1. Avoid long, complicated compound sentences. These are often very difficult to follow.
2.
Use “which” and “that”
properly. “That” should be used for restrictive clauses (“This is the fish THAT
Jack caught.) whereas “which” should be used for nonrestrictive clauses (“This
fish, WHICH Jack caught, is a salmon.”) Most people use “which” in many cases
where “that” is more appropriate.
3.
Avoid all use of “there is”,
“there was”, “there are”, and “there were”, particularly at the start of
sentences. Use of these terms can make the subject of the sentence unclear.
4.
Avoid unnecessary amplification
of text. For example, say “sneaky mating is successful” rather than “sneaky
mating has been found to be successful”.
5.
Avoid the use of “while”,
except when the intended meaning is “during the time that.” In other contexts, “whereas”
or “although” are usually better.
6.
Write out all numbers less than
10 (i.e., one, two), unless the number is followed by a unit, such as m, mg,
min, h, etc.
7.
“Data” are plural. That is, you don't say: "the data is", you say "the data are." Datum would be the singular version.
8.
“Between” is used in reference to two things.
“Among” is used in reference to more than two things. That is, you study the differences between two populations, but the differences among three populations.
9.
Never use “etc.”
10. Never use “unique” unless you truly mean “one of a kind.” People
often say: “Our system represents a unique opportunity to test the theory
that…” Instead, say: “Our system represents an excellent opportunity
to test the theory that…” Similarly, never use “ideal” or “perfect” in this
same context.
11. My Mom (a grammar expert of sorts) tells me that only God “creates”
things (and she isn’t even religious). So, in short, don't use the term create unless you are invoking God.
12. Strive for parallelism between related sentences that appear close
to each other. As a simple example, use “Low predation sites are characterized
by few fish predators. High predation sites are characterized by many fish
predators.”, instead of “Low predation sites are characterized by few fish
predators. Many fish predators are found at high predation sites.”
13. Beware of misplaced modifiers. For example, “We measured body depth
using calipers.” Body depth does not use calipers, as this sentence implies.
Instead, use “We used calipers to measure body depth.” Sometimes it is
difficult to avoid misplaced modifiers without otherwise destroying the
sentence. In such cases, it is forgivable.
14. Use the active voice (“We measured body depth.”), rather than the
passive voice (“Body depth was measured.”), whenever reasonable and when not
explicitly disallowed by a journal. Be careful to not use it too much though.
Six sentences in a row, all starting with “we”, are very awkward.
15. Although many would disagree with me, I believe in the power of
punctuation. As one small example, I believe the second last phrase in a list
of phrases should have a comma before the “and.” For example, “Speciation can
occur by genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection.” rather than
“Speciation can occur by genetic drift, mutation and natural selection.” Using
the latter often introduces confusion when the phrases themselves are longer
and contain “and” within them. The cartoon gives another example:
16. Always use a single space between sentences. All journals do this
anyway, and it makes editing difficult if one person (me) uses single spaces
and other people (you) use double spaces.
17. Try not to use “may” unless you are implying permission. Instead
consider “might” or “can”.
Expanding on #5, I often feel the same way about "as" when used in a sense other than "simultaneously", and "since" when used in a sense other than "in the time after". For example, "As we didn't have enough fish traps, we resorted to nets", or "Since we didn't have enough...". Instead, write "Because we didn't have enough...". Otherwise, the reader has to think about the ambiguity of the different senses of the word. In general, think about whether there is more than one way to read a sentence, and if there is (even if the alternate readings make no sense really), try to rewrite to eliminate the ambiguity. As my mother (a professional editor) used to say, "Lead the reader by the nose".
ReplyDeleteA point I would add, again in the spirit of "lead the reader by the nose", is: use connecting words that express the relationships between thoughts. These are words like "similarly", "however", "yet", "meanwhile", "regardless", "but", and so forth. Punctuation can also play this role; semicolons, as in this sentence, are particularly useful for expressing that one thought follows upon the heels of another. Another useful punctuation mark for this purpose – if not overused! – is the en-dash, "–". I prefer it to the longer em-dash, "—", because I find the en-dash more readable—but this choice might be dictated by the journal's style guide.
ReplyDeleteFinally, one thing that I think is key in scientific writing is to use the same term for the same concept, consistently. If you write "genetic variation" in one place, "genetic variability" in another, "genetic variance" in a third, and so forth, then the reader is left wondering whether you are deliberately referring to different concepts with those different phrases, or whether you are just using inconsistent terminology. This can be incredibly confusing. In general, it is good not to repeat the same word over and over; vary your vocabulary to avoid being repetitive. Exercise your thesaurus a little. But when it comes to scientific terminology, and particularly for the core scientific concepts that you are referring to over and over, the rule is exactly the opposite: settle on a single term and stick with it.
ReplyDelete