Interlude: Noticing Good Writing, Short Words, and Scientific Fraud
How do you know if writing is good?
This might seem like a loaded question. But I think there's a simple answer. And it relates to cooking.
How do you know if cooking is good?
When you taste a meal, you'll notice if it has too little or too much salt. But would you notice if the meal has the right amount of salt?
Likely not. I have yet to hear someone say, "Wow! This meal has the perfect amount of salt!"
More likely, you won't even notice how much salt is in the food. In other words, cooking is good when you don't notice the salt. You focus on the meal.
Similarly, if writing is good, you don't notice the writing. You focus on the content.
Think about your favorite novel. As you were reading it, did you notice the writing? Or did you get enveloped in the story and what was happening with the characters?
Now think about a scientific manuscript (or other document) that you read. As you were reading it, did you notice the writing? Or did you get enveloped in the information and what was happening with the data and interpretations?
When writing is bad, you notice how the writing can be improved. When writing is good, you don't notice the writing at all.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
How Short Words Boost Clarity in Scientific Writing
Dense, complex language can burden your readers with a cognitive load and make it harder for them to understand your writing. In this video, you’ll learn how short, simple words can boost clarity and readability, without offending readers.
📆 Upcoming
Managing Flow: A Framework for Connecting Ideas and Guiding Readers – August 13, 2025 @ 10 am Pacific Time
I was delighted when the Scientific Editors Network (ScENe) invited me to speak to its members about flow in writing. During the webinar, I'll be sharing valuable writing principles to help create a smooth flow that guides readers through the content, builds on their knowledge, and keeps them engaged in the writing. You must be a member of ScENe to join.
...Oh, and if you're interested in inviting me to speak about flow (or another topic), hit reply and let me know. I'd be delighted to speak for your team, organization, or event.
👓 Reading
The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly
". . . we demonstrate through case studies that i) individuals have cooperated to publish papers that were eventually retracted in a number of journals, ii) brokers have enabled publication in targeted journals at scale, and iii), within a field of science, not all subfields are equally targeted for scientific fraud." I also recommend reading this blog post that complements the article.
A study section chair's experience with the new Simplified Review Framework
In this LinkedIn post, a study section chair offers four recommendations for researchers to consider for reviews that use the new Simplified Review Framework: (1) write for a general audience, (2) significance is the most important review criterion, (3) be thoughtfully responsive when resubmitting, and (4) keep submitting proposals. This short post is well worth the read.
Modernizing Research and Evidence Consensus Definitions: A Food and Drug Administration–National Institutes of Health Collaboration
"The MoRE Consensus Definitions are intended to facilitate effective communication about clinical research and enable transparency around innovative clinical study designs. This publication makes available the glossary developed through this collaboration and serves as an accessible resource for the clinical research enterprise."
💬 Quote
“As far as he can achieve it, readability is as important for the scientific writer as it is for the novelist.” – Donald O. Hebb
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
