The basics of scientific writing one more time

Abstract

Ever since Leopold (1933:414) included a characteristic of wildlife biologists being “…cooperative to the extent of habitually exchanging services and information,” the importance of communication to the wildlife profession has been emphasized among biologists, the public, policy makers, and anyone interested in effective communication. As an example, consider the plenary session at the 2023 Wildlife Society Conference (80 years after Leopold's words) wherein speakers discussed communicating in an era of mistrust. Communication has been a common theme in other plenary sessions at the annual Wildlife Society Conference (e.g., making wildlife science matter: inspire wildlife professionals to share their science widely and engage with the public [2013]; making science relevant in today's society [2014]; communicating science to diverse audiences [2019]; and in part of other plenary sessions over the years). The importance of effective and accurate communication is an important and ongoing consideration that cannot be overlooked. Likewise, editors must continue to emphasize the basics of scientific writing that have served The Wildlife Society well for decades. Thus, it is without apology that I again pen an editorial about the importance of scientific writing for successful publication of manuscripts (Krausman and Cox 2016, 2017; Krausman 2018). Maintaining writing principles is especially important given that artificial intelligence is rapidly emerging in the publishing world (and often as an undeclared coauthor) and writing by legitimate authors is in danger of being diminished by letting machines do it for them. Difficulties abound when computer programs or others do the writing for authors. Thus, formulating solid ideas and collecting appropriate data to test hypotheses is as important as writing scientific manuscripts clearly and effectively; this methodology is paramount in wildlife science. My objective in this editorial is to emphasize the importance of a few references' authors should consult before writing scientific manuscripts. Thus, the information presented in this editorial is not novel but is too often ignored.

In my role as Editor-in-Chief, I have heard numerous complaints about publishing research, which often focus on the time required to prepare a manuscript for submission. These complaints are puzzling to me given the time required for all other aspects of the scientific process. Preparing grant proposals are often time-intensive with detailed writing and formatting instructions that must be followed to be considered for funding. Developing rigorous field protocols and collecting data, taking the time to learn statistics, coding, modeling, matrix algebra, R, model selection, new quantitative methods, and all the other skills necessary to be an effective scientist all take a lot longer to master than the time it takes to read a few pages of instructions to authors intent on submitting their work to any professional journal. I encourage all authors to attack writing with the same zest and dedication used in the other components of effective science.

There are numerous references for scientific writing, but a good place to start is to establish a writing library or collection of references. The library does not need to be extensive but should contain references that will help you with writing. The first acquisition for the library is Strunk and White (2020) and it should be referred to frequently. It is a short book you likely have used previously, but occasional reviews should enhance your writing. Strunk and White (2020) is written clearly, provides instructions for writing with style, and includes a list of misused words and appropriate substitutes that clarify meaning. Clear writing should avoid jargon, slang, words that have double meanings, and superfluous or poorly used words. The results of the best science can be lost to poor communication. Authors should write from a point of strength and not weakness (Carraway 2009a); appropriate punctuation, syntax, word tense, voice, and proper word use all strengthen writing.

Another entry in a writing library are the guidelines editors provide for your audience (if provided by the journal where you submit your work). For example, The Wildlife Society provides 9 pages of general instructions for authors intending to submit to one of their journals, including details for each section of the manuscript and providing policies and other information that may be used for reference when authors have questions. Author guidelines are helpful to determine the structure of the manuscripts and what elements should be included in each section; they often do not provide guidance on other important aspects of clear writing. Many prospective authors stated the guidelines for Wildlife Society publications were too long, so the editorial offices of the journals reduced them to the basics. In addition, when revisions are necessary, decision letters for the Journal of Wildlife Management include a list of items that are commonly overlooked by authors. Despite this effort to provide helpful guidance, these instructions often are ignored and delay publication. It is especially frustrating when authors state in their letters that they have followed all instructions when they clearly have not.

Since World War II, scientific writing has been standardized with the use of introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections, albeit with a few modifications here and there. Regardless, the format is generally standardized in the scientific publishing world. Carraway (2009a, b) provides additional sources that would be useful in a writing library because she goes through various components of a manuscript beginning with the title. If the title is well designed and properly worded, it can grab the attention of readers with a limited number of words. Additional guidelines and examples of solid titles are also provided (Carraway 2009b, Krausman and Cox 2020). Titles let the reader know what to expect and should convey the content of the manuscript without using sentences, subtitles, hanging titles, questions, or switching emphasis. A title is of little value if it does not relay the content of the paper or attract readers.

The text should be as clear as the title and stay on the subject of the manuscript, which can be stated with clear objectives. Begin each section of your paper without an unnecessary preamble. Do not start sections by telling the reader what has already been said. Stick to the topic without being redundant and strive for concision in each sentence, section, and throughout the manuscript. Many minor, albeit necessary, editorial corrections are directed at misused words, double meanings, slang, contrived acronyms, jargon, dangled clauses, word tense, superfluous wording, freight train wording, and split infinitives. None of these are necessary and distract or undercut the message yet can easily be revised for clarity (Carraway 2009a). Before the manuscript is submitted, authors should ask ≥1 friendly reviewers unfamiliar with the study to examine the manuscript and offer any suggestions that will ensure all aspects of the text are presented distinctly.

An additional indispensable reference for scientific style and format is the editors style manual (Council of Biological Editors Style Manual Committee 1994). The manual is routinely updated, and I suspect the forthcoming edition will address artificial intelligence and other newfound aspects entering the writing world.

So why is it so important to follow relatively standard and simple guidelines? First and foremost, standard guidelines will improve the presentation of your work. Do not make others do it for you or require readers to search for elements of your research. Second, most editors, associate editors, and referees are familiar with formatting and style of the journals they serve, and when the writing is not correct, time is spent correcting language. Dealing with poor writing causes editors or reviewers to pay less attention to the message being delivered and can discourage referees from taking submissions seriously. It is disconcerting when authors submit manuscripts that do not follow the guidelines for the target journal. If authors do not follow guidelines, I wonder what else was ignored during the execution of their research. Conversely, a well-written paper will be appreciated by the reviewers, Associate Editor, Editor-in-Chief, and ultimately the readership.

Authors need to understand that their submissions are first received and evaluated for appropriate content by journal staff before being sent for peer-review. If the necessary components are not included, manuscripts are returned to the authors or rejected. If manuscripts are submitted in the correct format they are assigned to an Associate Editor and referees, all of whom evaluate the work and provide a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief who also reviews the work and the evaluations before deciding. Numerous comments from critical reviewers are examined and addressed before a manuscript is published. So why not get it right the first time? Including the major sections with the appropriate information, solid data and interpretation, and relevancy is something that cannot be overlooked. Consider the original description of the molecular structure of DNA (Watson and Crick 1953). Their short article was clear, to the point, and led them to receive a Nobel Prize in 1962. The presentation of their work helped pave the future of molecular biology. Writing does not have to be complicated.

It takes commitment and practice, however, to be a good writer, but effective writing can be done with a lot less effort than it takes to understand the other components of science. By placing all the effort on proposal preparation, fundraising, data collection, analysis, and synthesis but failing to fully communicate the scope of what you learned is a loss to scientific literature. Writing (i.e., communicating the science) is just as much a part of the scientific process as is formulating an idea, collecting the data, processing the samples, and analyzing the data. Writing may be less glorious, but research will not be recognized without it. So, take a few hours to review the basics of writing before you begin. It will be time well spent and will have big payouts; it will also be appreciated by all of those with the obligation to provide the best possible product. Happy writing.