper is badly written. Alternatively, it can be that someone is able to help you quickly and easily. They can then give you extra insights into how and why they think the author is crafting their paper. This will then help you with your reading as well as your writing.

  Lab  Writing

Ending my time as AJH editor

31 December 2017

Reflections on editing African Journal of Herpetology 2009-2017

Today is my last day as editor of African Journal of Herpetology. In this blog post, I reflect on 9 years of being editor in chief.

In 2009, I had already published 37 papers so had a pretty good idea of the author side of the publishing game. I had been outraged at decisions that I felt had been unfair, surprised at others which I had felt were too easy, and often mystified at the rejection without review for manuscripts that I had prepared for journals. And when reviewers disagreed about my manuscripts, why did the editor came down on the side of rejecting or calling for major revisions? In essence, what I didn’t know was how editors made their decisions.

Don Broadley started the Journal of the Herpetological Association of Africa in 1965 and edited it for 20 years. The name changed to African Journal of Herpetology in 1996 with many prestigious names in African herpetology having been editors (see Measey 2011 for a detailed retrospective). I had submitted manuscripts that had been both rejected and accepted under two different editors. The editor in 2008 was Alex Flemming who had taken over from Graham Alexander in 2006 but had already resigned so that the Herpetological Association of Africa (HAA) committee was looking for a replacement editor. I realised that this was an opportunity I had been looking for and volunteered. I was proposed and in the absence of any other interest was made editor.

I have already written about the huge workload that I took on at that time not only editing, but also publishing the journal (you can find that blog entry here). Together with that added workload, I had the dubious honour of typesetting a manuscript of my own, already accepted by Alex Flemming (Ngawa et al 2009). The decision to hand over the publishing to Taylor & Francis was taken after long discussions with the HAA committee, but finally resulted in Volume 59 issue 1 (see cover above). One of the enjoyable tasks I undertook was to redesign the journal logo. The old journals carried a map of Africa with political boundaries, so I decided to retain the theme but replace politics with outlines of herps. I selected images representing as many groups of herps as I could (yes - there is a caecilian covering much of Algeria and an amphisbaenian in Namibia), and drew simple outlines around them. It was fun to do and I was proud of the result, and surprised when I received complaints from HAA members that they preferred the old version. But I shouldn't have been surprised as there will always be those who don't like change.

Of huge significance to my life as editor was the move to an editorial online platform which allowed simple tracking of manuscripts in which both Associate Editors and I could visualise the peer review process. Trying to maintain a personal, professional and editorial inbox all in the same place was quite a challenge, and so the editorial online platform was very welcome.

Acting as editor for my own manuscripts

Early on, I had to make a decision about what to do when I wanted to submit my own manuscripts to AJH, or if I was a co-author. The conflict of interest was clear and my decision was to have any such manuscripts handled by a designated Associate Editor and to recuse myself from the review and decision making process. I was very strict with this, even though it resulted in one unhappy episode when a review for a manuscript I had submitted was withheld until a rival paper had been submitted, accepted and published in another journal. My co-authors felt particularly unhappy that our paper had spent so long in review. I felt let down by the Associate Editor who had allowed the reviewer to sit with our manuscript for months.

Policies old and new

This was not the only policy decision that I took for AJH. I decided on a double-blind peer review process. In retrospect I still think that this was a good decision, although many authors appeared incapable of removing their names from a manuscript, and persuading them to do so caused a surprising amount of delay. African Herpetology is a small world, and I didn’t really think that reviewers would not guess who senior authors were for most of the papers. However, there was evidence at the time that women authors could be disadvantaged by open peer-review (Budden et al 2008), and I didn’t want this to happen to any of our student authors. The other option would have been to have both reviewers and authors revealed, but this seemed less likely to be workable as anonymous reviewers were already hard to come by. Occasionally, reviewers would insist that their anonymity be waived. Although noble, this would have been against the spirit of double-blind reviewing and so reviewer names were systematically removed. Thus, double-blind review became (and remains) a headache for the editorial process, but one that I think is worth keeping, even though authors and reviewers alike couldn’t follow instructions.

The inability of especially authors to follow comprehensive instructions was perhaps the major theme that ran through my time as editor of AJH. Early on in the process, I revised the Instructions to Authors, making it as comprehensive as I could. I’ve never been someone who enjoys formatting manuscripts for a particular journal style, and so did not insist that manuscripts adhered to the peculiar referencing style of AJH on first submission. I was also happy for this first submission to have embedded figures and tables. However, it isn’t possible to submit such files to the publishers, and if the manuscript passed the first round of reviewing, formatting of text and files would need to be done by the authors. Many found this difficult and producing the figures in an acceptable format appears particularly problematic for many authors. Some seemed to think that this was something that the editor would do for them!

AJH received many manuscripts that were outside its scope: African herpetology. The instructions to authors couldn’t have been more explicit in this regard and I do wonder how often some authors consult them at all. It would be nice to think that being a ‘chancer’ in this respect might have a pay-off somewhere down the line. However, one fault of the editorial platform is that it takes a very long time to enter all the meta-data required for the publisher to place accepted manuscripts online. Authors, especially older authors, grumble about this a lot, but it is a reality of modern publishing. More and more meta-data is expected to be displayed separately to the printed paper, and this requires that authors enter it. That they do this on initial submission means a whole lot of work when the scope of the journal is completely wrong, thus I don't see any pay-off for being a chancer in this case.

Another policy change occurred in 2013 when AJH moved to use ZooBank to safeguard against taxonomic theft. You can read more about that change here.

AJH for African herpetologists

I also wanted to encourage authors from more countries in Africa to submit their work to the journal. Although I didn't get the numbers of manuscripts I would have wanted, the journal did see an increase in the number of papers published from authors outside of southern Africa. More recently, the journal has published a number of papers from north Africa, including the first paper in AJH on African salamanders. 

Thus in my time as editor, AJH published on all three Orders of Amphibia: Anura, Gymnophiona and Caudata, as well as a lot of papers on reptiles.

How easy did it turn out to make decisions?

Decisions were much easier than one might think. For the majority manuscripts that were sent out to review, the reviewers did a good job of assessing the worthiness of publication. The difference between minor and major revisions was determined by whether or not another review was likely to be needed on resubmission. My suggestion to Associate Editors was that manuscripts that had already received a decision of Minor Revision shouldn’t be sent out to review again unless something major had changed. Probably the most difficult decisions were where I could see that useful data had likely been collected, but the manuscript lacked pertinent detail to know whether or not it was ever likely to be accepted. The decision to Reject and Resubmit often results in a great amount of time for the Associate Editor involved to wade through poorly written manuscripts. Reviewers were also burdened. However, in some cases, authors did eventually publish their work in the journal and these were sometimes good additions to the literature that would otherwise have been lost.

Another policy was to prevent more than 2 rounds of review. It can be very frustrating for authors to go through multiple rounds of peer review, especially if additional reviewers are brought in on later rounds as they inevitably have new comments. My policy was that once a paper had received two decisions as Major to Minor Revisions, the third submission should be handled by the Associate Editor, and not sent out to review again. For the most part, I think this policy worked well. There were, and always will be, exceptions to any such editorial procedure. 

The peer in peer review

During my time as editor, I co-authored an editorial that appeared in many of the world's herpetological journals: The 'peer' in 'Peer Review'. The basis of this editorial is something that I'm sure all editors are finding, that increasingly our colleagues are all too happy to turn down conducting peer reviews. Sadly, this is not an affliction of only herpetological journals, and I see the same problems in my work editing for PeerJ. I find it especially distressing when the peers themselves are authors who rely on the process of peer review for their publications. While we can't always conduct every review we are asked to do, we can make the effort at least to reply and make a suggestion of another reviewer to the editor. 

Should everyone be an editor at least once?

I do feel that everyone should participate in the peer-review process. You should expect to review something equal to the work that you produce for other reviewers. The role of editor is a massive burden on top of reviewing. Some of this is carried by Associate Editors who I found did a sterling job of helping authors get their manuscripts published. If you feel inclined to become an editor then you should volunteer to become an Associate Editor for a set period. Ask up front how many manuscripts you’ll be asked to handle each year and what turn-around time the editor expects. Do this before you sign up to be an editor, as it’ll give you most of the information you need before you decide.

Personal happiness

In July 2013 a would be author wrote to inquire whether her research on fossil African frogs would be appropriate for AJH. I responded positively and also that I had a keen interest in the subject. Thalassa and I met up to talk about it later in the year. Unexpectedly, it transpired that editing the journal had led directly to me meeting my wife. We married in December 2016 (see blog post here). It's not something that I would have predicted when I took on the job back in 2009.

There has been more happiness as editor of AJH. I have headed a team which has helped many first time authors get their work publised in a scientific journal. The team work of associate editors and peer reviewers cannot be underestimated and has led to the direct improvement of every manuscript that AJH has published in my time as editor. I am very grateful for all of the work that associate editors (past and present) have put into the journal. I am thankful also for all of the authors that have chosen to submit their work to the journal.

It’s all about helping authors

I am happy that in my time as editor of AJH I’ve been able to contribute to helping many authors produce decent peer review publications. The team of Associate Editors that I’ve been privileged to work with has always managed to assist authors produce something better. Most reviews have been constructive and in the spirit that we all benefit from good literature.

Read editorial reports published in African Herp News:

Measey, J. (2017) African journal of herpetology editor’s report 2017. African Herp News 64: 4-6. pdf

Measey, J. (2015) African Journal of Herpetology Editor’s report. African Herp News 62: 6-8. pdf

Measey, J. (2013) Taxonomic publishing, vandalism and best practice: African Journal of Herpetology makes changes that will safeguard authors. African Herp News 60: 2-4. pdf

Measey, J. (2013) Journal Editor’s report. African Herp News  59: 8-10. pdf

Measey, J. (2011) Journal Editor’s report. African Herp News 53: 5-7. pdf

  Lab  Writing

A 'native English speaker' is not what you need

05 December 2017

A 'native English speaker' is not what you need! 

This blog is inspired by one of my 'pet hates' that editors (especially non-English speaking editors) so regularly come up with. In my experience, having advice from a 'native English speaker' is no guarantee to getting a well written manuscript. 

Most of the world’s scientists did not grow up speaking English. Yet, rightly or wrongly, English is the language in which science is currently written. So, if English isn’t your mother tongue, should you expect to receive help during peer review?

Should you expect to receive help with your English when you submit a manuscript?

Perhaps I should start from the outset by stating that English is my mother tongue, and that I have spent many hours correcting the language of colleagues for whom it wasn’t. However, most of these hours were spent when I was a postgraduate student or postdoc. I no longer think that correcting English is my role either as an editor, reviewer or as a supervisor.

I did not study English, and would be the first to admit that my grasp of grammar and syntax is by no means perfect. I have read enough correct English to know when something is incorrect, but that doesn’t mean that I know how to correct it. I have spent many long hours trying to decode what others have written, and in some cases this has involved me re-writing entire manuscripts. I still do this as a co-author, although I do remember asking one colleague to please send any further drafts in their native Spanish as it would be easier to translate than it would be to re-write.

The time component is at the crux of my reasoning why, as an editor, reviewer and supervisor, I will not provide an English language service. It is both a time consuming and an unsatisfying experience. We all have our own voice (see blog here), and correcting while maintaining other people’s voices is a painstaking task. There’s an entire profession that specialises in this (think translator). These days there are also services available from publishers to non-English authors to help them correct their English.

In addition, there turns out to be research suggesting why peer review is not the best way to improve writing (Shashok 2008). Peer review works much better at screening technical content than it does at improving the communication of that content. 

Given that I’m not going to correct your English, what remarks would you expect me to make when reviewing a poorly written manuscript?

No matter how you might hope that it isn’t true, a poorly written manuscript will not get a good review. If your reviewer is struggling to understand what you have written, this becomes the overall impression that they will likely pass onto the handling editor. I try to separate my difficulties with English from my review of the science. But this isn’t always possible. Frequently, a poorly written manuscript will mean that I won’t be able to understand why the research was undertaken, what was done or what it means. This is bound to impact the review negatively.

The more I struggle to read, the more negative the review becomes. I see this as inevitable. What shocks me is that some senior researchers consider it to be their right to submit poorly written manuscripts and have reviewers or editors correct them (if you don’t believe me, see here). Worse, I’ve received manuscripts that are co-authored by people I know are native English speakers, but are full of glaring mistakes that appear never to have been checked. For me, this violates the terms that all authors have approved the final manuscript.

So what will I do to help?

Normally, I will highlight poorly written text. If there are just a handful of places, I will report these as minor corrections and there is unlikely to be any comment about English. If there are many (>15) you will probably get your manuscript back with these highlights. If there are more than 20 in the abstract (and I have seen worse), then I will give up even highlighting, but still carry on making an effort to read the manuscript. There have, however, been times when I’ve not been able to finish.

Being a native English speaker, am I above having people complain about my English?

Sadly, no. I do get it wrong, and my English can often be improved. I’m always happy to receive help, and see it as a sign of how I can improve clarity of a manuscript. However, I hope that my manuscript are never so poorly written that a reviewer or editor cannot make sense of them. So it is a matter of degrees.

Do you have to have a ‘native English speaker’ check your work?

No. There are many people who are not native English speakers who write far better than I do. It’s a ‘pet hate’ of mine that reviewers and editors insist that a manuscript must be corrected by a ‘native English speaker’. I’ve seen so many very poorly written essays, theses and manuscript written by native English speakers that I know that having one correct your manuscript is unlikely to be of much help, unless they themselves are good writers.

Being a ‘native English speaker’ doesn’t automatically qualify you to write well, edit well or do any of the things that non-English speaking editors think that it does.

That non-English speaking editors often comment that a ‘native English speaker’ should read my text, simply underlines the problem that many editors themselves are incapable of knowing whether or not something is well written. 

So if not a native English speaker, who should do it?

Anyone you know who writes good English and is willing to help you. One option is the service offered by AuthorAID: http://www.authoraid.info/en/ Using AuthorAID, you can find a long term mentor who will help you with your English. You can read more about this approach here (Freeman & Robbins 2006).

Failing that, I’m afraid that the best route will be to pay for help. 

  Lab  Writing

Are researchers writing more?

03 December 2017

Are researchers writing more, is more better and who should be an author?

The concept of some kind of ‘literature inflation’ in science has interested me for a while. The idiom ‘publish or perish’ suggests that researchers will increase their output in order to obtain positions and promotions. And if a researcher’s productivity is measured by their publication output, shouldn't we all be writing more papers?

Similarly, if we should all be writing more, then wouldn't some people start publishing two (or more) papers, when one would be adequate? This idea of ‘salami slicing’ to inflate outputs would be an understandable strategy if researchers were all trying to increase their output.

A new study by Daniele Fanelli and Vincent Larivière (2017) has a new take on the above questions, by asking whether researchers are actually writing more papers now than they did 100 years ago. They used Web of Science to look for unique authors (more than half a million of them) and determine whether the first year of publication and the total number of publications resulted in an increasing trend.

 

The trend line for biology (bi) is very stable at around 5.5 publications whether you started publishing in 1900 or 2000 (note that earth science es and chemistry ch do both increase dramatically).  

However, they found that the number of collaborators is increasing, and so they adjusted publication rates for co-authorship. Their finding was then that there is no increasing trend in researchers publishing. This then poses another question. Who are these people that are publishing so much more than 5.5 publications, and are they unfeasibly prolific?

If we are all writing the same number of papers, are some authors unfeasibly prolific?

This was the question posed in a study that examined prolific authors in four fields of medicine (Wager et al. 2015). This publication piqued my interest as it turns out that they decided that researchers with more than 25 publications in a year were “unfeasibly prolific” as this would be the equivalent of “>1 publication per 10 working days”. Their angle was to suggest that publication fraud was likely, and that funders should be more circumspect when accepting researchers productivity as a metric. Looking back through the peer review of this article (which is a great aspect of many PeerJ articles), I’m astounded that only one reviewer questioned the premise that it’s unfeasible to author that number of papers in a year.

I have not published >25 papers in a year, but I know people who have and I do not question that (a) it is possible and (b) that they really are the authors. Firstly, the idea that prolific authors constrain their activity to “working days” is naïve. Most will be working throughout a normal weekend, and working in the early morning and late evening. A hallmark of a prolific author would be emails early in the morning and/or late at night. This gives you an indication of their working hours, and how they are struggling to keep up with correspondence on top of writing papers. Having authored >20 papers this year (2017), I can attest to the fact that it’s a lot of work and that it would not be unfeasible to have authored five more.

Authorship of a publication is often the result of several years of work. Thus, publications that I co-authored in 2017 frequently had research conducted in 2014 or earlier. For example, one of the publications, Measey et al (2017) is the product of aSCR work that started in 2009, funded in 2011 with fieldwork in 2012, and required the development of software for analysis by Ben Stevenson in 2015, before it could be completed and submitted. Thus, from my perspective, when I look at authoring a lot of publications it reflects the activity of the initial concept for the work, raising of money, conducting the field work or experiment, analysing the data and then writing it up (with the subsequent submission and peer review time). Thus, publications in 2017 result from a lot of work done for 3 or more years. 

Who should be an author?

There is an increasing number of journals that now give clear instructions on who should author a paper, and these have been formalised by the ICMJE. For some time, I have explained to MeaseyLab members that authors need to participate in at least three of the following five points before they can be considered for inclusion in the author line.

  • initial conceptualisation for the work (hypothesis and/or question)
  • raising of money (which often involves writing and submitting several research proposals)
  • conducting the field work or experiment (the hard slog that many people will recognise)
  • analysing the data (often much more difficult than anyone realises)
  • writing it up (see lots of postings on this blog about the many requirements of writing)

It’s worth taking some time to think through each of these aspects of a piece of scientific work, especially when considering your own authorship. One point that students (in particular) often fail to recognise is that by the time they start on day 1, the first two points in this list are often completed. It’ll only be much later, when you have to raise your own money to conduct research, that you will appreciate all the work that went on before day 1.

My list is different from that of the ICMJE, but not mutually exclusive. They appear to have placed all of my first 4 categories into 1 and then added “final approval” and “accountability” as extra requirements. While I agree with the ICMJE list, I wouldn’t add “final approval” and “accountability” to my list above as these are journal requirements that all authors must meet for any publication. By the time authors arrive at this point, their name has already been included on the submitted manuscript throughout peer review.

Is writing a lot of papers a good strategy? 

This is a question of long standing, and one that you may find yourself asking at some point early on in your career. I'd suggest that the answer will be more about the sort of person that you are, over any strategy that you might consciously decide. If you tend toward perfectionism, this will likely result in fewer papers that (I hope) you'd consider to be of high quality. If on the other hand your desire were to finish projects and move on, you'd be more likely to tend toward more papers. 

Given that the 'best' personality type lies somewhere in the middle, you can decide for yourself whether you identify with one side more than the other. But which is the better strategy? Vincent Larivière & Rodrigo Costas (2016) tried to answer this question by considering how many papers unique authors wrote and seeing how this relates to their share of authoring a paper in the top 1% of cited papers. Their result showed clearly that for researchers in the life sciences (bottom graph below), writing a lot of papers was a good strategy if you started back in the 1980s. However, for those starting after 2009, the trend was reversed with those authors writing more papers less likely to have a smash hit paper (in the top 1% of cited papers). Maybe the time scale was too short to know. After all, if you started publishing in 2009 and had >20 papers by 2013 (the inflection point of the curve in top graph below) then you have been incredibly prolific (only 19 authors from what I can see). 

One aspect not considered Larivière & Costas  is that becoming known as a researcher who finishes work (resulting in a publication) is likely to make you more attractive to collaborators. Thus, publishing work is likely to get you invited to participate in more work. Obviously, quality plays a part in invitations to collaborative work too. Thus pulling the argument back to the centre ground. 

If you find yourself becoming pre-occupied about which is the best strategy for you, I'd suggest that you get back to finishing what you were writing before you got distracted!

If more is being published, will Impact Factors increase?

Yes. A number of years ago (October 2013), I asked David Green (Global Journals Publishing Director for Taylor & Francis Group) whether there was an inflation rate for Impact Factor of journals. He responded that it ran at around 5%, but then didn’t come up with a source for this information when I followed up.

Of course, it’s not just that more is being published, but the number of citations within every paper is increasing over time. Who and how should you cite? That's the subject of another blog.

  Lab  Writing

When is it possible to retain your own voice when writing?

27 November 2017

When is it possible to retain your own voice when writing?

Should one use “I” or “we” when writing a scientific paper? Although there was a tradition not to use first-person pronouns when writing scientific articles, this has fallen by the wayside in recent years as the use of I or we makes writing simpler for writers and readers. Use “I” if you are the sole author (or in your thesis) and “we” for two or more authors.

You will regularly see “I” or “we” being used in the last paragraph of the introduction and the first paragraph of the discussion. It’s also quite common to use this in the methods section. The reason why these sections have “I” or “we” is quite obvious, as it allows you to place your own voice on actions and decisions. After all, it is your aim and hypothesis for your study, so you should own it. Using first-person pronouns also allow you to be more concise, and there are some great examples here where you can see what happens when you don’t use them.

The first use of “I” or “we” at the end of the introduction is powerful. Up to that point, the reader has read four or five paragraphs of logical arguments outlining the background information that makes up the reasoning for your study. Using the first-person pronoun now makes the reader sit up as they have you communicating directly with them what you aimed to do. But that power is lost with repetition. So if you were to continuously use it throughout the methodology, the reader may get tired of reading a string of statements stating that you did this, then you did that, and so on. The power of using “I” or “we” is to use it sparingly to boost clarity.

Does writing “I” or “we” help people to understand who you are?

Actually, all of your writing will do this. As long as you are using your own words (and not plagiarising), your writing is likely to be unique to you and hence recognisable as you. It never ceases to amaze me that it is possible to convey the same information in so many different ways. Your way will likely change with time and experience, but remain yours throughout your writing life. If you keep writing, people will be able to recognise your distinct style.

  Lab  Writing