Hi.
This is Karen McKee, retired scientist and author.
In this video, I'm going to be talking about scientific writing that annoys reviewers.
I thought I would begin with a few quotes from real reviewers about their honest thoughts
regarding the writing in papers submitted to the journal Environmental Microbiology.
This particular journal posts the best quotes by reviewers in the last issue of the year.
These are anonymous of course, and the quotes are from correspondence between reviewer and
editor.
The author never sees these.
But they drive home the point that reviewers can be particularly aggravated by poor writing.
Here is one: "The writing and data presentation are so bad that I had to leave work and go
home early and then spend time to wonder what life is about."
Here's another one: "The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the
will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style."
One more: "Contains such a wealth of information that, depending on the time of day, the text
was either a thrilling expedition for me or it acted as a sleeping pill."
Not all reviews were negative, however.
Here's one positive review
"A jewel that the Journal will be proud of for many years to come."
Another one.
"I wished more authors could describe science as easy as it is done here."
Needless to say, you want to generate the latter type of comments about your manuscript.
There are many ways to make a reviewer hate your paper, but poor writing is guaranteed
to elicit negative comments.
So let's go through some of the ways you can annoy reviewers with your writing.
I've compiled these based on my own forty-year experience as a reviewer as well as what colleagues
have told me bugs them.
First.
Lots of spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors.
There is really no excuse for spelling errors these days with spell check features built
into word processing programs.
Make sure these are turned on and double-check anything that is highlighted.
Also, make sure to select the correct language for your document, either American or British
English, depending on the journal guidelines.
If you are at all uncertain about grammar and punctuation, immediately find a copy of
Strunk and White's classic, The Elements of Style, and study it.
Two.
Run-on sentences and tortuous syntax.
Some scientific authors write long, run-on sentences that go on and on.
By the time the reader gets to the end of the sentence, she has forgotten how it started.
Related to this is the writer who uses tortuous syntax.
That is, they string their words together in such a way that the reader cannot easily
follow.
They also use unnecessary phrases and multiple-word nouns.
Here's an example.
"As previously discussed, the surface elevation change rate in coastal wetlands is really
the consequence of multiple, interacting processes, and it is also worth emphasizing that the
surface accretion does not always predict the rate and direction of elevation change,
as subsurface processes such as subsidence or fluid withdrawal can offset any gains from
sediment deposition on the soil surface."
Whew.
Writers think that it saves space by cramming several thoughts together in one sentence.
It doesn't.
All it does is gives the reviewer a headache.
You can use compound sentences in your manuscript, but mix it up with shorter sentences.
We can fix that long-winded sentence by dividing it into three shorter sentences and dropping
unnecessary phrases like "as previously discussed".
So here's the rewrite.
"In coastal wetlands, the rate of surface-elevation change reflects multiple interacting processes.
However, the rate and direction of elevation change is not always easy to predict.
For example, subsurface processes such as subsidence or fluid withdrawal can offset
any elevation gains from sediment accretion on the soil surface."
That wording is much easier to follow and is shorter by twelve words.
Three.
Failing to use distinct names for treatments, sites, or other groups.
Don't call your nutrient treatments, T1, T2, and T3, forcing the reader to keep checking
the methods section for what these abbreviations stand for.
Instead, use the concentration 1 mM, 10 mM, 100 mM or at least use low, medium, and high.
Give your three study sites distinct names: Twin Cays, Pelican Cays, and Tobacco Range.
Not Sites 1, 2, and 3.
Four.
Improperly citing the literature
A pet peeve of mine is to see a statement in a manuscript followed by a citation that
did not actually show what is claimed.
Sometimes, this happens when the author fails to actually read the paper they are citing
and incorrectly summarizes what the study found.
Perhaps based on reading what someone else said.
Sometimes, the cited study didn't even investigate the purported topic.
That's a problem when the reviewer who gets your paper happens to be the author of that
misquoted paper.
You should carefully check the original paper you are citing and ensure you are accurately
representing their work.
So far we've covered four ways your scientific writing might aggravate a reviewer and what
you can do to avoid it.
In Part 2 of this video, we'll consider the use of scientific and statistical jargon as
well as wordiness.
If you found this first part useful, please hit the like button below the video.