How to Improve Your Scientific Writing: The Four Pillars

Scientific writing is a challenge for students, clinicians, and researchers across fields and professions. In forum after forum online, students, academics, and non-academic researchers are posing the question “how can I improve my scientific writing?” For those who are non-native English speakers (i.e., English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign Language (EFL) speakers), the process of scientific writing in English poses additional stumbling blocks.

 The importance of scientific writing skills cannot be understated. International research trainees in the United States report that their level of English has interfered with professional opportunities, and students with low self-confidence in their scientific communication abilities are less likely to pursue research-intensive careers after graduation. For academic researchers, publications in English language journals may be explicitly or implicitly required for tenure and are thereby a cornerstone of the publish or perish culture. Graduation and tenure policies aside, English scientific writing skills offer researchers the opportunity to expand the reach of their research through publication in higher impact factor journals that are more likely to be cited.

 When working to improve your scientific writing, you can easily find isolated tips for scientific writing (e.g., “use stronger verbs”), but long-term, sustained improvement in your writing requires a comprehensive framework. Here are the four fundamental pillars of improved scientific writing.

1. Grammar

Whether you went to grade school in the United States or learned English while studying in your home country, chances are high that you’ve already learned formal English grammar in the classroom setting.  Perhaps you were tested on the three kinds of participles or the differences between gerunds, participles, or infinitives.

Unfortunately, classroom grammar often doesn’t translate well to applied scientific writing, leaving students with discouraging mentor and reviewer feedback like, “non-standard English is used throughout the manuscript… so much so that it prevents, at times, the manuscript from being comprehensible.” (Mungra and Webber 2010). Fortunately, it doesn’t take an in-depth understanding of classroom grammar to become a great writer. By mastering targeted, high-impact aspects of English grammar, you can dramatically improve the readability of your writing. Three examples of these aspects of grammar include:

Articles.

Articles – a, an, and the – while short in length play an outsized role in English speaking and writing. Native English speakers generally have an intuitive sense of article use. In contrast, non-native or ESL speakers are often learning English from a mother tongue that either lacks equivalents to one or both articles or more frequently utilizes articles than English.

 Because mistakes in article use sound glaringly incorrect to the native speaker’s ear, these errors easily become distracting and/or flag a manuscript as one written by someone with strong proficiency in English writing.

Commas.

Like articles, commas are nearly ubiquitous in written English, and non-native English speakers risk over- and under-utilizing commas in distinct situations.

Researchers have likely encountered debates surrounding the oxford comma, a comma placed between the last two items in a series of three or more, as journal style guides may specify preferences surrounding the use of these commas. However, the use of commas in other common writing situations warrants focused attention.

Commas are used to prevent run-on sentences, separate or set off specific types of clauses or phrases, and in combination with frequently used words in scientific writing like ‘respectively.’ Gaining a strong command of proper comma usage can quickly improve your ability to write compelling and grammatically correct scientific manuscripts.

Subject/Verb Agreement.

Put simply, subject/verb agreement is a basic rule in English that singular subjects must take singular verbs, while plural subjects must take plural verbs.

Subject/verb agreement is often straightforward; it is clear to most writers that the verb (i.e., report) in the sentence, “medical students report high levels of stress,” should be plural because its subject, “medical students” is plural.

However, subject/verb agreement quickly becomes more complicated when the subject is a compound noun (e.g., medical and pharmacy students), phrase (e.g., everyone at the medical school), or collective noun (e.g., the group of medical students).

Investing in a strong understanding of subject/verb agreement in these more nuanced situations will greatly strengthen your writing.

2. Organization

Many introductory scientific writing courses and content guide students through the IMRAD (i.e., introduction, methods, results, and discussion) structure for original research articles.

In the IMRAD models, scientific manuscripts begin with an introduction section that identifies the context of the problem or burden that motivates the research. Introduction sections then establish the current body of research in the area and identify a gap in the existing literature before presenting the research question designed to address that gap.

Methods sections present the study design, including what was measured in the study and how it was measured, providing methodological justification where warranted.

Results sections present results in a straightforward way without subjective interpretation.

Discussion sections summarize and interpret the major study findings, place the findings in the context of existing literature, and present limitations of the research.

While most students and researchers are well-acquainted with the IMRAD structure through reading scientific articles in their field, the application of the structure in your writing is more challenging than it may appear. 

In introduction sections, students often struggle to craft a compelling justification of the reported research. That is, they may not precisely identify the gap in existing literature. Alternatively, they may identify the gap but fail to meaningfully provide rationale about why the specific research question is important.

Discussion sections are often especially challenging for new writers or non-native English speakers unfamiliar with common linguistic devices in English writing. For example, it has commonly been reported that non-native English speakers are less familiar with the practice of “hedging” by native English speakers in scientific writing. Native speakers of English will commonly use words like could, might, may, or perhaps to mitigate the level of certainty with which the authors write or make claims. Where native English speakers write,

 “These findings suggest that medical students may be more likely to develop depression, perhaps due to high levels of academic stress.”

non-native speakers may write,

“These findings show that medical students are more likely to develop depression due to high levels of academic stress.”

The use of hedging is often second-nature to native English speakers, who often interpret hedging as allowing for a greater degree of caution and uncertainty when interpreting results. However, international researchers are often more assertive in their scientific writing, thereby using fewer hedges.

As you are working to improve your scientific writing, invest in gaining a more in-depth understanding not only of the general organization of scientific manuscripts but also the nuances of manuscripts written in English.

3. Writing Concisely/Precisely

 Grammar and organization are foundational for good scientific writing. Do you want to improve your scientific writing further?  Strong scientific writing must be both concise and precise.

Concise scientific writing is concise at three levels: the word/phrase, sentence, and paragraph level.

At the word/phrase level, you can be more precise by condensing multi-word phrases that can easily be reduced to one to two words. For example,

“The prevalence of Type 2 diabetes around the world has increased 10% in the past decade.”

can easily be changed to:

“Globally, the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes has increased 10% in the past decade.”

At the sentence level, sentences can be condensed by changing the way in which you refer to citations and figures and avoiding inefficient lead-ins. For example, the following sentence reports the findings of a single study by Capella et al.

“In their analysis of five major drug classes from 2001 to 2005, Capella et al. reported no significant relationship between direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) and price sensitivity.”

By removing the lead-in, “in their analysis of five major drug classes from 2001 to 2005,” and moving the Capella et al. reference to parentheses, this sentence can be condensed to:

“Direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) was not associated with price sensitivity in an analysis of five major drug classes (Capella et al. 2010).”

This simple change condenses the original, 28-word sentence to 19 words – a 32% reduction that makes the sentence considerably more concise.

At the paragraph level, scientific writers can often restructure paragraphs to more concisely summarize existing literature or the interpretation of their results within the broader context of past research. For example, the following paragraph summarizes the body of literature on the relationship between direct-to-consumer drug advertising and price sensitivity. The paragraph cites multiple studies on the topic.

 “In their analysis of five major drug classes from 2001 to 2005, Capella et al. reported no significant relationship between DTCA and price sensitivity. The absence of an association between advertising and price elasticity has also been reported in the Netherlands. In contrast, Narayanan et al. concluded in their analysis of antihistamine medications that promotional spending through physician detailing, DTCA, and scientific meetings increased price sensitivity. This finding, which suggests that higher advertising spending was associated with downward, rather than upward, pressure on prices, has been echoed in other studies on the impact of advertising on physicians and patients.”

Ultimately, the sentence aims to communicate to readers that the findings reported by past research conflict. Can we improve this scientific writing by making it more concise?

“Two studies out of the US and the Netherlands reported no significant relationship between advertising and price sensitivity. Others, however, have concluded that promotional spending increases price sensitivity.” 

Here, we trimmed the original, 99-word paragraph to a concise 28-word, two-sentence summary of the way in which existing literature disagrees on the association between drug advertising and price sensitivity.

While scientific writing should be concise, it must also be precise.  

Precise scientific writing uses the right words to clearly and accurately communicate. At times, this may be at odds with the principle of concise writing; continued work towards improving your scientific writing will help you gain an intuitive sense of balancing these two principles.

For example, recall the sentence we developed about the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes above: 

“Globally, the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes has increased 10% in the past decade.”

Scientific writers focused on writing concisely may trim this sentence further, saying

“The prevalence of Type 2 diabetes has increased significantly.”

While this sentence reduces the word count from 14 to 9, it does so at the cost of precision. A reader may be left wondering:

The prevalence where?

What is the magnitude of the increase?

Over what time frame? A year? 50 years?

Our initial sentence, 

“Globally, the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes has increased 10% in the past decade.”

answers these questions. In fact, a writer may wish to provide even more precision about the burden of Type 2 diabetes. They may decide to write,

 “Globally, the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes increased by 10%, from 360 million people in 2010 to 400 million people in 2020.”

While this sentence is less concise, it provides readers with a more precise idea of the magnitude of the burden of Type 2 diabetes and the timeframe of the increase.

This balance between concise and precise writing is often a hallmark of strong scientific writing. As you read scientific articles in your field, pay attention to the way in which authors try to optimize this balance to be both clear and to the point in their manuscripts.

4. Productivity

 When someone asks, “how do I improve my scientific writing?” they typically are not asking about improving their writing as a hobby. Scientific writing is a critical tool for the dissemination of knowledge but, more concretely, it is also necessary for professional success in many fields. Students must write theses and dissertations. Post-docs need to be published to be competitive for post-graduation careers. Early-stage investigators need to develop an independent research program through funding and publications Mid-to-late career clinicians and researchers have established their expertise and can further their reputation as experts in their fields through publishing high-quality research.

Grammar, organization, and the ability to write concisely and precisely are necessary elements of strong scientific writing, but researchers must be able to productively use these skills to write abstracts, presentations, and manuscripts. While numerous resources exist to promote productivity, here we highlight three ways to improve your scientific writing through increased productivity.

Write consistently

By setting a writing schedule – ideally, writing at least 30 minutes every day – researchers can fight procrastination and create a dedicated time to prioritize writing.

The urgent demands on our time every day often leave us feeling that there is no time to write. Creating a non-negotiable commitment to your writing can break the cycle of, “I’ll write when I finish a few more emails,” or “I’ll write when I’m caught up on grading/writing up patient notes/lecture preparation,” that rarely ends with sustained time to focus and write.

Focus – No Multitasking!

When writing, aim to create a distraction-free work environment. If at all possible, turn off potential distractions, including email and phone notifications.

Research consistently shows that writing productivity and quality decrease as interruptions and multi-tasking increase.  As attention shifts between two tasks (e.g., e-mail and manuscript writing), writers incur a significant task-switching cost, whereby even a momentary interruption can result in several minutes of lost work as you refocus attention and mental energy.

Use Accountability

Writing accountability groups have a well-documented impact on productivity, including frequency and duration of writing.

By facilitating the development of positive writing habits, including designated writing times free from distractions and interruptions, accountability can help researchers at any career stage build momentum towards accomplishing their writing goals.

The support structure provided by a writing accountability group can also provide an outlet for encouragement from others as you navigate the writing process together. This, in turn, can reduce the stress that is often associated with needing to meet the high productivity goals often required for graduation and/or professional success.

In conclusion, students and researchers around the world are asking how they can improve their scientific writing. You are not alone!

Regardless of career stage, mother tongue, or level of spoken English proficiency, improving your scientific writing requires dedicated time and effort.

Many resources focus on improving specific elements of scientific writing, but a comprehensive approach to improve your scientific writing should include all four fundamental pillars of great scientific writing: grammar, organization, writing concisely/precisely, and improving productivity.  

These building blocks work synergistically. As you develop a more intuitive sense of written English grammar (e.g., articles), you will likely find that you are able to write more quickly and efficiently, thus improving your productivity. Writing concisely demands that you have clearly organized your thoughts, and clear organization will further facilitate your ability to write efficiently.

Which of these pillars are you currently working to improve? Does one present more of a stumbling block for you than the others? We’d love to hear in the comments below!