Interlude: Word Limit Dichotomy, Authorship Grids, and the Evolution of Scientific Writing
Word limits are a common challenge in scientific and medical writing. And they create an interesting dichotomy.
Many authors dread word limits because they have to do the hard work of concisely expressing their thoughts and ideas in a certain number of words.
However, most readers appreciate word limits because concise writing is clearer and faster to read, which respects their time and attention.
And time and attention are our greatest assets.
So the next time you face a word limit, think of the challenge as an opportunity—not only to share your knowledge and ideas, but also to show respect for your readers.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
How to Avoid Authorship Issues in Publications
Are you tired of managing authorship issues for your scientific and medical manuscripts? Are you frustrated with last-minute authorship decisions that spark conflict among your team? In this video, you’ll learn a clear, objective, and collaborative strategy to prevent authorship debates before they start—helping your team work together smoothly and collaboratively from day one.
👓 Reading
The evolution of scientific writing: an analysis of 20 million abstracts over 70 years in health and medical science
This article is a must read! "This historical understanding provides insight into our past writing cultures, how they have changed, and where we stand as science communicators today. We found that scientists are increasingly using writing components that reduce cognitive load and improve reader understanding. Despite these positive efforts we found that many scientists still feel a need to adhere to 'The Official Style' that falls back on dense and difficult prose. We advocate for more accessible science writing so that its discoveries not only encourage inter-disciplinary research, but are also spread across wider society as part of the sharing of knowledge."
Why aren’t more journals publishing plain language summaries?
"73% of journals surveyed did not allow author-submitted PLS [plain language summaries], citing reasons such as a perceived lack of reader or author demand, lack of relevance to journal content, and insufficient resources. . .the survey highlights an ongoing need for greater standardisation, more consistent peer review, and improved visibility of PLS. It also revealed that some respondents were unsure of their own journal’s PLS policies, underscoring the need for better internal communication and training."
🖥️ Watching
Do you think he’s guilty?
In this reel, @englishenjoyed shares a fun skit on the ambiguity of "biweekly" and how language "is a marvelous tool of deception."
💬 Quote
"'Over the past fifty years or so', wrote David Mermin in 1990, scientists have allowed the conventions of expression available to them to become entirely too confining. The insistence on bland impersonality and the widespread indifference to anything like the display of a unique human author in scientific exposition, have not only transformed the reading of most scientific papers into an act of tedious drudgery, but have also deprived scientists of some powerful tools for enhancing their clarity in communicating matters of great complexity. Scientists wrote beautifully through the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth. But somewhere after that, coincident with the explosive growth of research, the art of writing science suffered a grave setback, and the stultifying convention descended that the best scientific prose should sound like a non-human author addressing a mechanical reader." –Iain McGilchrist
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
