utb 3112

Eine Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verlage

Böhlau Verlag • Wien • Köln • Weimar

Verlag Barbara Budrich • Opladen • Toronto

facultas • Wien

Wilhelm Fink • Paderborn

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag • Tübingen

Haupt Verlag • Bern

Verlag Julius Klinkhardt • Bad Heilbrunn

Mohr Siebeck • Tübingen

Ernst Reinhardt Verlag • München

Ferdinand Schöningh • Paderborn

Eugen Ulmer Verlag • Stuttgart

UVK Verlag • München

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht • Göttingen

Waxmann • Münster • New York

wbv Publikation • Bielefeld

Tim Skern

Writing Scientific English

A Workbook

3rd edition

facultas.wuv

Tim Skern, a native English speaker, studied biochemistry in Liverpool and London. Now working at the Max Perutz Labs, he has been teaching scientific English at the University of Vienna and the Medical University of Vienna since 1992. In 2018, he became Editor-in-Chief of Archives of Virology.

Tim Skern is the author of “Coffee House Notes on Virology” (Facultas Verlag) and “Exploring Protein Structure: Principles and Practice” (Springer).

In Memoriam Ernst Küchler, der mir

das wissenschaftliche Schreiben beibrachte:

Da hapert’s! Da hat’s was!

Bibliografische Information Der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der

Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

3. Auflage 2019

© 2011 Facultas Verlags- und Buchhandels AG

facultas.wuv Universitätsverlag, Berggasse 5, A-1090 Wien

Alle Rechte, insbesondere das Recht der Vervielfältigung und der Verbreitung sowie der Übersetzung, sind vorbehalten.

Lektorat: Robert Chionis

Typografie und Satz: Michael Karner, www.typografie.co.at

Einbandgestaltung: Atelier Reichert, Stuttgart

Druck und Bindung: CPI – Ebner & Spiegel, Ulm

Printed in Germany

UTB-Band-Nr.: 3112

ISBN 978-3-8252-5066-9

eISBN 978-3-8463-5066-9

Preface

In 1992, I started to teach “Writing and Speaking Scientific English” at the University of Vienna. My qualifications included English as a native tongue as well as experience of writing my own scientific manuscripts and correcting those of others. I had also given some scientific talks and listened to considerably more. That was all. I was ignorant about how to begin teaching scientific English. I had no idea about the specific problems faced by the students, whether I should take their scientific and cultural backgrounds into account or how I should go about improving their standard. Somehow, the students and I survived and profited from the first course. During that first course and later in subsequent ones, I came to recognise that the students, independent of their various scientific and cultural backgrounds, shared many common problems in writing scientific English. To address these problems, I developed a series of guidelines and exercises to turn, as rapidly as possible, the students' school English into the formal English required for scientific texts. These guidelines and exercises, modified over the years to incorporate ideas on avoiding plagiarism, form the first part of this workbook.

The second part of this book uses work from former students to illustrate how to improve the first draft of a scientific text. This skill, essential to scientific writing, is one that almost every student who has taken the course needed to reflect on and to practise. I know from my own experience how difficult it is to improve a text written in a language other than one's native tongue. I hope that the exercises will be an asset to the reader in becoming proficient in improving scientific texts in English.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the students, colleagues, friends and family members without whose support both course and workbook would not have seen the light of day. A very special thank-you goes to the 21 students who responded so quickly and positively to my request to be able to use their work. Their texts add an unconventional feature to the book. Without them, this would be just another book on writing scientific English. Special mention also goes to my colleagues Rainer Prohaska, who first suggested that I teach a course on scientific English, and Hannes Klump, who suggested writing a workbook.

I would like to express my gratitude to Tanja Kostic", Brooke Morriswood and Petra Schlick whose efforts greatly enhanced the quality and scope of the book. Tanja typed in the work of the former students and was instrumental in finding a way to show how the texts had been improved. She also made a significant contribution to the content and appearance of the model manuscript in chapter 4. Brooke did his best to make me kick the professorial habit of preaching and ensured that I remained steadfast in omitting needless words. Petra very carefully proofread the exercises and their improvements and put forward other numerous suggestions to strengthen the book. All three corrected innumerable errors and blunders. Those that remain are entirely my responsibility.

I also would like to specifically thank the following for their important contributions to the book: Martin Breuss, Susanne Dormayer, Maria Kalyna, Martina Kurz, Sergei Lapato, Julia Leodolter, Zdravko Lorkovic, Christiane Mair, Elisabeth Malle, Evelyn Missbach, Anna Mitterer, Angelika Mühlebner, David Neubauer, Sanda Pasc, Marianne Popp, Lucia T. Riedmann, Betty Skern, Marina Skern, Margarita Smidt, Lena Sokol, Jutta Steinberger, Friederike Turnowsky, Graham Warren, Philippa Warren, Junping Zhu and Melanie Zwirn.

Christian Kaier of Facultas AG efficiently shepherded the book through the production stages. Michael Karner performed wonders with the layout and remained commendably patient with my sometimes impossible requests. Robert Chionis not only carefully proofread the manuscript but also contributed to the clarity of the book and eliminated numerous Germanisms. I am grateful to all of you.

The idea for the content of the model manuscript was conceived during various visits to Cape Town. In return for this inspiration, all of my proceeds from this book will go to support Monwabisi Magoqi, a teacher on HIV and counsellor to AIDS patients in Khayelitsha near Cape Town. Supporting Monwa is a more effective way of fighting AIDS than any research I might ever do.

Tim Skern, Cape Town, August 2008

Preface to the second edition

His speech is like an entangled chain; not impaired, but completely disordered.

W. SHAKESPEARE (A Mid-Summer Night's Dream)

Amongst the feedback from the first edition were two suggestions for material for the second edition. The first was to expand on the idea that the writing of a scientific manuscript begins during the planning and execution of the experiments. The new chapter 6 grew out of this suggestion and contains more of my thoughts on this theme. The second idea was to provide support for pronouncing scientific English and giving scientific presentations in English. My hints and guidelines on these topics can be found in the DVD at the back of the book.

Alwin Köhler, Tanja Kostic, Brooke Morriswood, Ortrun Mittelsten Scheid, Ulrike Seifert and Graham Warren gave invaluable support in the development of the new chapter. I am grateful to Christian Kaier, Walter Größbauer and Josef Wagner for their professional production of the DVD, to Jennifer L. Boots for the audio file with the American pronunciation and Lucia T. Riedmann for the drawings that form the background to the credits. Very special thanks go to Martina Dötsch who was such an enthusiastic partner in the dialogue on speaking scientific English. I am grateful to the Medical University of Vienna for permission to film my lecture on “Communicating Science in English”.

Tim Skern, Vienna, August 2011

The videos from the second edition are now available: https://www.facultas.at/skern#7 Lecture, Interview, Pronunciation(UK), Pronunciation(US)

Preface to third edition

In the ten years since the publication of the first edition of this book, I have substantially refined and harmonised the comments that I make when correcting the assignments of my students. The third edition takes these changes into account. Two new manuscripts in chapter 5 use these harmonised comments; the list of the comments themselves can be found in box 7.2. This edition also contains four new abstracts that illustrate specific problems that constantly recur in the students' assignments. Chapter 8 contains eight new exercises that are based on texts that I use in my class to provide practice in summary writing and data analysis. In addition, six new videos were made for this edition in order to demonstrate my approach to supporting students in giving scientific talks in English. I hope that you will find the approach useful for preparing your presentations. The first video sets the scene and introduces the speakers. Videos two to five contain three minute speeches given by former students of my courses; at the end of each speech, the student receives a brief feedback. In the sixth video, one of the students interviews me on how best to obtain a place in a laboratory for an Erasmus stay abroad. The videos can be accessed via the QR code in section 7.4.

A further change in the third edition is the absence of the two texts that were reprinted from the journal Nature. This change resulted from an enormous increase in the copyright fees that Nature now charges compared to 2011. The texts should however be available to most readers through an institutional subscription to Nature.

I thank the six students who so readily gave their permission to use their work. William Dundon and Gijs Versteeg kindly offered excerpts from the reviewers' comments on their manuscripts. Peter Wittmann and Carina Glitzner from Facultas AG provided invaluable support in the production of this new edition. Special thanks to Barbara Füzi, Ralf Jansen, Helene Mössl and Tomaž Rozmarič for their enthusiastic participation in the videos and to Walter Größbauer and Istvan Pajor for their professional expertise in producing them.

Tim Skern, Vienna, April 2019

How to use this workbook

Chapters 1 and 2 of the workbook comprise guidelines and a basic scientific lexicon that will support you in writing the English employed in scientific texts. Familiarise yourself with them and then practise their application by carrying out the exercises in chapter 3. Compare your responses to the exercises to those of former students. Look at the suggestions (sets of comments and commands with blue numbers) for improving these texts and then try to strengthen your work in the same way. At the end of the first three chapters, you should be more confident in writing formal English and able to ask critical questions about your own written work.

Taking the material from the first three chapters as its basis, chapter 4 generates a model manuscript based on imaginary experiments to illustrate how to write and strengthen a scientific manuscript. Chapter 5 proposes themes for writing your own texts and model manuscripts so that you can apply the ideas from chapter 4. Again, compare your manuscripts with those of the former students and note how they have been further modified. Correct your work in the same way. Chapter 6 offers an alternative approach to start writing your manuscripts and shows how experimentation and communication are linked.

At this point, your English should be approaching the style found in scientific texts and manuscripts and you should be gaining in confidence. It is important, however, that you continue to polish your English and that you appreciate that writing skills can always be sharpened. Chapters 7 and 8 are both designed with this goal in mind. Chapter 7 presents several suggestions how readers can continue to consolidate their scientific writing. Chapter 8 lists the pages of the book on which words marked in italics are printed. These comprise the basic scientific lexicon in chapter 1, important linking words from box 1.4 as well as a further hundred or so useful words for scientific writing. Browsing through chapter 8 and carrying out some of the exercises in this chapter should greatly increase the number of words at your disposal. There is also space at the end of chapter 8 for you to add words that you meet during your reading.

Contents

Chapter 1

An introduction to scientific English

1.1 Advantages and disadvantages of English

1.1.1 British or American?

1.2 Formal English, the language of science

1.2.1 Complete sentences

1.2.2 Punctuation marks

1.2.3 Write out all verb forms

1.2.4 Avoid starting sentences with “and”, “but”, “because” or “so”

1.2.5 Avoid ending sentences with “too”, “also”, “though” or “yet”

1.2.6 Avoid “get”

1.2.7 Avoid vagueness, sensationalism and exaggeration

1.2.8 Using “the” and “a”

1.3 Words for writing scientific English

1.4 Take-home messages from Chapter 1

1.5 References

1.6 Improvements to exercises

Chapter 2

Writing clear scientific English

2.1 Eight guidelines for improving your writing technique

2.1.1 Make a plan

2.1.2 Use a clean and legible layout

2.1.3 Use paragraphs

2.1.4 Write simple sentences

2.1.5 Write positive sentences

2.1.6 Write active sentences

2.1.7 Omit needless words

2.1.8 Read and think about your work

2.2 Just to make you feel better

2.3 Take-home messages from Chapter 2

2.4 References

2.5 Improvements to exercises

Chapter 3

Applying the fundamentals

3.1 Summarising the text “Fighting for Breath”

3.2 Improving four summaries of “Fighting for Breath”

3.3 Writing abstracts for scientific presentations

3.4 Improving four abstracts

3.5 What is science?

3.6 Improving four texts on “What is science?”

3.7 The five most common commands and comments from improved texts in Chapter 3

3.8 Take-home messages from Chapter 3

3.9 References

Chapter 4

Constructing a scientific manuscript

4.1 The process of publishing original data in a scientific manuscript

4.2 Planning a scientific manuscript

4.3 Writing a scientific manuscript

4.3.1 Prepare the figures and tables

4.3.2 Describe the figures and tables

4.3.3 Write a first draft of the “results”

4.3.4 Write a first draft of the “discussion”

4.3.5 What about writing a combined section entitled “results and discussion”?

4.3.6 Write a first draft of the “introduction”

4.3.7 Write a first draft of the “title”, the “abstract” and the “keywords”

4.3.8 Write a first draft of “materials and methods”

4.3.9 List and sort the references

4.3.10 Write the “acknowledgements”

4.3.11 Write the “abbreviations”

4.4 Assembling and improving the model manuscript

4.4.1 First draft of the model manuscript

4.5 Editing and refining a scientific manuscript

4.5.1 Improved model manuscript

4.6 Take-home messages from Chapter 4

4.7 References

Chapter 5

Practising writing and improving scientific manuscripts

5.1 Improving the quality of bread

5.2 Your views on human activity and global warming

5.3 Measuring biodiversity

5.4 Stereotypic Man

5.5 Searching for the best firewood to reduce global warming

5.6 Is there a connection between eating organic food and cigarette smoking?

5.7 The six most common commands and comments from improved texts in Chapter 5

5.8 Take-home messages from Chapter 5

5.8 References

Chapter 6

Easing the pain: writing whilst researching

Chapter 7

On your own

7.1 Resources

7.2 The comments that I use to correct texts in my course

7.3 A reading list to improve your vocabulary and your scientific writing

7.4 Some tips for oral presentations

7.5 References

Chapter 8

The scientific vocabulary of this book

8.1 Linking words

8.2 Words from the basic scientific lexicon

8.3 Words that extend the basic scientific lexicon

8.4 Exercises using texts from Nature and Science

8.5 References

8.6 Words that you wish to add

List of boxes

1.1 Terminating difficulties in English spelling

1.2 Fooling a spellchecker

1.3 Names of musical notes

1.4 Words for linking sentences in scientific writing

1.5 Guidelines for using “a” and “the”

1.6 Practising the use of the articles “the” and “a” in English

1.7 A basic lexicon for scientific writing

2.1 Shortening sentences by splitting them into two

2.2 Positive and negative sentences

2.3 Omit needless words!

2.4 Vocabulary of “A word in your ear” (Campbell, 1998)

3.1 Summarise the text “Fighting for breath”

3.2 Identifying problems in written work

3.3 Who takes part in a clinical study or trial?

3.4 „What is science?“ Answer this question in less than 300 words

3.5 Scientists on science

3.6 Using the words „prove“ and „disprove“

4.1 The steps in constructing and publishing a scientific manuscript

4.2 What is an impact factor and how is it calculated?

4.3 Sections of a scientific manuscript and the information they contain

4.4 A manuscript without sections

4.5 Suggested order for planning and writing the sections of a scientific manuscript

4.6 Figures 1 and 2 for the model manuscript

4.7 Figure legends

4.8 Results

4.9 Arranging the figures, figure legends and results for cohesive writing 108

4.10 Discussion

4.11 Results and discussion

4.12 Introduction

4.13 Two versions of the abstract

4.14 Title and keywords

4.15 Materials and methods

5.1 Stereotypic man

5.2 Number, amount, volume and concentration

6.1 Explaining an experimental problem to a colleague

7.1 Words from Shakespeare for use in scientific writing

7.2 My current thirty-three comments for correcting texts

Chapter 1An introduction to scientific English

It is well-known that, in grammatical terms, languages are more perfect the older they are and that they always become gradually worse, from high Sanskrit down to English jargon, this patchwork cloak of thoughts stitched together from rags of heterogeneous material.

(Bekanntlich sind die Sprachen, namentlich in grammatischer Hinsicht, desto vollkommener, je älter sie sind, und werden stufenweise immer schlechter – vom hohen Sanskrit an bis zum englischen Jargon herab, diesem aus Lappen heterogener Stoffe zusammengeflickten Gedankenkleide.)

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER

The chapter begins by looking at the advantages and disadvantages of English as the language of scientific communication, presents some guidelines on how to write the formal English found in scientific writing and ends by suggesting a basic vocabulary for written scientific communication.

1.1Advantages and disadvantages of English

English has become today's language of science through historical events, not through any inherent characteristics that make it better suited to the task. Fortunately, English does have many positive characteristics that make it suitable for scientific writing. However, some negative ones also make it less than ideal. The positive characteristics include a relatively straightforward grammar and an enormously rich vocabulary; the irregular pronunciation and the inconsistent spelling are two negative ones.

The straightforward grammar makes it relatively simple to construct sentences. The order of words is uncomplicated and there is no need to worry about the gender of nouns or about the appropriate ending of an adjective. Changes in the verb endings are also limited. Nevertheless, it is the verbs, with their large number of tenses, that do cause the most difficulty in applying English grammar.

English's richness of vocabulary gives writers a tremendous flexibility in the words they can choose. Where does this wonderful richness of vocabulary originate? One source lies in English's French, German and Scandinavian roots. As a consequence, English often has both a French- and a German-based word for the same thing or concept. The pairs of words “infancy” and “childhood”, “judicious” and “wise”, “malady” and “sickness” and “transmit” and “send” are just a few examples. A second source of variety in English is the habit of English-speaking people to absorb words from other languages. For instance, the word “robot” originates from the word in many Slav languages for work; in contrast, the words “alcohol” and “elixir” have an Arabic origin. The excellent website www.krysstal.com/borrow.html lists the hundreds of words that English has assimilated over the centuries. Schopenhauer was quite correct in describing English as a patchwork language.

In his book “Mother Tongue: The English Language”, Bill Bryson states that this richness ofvocabulary gives English an advantage over many other languages. He proposes that a language with a wider vocabulary has more ways to express the same thought. This may be true, but a wide vocabulary is not necessary to express one's ideas. The writer Ernest Hemingway was famous for using a limited range of words. Nevertheless, he was still able to articulate powerful emotions and describe profound thoughts.

The two negative characteristics of English mentioned above do, however, place it at a distinct disadvantage compared to other languages. The irregular and often seemingly perverse pronunciation means that even native English speakers will have no idea how to pronounce a word with which they are unfamiliar. How difficult is it then for non-native speakers to learn to pronounce English correctly? How can one explain that the important scientific words “mature” and “nature” are pronounced differently? How could a young person who had lived for a year in Hollywood as a teenager and who spoke English with an excellent American accent mispronounce the words “nitrogen” and “oxygen”? These two gases are not normally words that teenagers frequently use. Without having heard their pronunciation, it is hard to know that they rhyme with Ben and not with bean. This book is, however, only concerned with writing. A discussion on the vagaries of pronunciation can wait for another day.

Spelling is, in contrast, essential for accurate scientific writing. It is vital that students are aware of the problems. The most frequent ones are presented in box 1.1, with suggestions how a famous native German speaker might terminate them. Perhaps these changes will one day become reality. Until then, spelling will remain an item to be considered carefully in scientific manuscripts. One way of reducing the difficulties is to switch on a spellchecker and set it to correct when typing. Special words or abbreviations that are specific to a particular field can be constantly added to the main dictionary. In this way, the spellchecker can be trusted to correct spelling during typing. If it cannot correct a word, then that word will need attention. If you do not like your spellchecker to make decisions itself, turn off this option and manually check the words marked by the spellchecker. There is nothing wrong with this; you may even learn something. It is simply more time-consuming.

A spellchecker is, however, not perfect. At present, a spellchecker will fail to determine whether a word should be written in the singular or plural. Furthermore, it cannot deal with words that do exist in a language but that are used incorrectly. The thirteen sentences in box 1.2 provide twelve such words. See if you can find them. Remember to keep an eye open for such errors when you read your work.

The grammar checker of Word 2019 is also a useful tool. It detects repeated words, sentences that do not start with a capital letter and unnecessary spaces. Its range also extends to more complex difficulties such as highlighting incomplete sentences, marking a lack of agreement between the subject and verb (e. g. “the majority of scientists is conservative”, not “the majority of scientists are conservative”) and highlighting incorrect tense constructions.

Like spellcheckers, grammar checkers are not foolproof and are to be used with care. Nevertheless, even if they are inaccurate, you still have to work out why the grammar checker has queried your writing. Anything that makes you contemplate what you have written and consider other possibilities will positively contribute to the quality of your text.

Box 1.1Terminating difficulties in English spelling

This text lists most of the peculiarities of English spelling and offers some humorous suggestions to eliminate them. The text circulated by email at the time of ex-Governor Schwarzenegger's inauguration and can still be found in many internet forums. I am grateful to the anonymous author. Read it out aloud to hear how it sounds!

A New Language For California

The new Californian Governor has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the state, rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, the Terminator's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5-year phase-in plan that would become known as “Austro-English” (or, perhaps even better, “Austrionics”). In the first year, “s” will replace the soft “c”. Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard “c” will be dropped in favour of the “k”. This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome “ph” will be replaced with the “f”. This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter. In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent “e” in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away. By the 4th yer peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing “th” with “z” and “w” with “v”. During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary “o” kan be dropd from vords kontaining “ou” and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru. If zis mad yu smil, pleas pas it on to oza pepl.

Box 1.2Fooling a spellchecker

Word 2010's spellchecker considers the spelling of all the words below as being correct. Nevertheless, each sentence except one possesses a word that is spelled wrongly because it is used in an incorrect context. Find these twelve misspelled words and identify the one correct sentence without a spelling mistake. The solutions are given in section 1.6.1.

1. You must proof that two plus two equals four!

2. A prove that two plus two equals four is given on the first page.

3. Vaccines safe lives.

4. Spellcheckers chance the way we read our texts.

5. The theory of global warming remains to be proven.

6. Spellcheckers effect our ability to spell.

7. How do tortoises remain a life when hibernating?

8. Only a few scientists have received two Nobel Prices.

9. The affect of technology on the environment is substantial.

10. We loose the loose screw.

11. We judge how we live our lives form our own perspective.

12. The ability to write concisely and accurately is not heredity.

13. The price of the prize was a surprize.

1.1.1British or American?

Students have many questions at the beginning of a new course. The above question concerning the English to choose for their spellchecker is the most common. A frequent variant, often posed by post-graduate students and post-docs, is whether American English must be used to write a manuscript that will be submitted to an American journal. The answer to both questions is that it is not important which variant of English you choose. It is far more important that your English is clear, comprehensible and concise. An editor of a journal will not reject a manuscript because the spelling, vocabulary and punctuation are from an English-speaking person situated on another continent. Setting commas in the American way or writing “sulphate” instead of “sulfate” will not affect the fate of your manuscript. Once a journal accepts a scientific manuscript for publication, the production department will use its own spellchecker and software to put the manuscript into the style of the journal.

If you are just beginning to write scientific manuscripts, consider using American English. Two characteristics make it easier to learn and to use. First, spelling in American English is simpler and less perverse than in British English. Second, American English is younger than British English. The grammar of American English has, as predicted by Schopenhauer, become less perfect than British English. One example of this greater simplicity is the absence from American English of certain prepositions that British English absolutely requires. Thus, the British journal “Nature” might write “On Monday, the students protested against the removal of scientific writing from their curriculum.” In contrast, the American journal “Science” would structure the sentence with two fewer prepositions: “Monday, the students protested the removal of scientific writing from their curriculum.” The use of prepositions in any language is usually tricky. Anything which eliminates two of them at a stroke must make a writer's life easier.

Further evidence to support the hypothesis that American English is simpler than British English comes from a comparison of the names of musical notes (box 1.3). The American system is straightforward and logical. The British system is complicated and not very informative. Three of the words say nothing about the property of the note. The word “semibreve” seems to indicate half of something, but it actually describes a full note. The word “breve”, meaning two notes, did exist, but it has become obsolete. There are many other examples of illogical words in British English. Non-native speakers may even have the feeling that the team of Monty Python's Flying Circus was involved in developing British English. The habitually bizarre and unpredictable nature of British English was perhaps one of the reasons why Monty Python's Flying Circus could only have originated in Great Britain.

In summary, do not waste time thinking about your choice of English. Concentrate instead on the guidelines and suggestions in this and the following chapter. They are much more likely to improve the quality of your manuscript than your choice of English. Readers will remember the quality of your manuscript and its advance in knowledge. They will not remember whether your manuscript contained American or British English.

Box 1.3Names of musical notes

Musical note | American English | British English
| full note | semibreve
half note | minim
quarter note | crotchet
eighth note | quaver
sixteenth note | semiquaver
thirty-second note | demisemiquaver
sixty-fourth note | hemidemisemiquaver
hundred twenty-eighth note | semihemidemisemiquaver

1.2Formal English, the language of science

Formal English is quite different from the English found in novels, newspapers, emails and social media accounts. In formal English, words are chosen to fit a certain style and are written out in full. In addition, all sentences are complete, linked together and properly punctuated. This section provides guidelines on writing this type of English.

1.2.1Complete sentences

What is a complete sentence? A complete sentence relates a finished thought or action. An incomplete sentence leaves the reader searching for the full meaning or with the impression that something vital has been omitted. The exercises 3.6.2, 5.2.1 and 5.3.1 provide examples of incomplete or poorly constructed sentences for you to identify and improve.

Scientific manuscripts may, however, contain incomplete sentences as part of their title. Titles such as “Measurement of the speed of the expansion of the Universe” or “Discovery of a new gene linked to Alzheimer's disease” are quite common. Similarly, the titles of the figures showing the data are often incomplete sentences. There are two reasons why titles are sometimes written in this way. The first is that they sound punchier, in the same way that newspaper headlines are often not complete sentences. The second is to reduce the number of characters required. Many journals often have quite strict limitations on the number of characters in the title.

1.2.2Punctuation marks

Punctuation marks are essential information signs for the reader. They include: full stops (.), commas (,), semi-colons (;), colons (:), question marks (?), exclamation marks (!), quotation marks (“”) and brackets (). Full stops, signifying the end of a sentence, are relatively straightforward to use. In contrast, the other punctuation marks are often a source of uncertainty. This section contains some suggestions that should ensure that most of your punctuation marks are correct. Do not worry about the remainder. A journal will not return your manuscript just because some commas are in the wrong place.

1.2.2.1The comma

Commas are perhaps the greatest source of difficulty. Life can, however, be simplified by the realisation that there are basically only three situations in scientific English in which commas are necessary. There is also one situation in which a comma is not necessary. These four situations are outlined below.

Use commas when making a list such as “u, v, x, y and z”. British English does not require a comma before “and” whereas American English does. The presence or absence of a comma before the “and” will not affect the success of your manuscript. In the related list “p, q, r as well as t”, neither British nor American English requires a comma before “as well”.

Use commas as weaker brackets to show material that is not central to the sentence. You might want to write the following sentence.

“Our latest results, obtained using a recently developed technique, also support our overall hypothesis.”

The information between the commas provides extra information which is not essential to understand the meaning of the sentence.

Use a comma after a linking word (that is words such as “however”, “furthermore”, “additionally”) at the start of a sentence, or after a phrase that qualifies or introduces the main part of the sentence. This will tell the reader where to look for the main part of the sentence. For instance, look closely at the following sentence.

“As expected, levels of bacterial growth increased during the course of the illness.”

Try reading the sentence without the comma and you will notice how the meaning changes. Here are further examples of this comma in scientific writing:

“To investigate this idea, we performed the experiment in Figure 1.”

“Although these guidelines do not show every possible use of the comma, they are very useful.”

“Provided that you are careful in its use, a spellchecker is a valuable tool.

Do not use a comma before “that” in a sentence such as “We showed that this hypothesis is false.” Unlike some other languages, this is one situation in which a comma in English is not needed.

1.2.2.2The semi-colon

The semi-colon should be used to divide a sentence into two halves when the second half expands upon or qualifies the first. When should you use a semi-colon and when a full-stop? A semi-colon is necessary when the two halves of the sentence are part of the same thought. If they are not, the two halves of the sentence are bona fide complete sentences and a full-stop is necessary. Never use more than one semi-colon per sentence.

1.2.2.3The colon

Use the colon only in the following two circumstances. The first is to introduce a list, as the next sentence illustrates.

“We measured the following physiological parameters of competitive skiers: pulse rate, blood pressure, oxygen consumption and lactate concentration.”

The second circumstance in which a colon can be used is to divide the title of a manuscript into two halves. The first half of the sentence introduces the global subject area. The second half states the part of this area under investigation. This strategy eliminates the verb and saves characters. Examples might be “Global warming: the contribution of deforestation” or “Biodiversity: the impact of abolishing lawn mowing”. These titles are further examples of incomplete sentences that are allowed in scientific writing.

1.2.2.4The question mark

Question marks are used frequently in scientific manuscripts because asking questions is a fundamental scientific activity. The “introduction” section to a manuscript may pose a specific question that the experiments in the results are designed to answer. The “results” section may use questions to introduce why specific avenues of investigation were taken. Posing questions in the “discussion” section is a lively way of bringing in a new interpretation or moving to a related topic.

1.2.2.5The exclamation mark

Exclamation marks, expressing surprise or an order, are almost completely absent from scientific writing. You may need them in your emails, blogs and text messages, but you can forget about them in your thesis and your manuscripts.

1.2.2.6Quotation marks

Quotation marks are used in scientific English to indicate that you have taken a phrase or sentence from a piece of work and have used it directly without any modification. Direct quotes from written work by another author should always contain a reference to that work. There is no law which says how many or how long direct quotes should be. If you have read some scientific manuscripts, you will have noticed that direct quotes are rare. Scientists prefer to describe the work of others in their own words and give a reference to the original paper. Such sentences take the form of “Smith and Jones (Smith and Jones, 20xx) reported that A is converted into B” or “Li and Yu provided evidence that X can be generated from Y (Li and Yu, 19xx).” It is a sign of scientific maturity when you can express the work of others in your own words.

1.2.2.7Brackets

Brackets are the best way of marking text that is not essential to understand the meaning of a sentence. Do not use a dash (—) or a hyphen (-) for this purpose. Brackets are preferable because they are directional and thus inform the reader where to look for the start and end of the inessential text.

A very useful application of brackets is to contain lists of examples preceded by “e. g.” (exempli gratia or example given) or explanations preceded by “i. e.” (id est or that is). This strategy avoids using the abbreviations as part of a sentence. Look at the following sentence.

“Anti-viral agents are available to combat several viruses e. g. HIV, influenza virus and herpes virus.”

The presence of “e. g.” as part of the sentence is considered poor style. The style can be rapidly improved by inserting the list between a pair of brackets.

“Anti-viral agents are available to combat several viruses (e. g. HIV, influenza virus and herpes virus).”

1.2.3Write out all verb forms

There are no shortened forms of verbs (e. g. “it's”, “isn't”, “can't”, “don't”) in formal English. Remember that “it's” is short for “it is” and has nothing to do with a possessive form of “it”. The following three sentences illustrate the difference.

“The powder is red. It's a red powder. Its colour is red.”

If you always write out the forms of verbs, this problem will disappear.

1.2.4Avoid starting sentences with “and”, “but”, “because” or “so”

Starting sentences with these words is considered to be poor style and not formal English. Words that you can use in their place are listed in box 1.4. These words are, together with the other words in this box, not just useful as sentence starters. They also serve to link sentences together and are thus a vital part of scientific writing. To support you in using these linking words, up to five illustrative examples of their use in this book are marked in italics. section 8.1 gives the pages on which these words are marked. In addition, the exercises in chapters 3 and 5 give plenty of opportunities to practise their use.

Box 1.4Words for linking sentences in scientific writing

Do you want to add further information to that contained in the previous sentence? Use words such as: “in addition”, “additionally”, “further”, “furthermore”, “indeed” or “moreover”. These words will enable you to avoid starting sentences with “and”.

Do you want to introduce contrasting or contradictory information to that contained in the previous sentence? Use words such as “however”, “in contrast”, “instead”, “nevertheless”, “occasionally”, “of course”, “on the contrary”, “conversely” or “otherwise”. These words will enable you to avoid starting sentences with “but”.

Do you want to start a sentence with “because”? Do not do so. Instead, combine this sentence with the previous one so that the word “because” leads into the second half of the sentence.

Do you want to introduce information that follows from the previous sentence? Then use words such as: “accordingly“, “as a result“, “consequently”, “hence”, “in short”, “subsequently“, “therefore”, “thus” or “to this end“. These words enable you to avoid starting sentences with “so”.

Other important linking words:

Giving examples: “for example“, “for instance“

Finishing up: “in summary“, “in short”, “in conclusion”, “taken together”

1.2.5Avoid ending sentences with “too”, “also”, “though” or “yet”

Using such words at the end of sentences is again considered to be poor style and not formal English.

1.2.6Avoid “get”

Formal English does not contain the word “get”. There are two reasons. First, “get” is considered poor style in a scientific manuscript. Second, the clarity of a sentence will always be improved by omitting “get” or by replacing it with more suitable words such as “have”, “receive”, “obtain”, “possess” or “become”. Similarly, phrases containing “get” can usually be replaced by a single word that more exactly expresses the idea. For example, there are several alternatives to “get rid of” (delete, eliminate, omit, remove) and to “get better” (ameliorate, improve, recover).

Here are two sentences that illustrate the problem.

“My supervisor got excited when I got some results using samples I got from Africa. However, she got angry when she got to know that I had got hold of them illegally.”

The improved text appears much more formal when “got” is omitted (after “samples”) or replaced.

“My supervisor became excited when I obtained some results using samples from Africa. However, she grew angry when she found out that I had acquired them illegally.”

1.2.7Avoid vagueness, sensationalism and exaggeration

Scientific writing should be accurate, appropriate and measured. To achieve greater accuracy, eliminate words such as “a lot”, “a bit” and “a little” in scientific writing. They have no value. Alternatives for “a lot” include: “several”, “many”, “certain”, “numerous”, “considerable”, “a plethora”, “a panoply”. Find your own alternatives for “a bit” and “a little” using the resources given in section 7.1.

Make your scientific writing appropriate by avoiding adjectives such as “amazing”, “incredible”, “unbelievable”, “stunning” or “spectacular”. In addition, do not end sentences with exclamation marks.

Absolute statements (e. g. “This hypothesis will never be falsified.”) and exaggerated accuracy (e. g. “Our results provide 100% proof of our theory.”) have no place in measured scientific writing.

1.2.8Using “the” and “a”

Emails and text messages are slowly leading the way to the elimination of “a” and “the” from the English language. Until they disappear completely, it is important to use them correctly in scientific English. In addition, their use often presents a special problem for those whose first language lacks such words. This includes speakers of Chinese, Japanese, the Slav languages and most African languages.

Box 1.5 presents some guidelines for their use. The three sentences below illustrate the use of the guidelines.

“During his voyages, Darwin noticed variation in animals. He became interested in a variation in the beaks of finches. Only a scientist with Darwin's background could have noticed the variation in these birds.”

The word “variation” appears once in each sentence. In its first appearance, it is not preceded by “a” or “the” because it is a universal concept (guideline 3). In the second sentence, “variation” is preceded by “a” because the variation in the beaks is just one of many that Darwin observed (guideline 1). In the third sentence, “variation” is preceded by “the” because the variation is the specific one referred to in the second sentence (guideline 2).

Box 1.6 provides a further opportunity to practise using the guidelines for “the” and “a”.

Box 1.5Guidelines for using “the” and “a”

1. If you use a word to refer to something that is common (to be strictly accurate, something that occurs more than once in the universe), you will need to put “a” in front of that word. If the word begins with a vowel, you will need “an”. “A” and “an” are never used before words in the plural. Examine the use of “a” and “an” in the sentences below.

“There is a big mess on my desk.”

“We did an experiment to verify this.”

There are many messes on many desks in the universe. Many experiments are done every day.

2. You always need “the” if the thing you are referring to is specific, even though there are many of them. The following sentences follow on from those above.

“The big mess on my desk is growing.”

“The experiment verified our hypothesis.”

The mess and the experiment were specified in the sentences above. This excludes all other messes and experiments, wherever they are and whenever they occurred.

3. You do not need “a” or “the” at all if the word you are using covers a universal concept or has a general meaning.

“Messes are often interesting.”

“Experiments form the basis of science.”

4. Some words that are universal concepts can also be used specifically and therefore require “the” The word “hygiene” is a good example.

“Hygiene is important in hospitals.”

“The hygiene in the old hospital is poor.”

5. You do not need “a” or “the” if a word indicating possession (e. g. “my, its, their”) precedes the thing you are describing.

Box 1.6Practising the use of the articles “the” and “a” in English

The text below is based on an abstract written by a student whose first language does not use this type of article. The original has been modified to make it more accessible, whilst keeping the errors in the use of “the” and “a.” The idea of “patient-specific design of medicines” is fictitious but it fits well with the original text. Read the text, concentrating on the position and presence or absence of the articles “the” and “a”. Some are used correctly, some used incorrectly. Occasionally, an article is missing completely. Each sentence needs at least one correction. Use the guidelines to decide how to improve the text. My suggestions are to be found in section 1.6.2.

Patient-specific design of medicines (PSDM) is novel method which was first described by Smith and Jones. PSDM method is based on the conventional designs modified by using alternative gene-based protocol. Main feature of the PSDM approach is its high specificity of treatment. The principle of the PSDM approach is depicted in the Figure 1.

Using PSDM method, we observe the shift in the specificity of the treatment. During the normal design of medicines, specificity is obtained from experience of the scientists. In the PSDM method, the specificity is obtained from the genes of the patient. Specificity of the PSDM method can be augmented by adding information from the family members. The PSDM method is estimated to increase specificity by factor of five.

1.3Words for writing scientific English

Words don't come easy.

F.R. DAVID

The English language has, as mentioned in section 1.1, a rich vocabulary. Nevertheless, box 1.7 presents a suggestion for a basic scientific lexicon that contains only about 200 of the thousands of words available. Learn the meaning of these words and use them actively in your writing. If you can exploit the words from this lexicon, your scientific writing will rapidly become stronger and more mature.

The majority of the words from the basic scientific lexicon were used in writing this book. Up to five illustrative examples of their use in this book are marked in italics. section 8.2 provides the pages on which the marked words can be found. If the use of a word in this book does not make its meaning clear, refer to a dictionary or a thesaurus.

An alternative approach to finding the meaning of a word from box 1.7 is to look for words in scientific databases. Examples of these databases include PubMed (www.pubmed.gov) or Google Scholar (scholar.google. com); others are listed in section 7.1. Searching these databases for an unknown word will provide you with many articles that have your word of interest in the title or in the abstract. From these, you should be able to obtain hints on the meaning of the word and see how it is used in scientific writing. As an exercise, try to determine the meaning of the important scientific words “purport”, “pinpoint”, “feasible”, “plausible” and “flaw” by typing them into PubMed. Actively investigating the meaning of words in this way will help you to use them more regularly in your own writing.

Box 1.7A basic lexicon for scientific writing

Verbs

accumulate

adapt

affect

ask

assay

attempt

cause

cite

compare

conclude

confirm

confuse

consider

correlate

decline

decrease

deduce

demonstrate

describe

destroy

detect

deteriorate

disprove

disturb

document

evidence

explain

falsify

find

follow

illustrate

increase

indicate

induce

infer

interest

invent

investigate

judge

maintain

observe

oppose

pinpoint

point to

propose

prove

purport

quantify

quote

record

remain

repeat

reproduce

require

screen

search

shed light on

show

solve

strengthen

suggest

support

survive

test

treat

try

underline

vary

verify

work

Nouns

absence

activation

analysis

answer

appearance

application

attempt

background

blank

cause

chance

change

citation

clue

component

condition

conflict

consequence

constant

control

curve

data

decrease

difference

discovery

discrepancy

distribution

dose-response

effect

enigma

equilibrium

event

evidence

exclusion

experiment

figure

flaw

function

graph

hint

hypothesis

idea

illustration

image

inclusion

increase

incubation

ingredient

input

interaction

level

mechanism

mock

model

mystery

observation

output

panel

paradox

parameter

participant

pathway

performance

period

possibility

prerequisite

presence

process

product

question

ratio

reason

relevance

report

research

result

role

signal

situation

solution

specificity

structure

synthesis

table

target

theory

variable

variation

variety

version

volunteer

work

Adjectives and adverbs

able

active

actually

affected

artificial

associated

aware

capable

certain

closely

consistent

contradictory

correct

dependent

detrimental

essential

exactly

exclusively

external

feasible

frequent

incorrect

internal

inversely

likely

limited

linear

multiple

necessary

noteworthy

particular

pertinent

plausible

poorly

previous

prior

proportional

putative

random

relevant

resistant

robust

severe

significant

similarly

simultaneous

unable

variable

1.4Take-home messages from Chapter 1

❚ Use a spellchecker

❚ Use formal English

❚ Use linking words

❚ Use words from a basic scientific lexicon

1.5References
Books

Bryson, B. (1990) Mother Tongue: The English Language.

Websites

http://scholar.google.com

www.krysstal.com/borrow.html

www.pubmed.gov

1.6Improvements to exercices
1.6.1Solutions to box 1.2 “Fooling a spellchecker”

1. You must prove that two plus two equals four!

2. A proof that two plus two equals four is given on the first page.

3. Vaccines save lives.

4. Spellcheckers change the way we read our texts.

5. The theory of global warming remains to be proven.

6. Spellcheckers affect our ability to spell.

7. How do tortoises remain alive when hibernating?

8. Only a few scientists have received two Nobel Prizes.

9. The effect of technology on the environment is substantial.

10. We lose the loose screw.

11. We judge how we live our lives from our own perspective.

12. The ability to write concisely and accurately is not hereditary.

13. The price of the prize was a surprise.

1.6.2Improvements to box 1.6 “Practising the use of the articles “the” and “a” in English”.

The patient-specific design of medicines (PSDM) is a novel method which was first described by Smith and Jones. The PSDM method is based on conventional designs modified by using an alternative gene-based protocol. The main feature of the PSDM approach is its high specificity of treatment. The principle of the PSDM approach is depicted in Figure 1.

Using the PSDM method, we observe a shift in the specificity of the treatment. During the normal design of medicines, specificity is obtained from the experience of the scientists. In the PSDM method, specificity is obtained from the genes of the patient. The specificity of the PSDM method can be augmented by adding information from family members. The PSDM method is estimated to increase specificity by a factor of five.

Chapter 2Writing clear scientific English

Put it before them briefly so that they will read it.

Clearly so they will appreciate it.

Picturesquely so they will remember it.

And, above all, accurately so they will be guided by its light.

JOSEPH PULITZER

This chapter contains eight guidelines specifically designed to transform school or college English into scientific English. Although the guidelines were selected with non-native speakers in mind, they are also helpful to native speakers. Remember that English as a first language is not a passport to writing clear scientific English. Indeed, non-native speakers who master this chapter may be on the way to writing better scientific English than native speakers.

Any book on how to write good English is certain to contain seven of the guidelines. The one exception, the guideline “Omit needless words!”, is unique to the book “The Elements of Style” by W. Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White. This book, first published in 1918 and still in print, remains the best book available on writing good English. Its 105 pages can now be accessed for free at www.bartleby.com/141.

2.1Eight guidelines for improving your writing technique

The eight guidelines are discussed in detail in the sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.8. The accompanying exercises as well as those in chapter 3 are designed to help you gain experience in applying the guidelines. Chapter 5 provides further opportunities for practice.

2.1.1Make a plan

A plan is essential for any piece of writing. Before writing, divide the work into sections. For each section, make a list of the relevant points to be included and order them according to themes. Each of these themes can then be developed later into a paragraph. For instance, in the introduction to a scientific manuscript, the relevant points might be the overall field in which your interest lies, the specific area that you are working on and the question that you addressed. Each of these points would form the basis of one or more paragraphs in the introduction.

The plan should give an initial overview of how the work will look after writing. Naturally, the plan cannot account for all contingencies and may have to be modified to accommodate insertions and deletions as well as extensive rearrangement of the text.

2.1.2Use a clean and legible layout

A clean and legible layout is vital to the success of written work. A poorly laid out piece of work may discourage the reader and prevent him or her from discovering its contents. The following five simple suggestions for a clean and legible layout of an A4 page are based on the requirements of the majority of scientific journals for the preparation of manuscripts.

❚ Use double-spaced text

This stops the text from appearing crowded and allows the reader to write comments and corrections between the lines.

❚ Use justified format

This makes the text fit to the page margins. Consequently, the reader's eye does not have to permanently adjust to a different line length.

❚ Use 12 point text with Arial or Helvetica as your standard font

In my opinion, Arial and Helvetica are fonts that are easy to read and are available on almost every computer. In contrast, Times Roman is much more tiring to read because the letters have different widths and thicknesses. Calibri, the default font of Word 2010, is also acceptable.

❚ Indent your paragraphs

To indent means to move the first line of a paragraph inwards.

❚ Use sub-headings

Using sub-headings in a long block of text informs the reader that the author is introducing a new topic.

2.1.3Use paragraphs

A paragraph is a collection of sentences on the same theme or topic. A paragraph can consist of just a single sentence, although this is unusual. Using paragraphs to collect ideas is the foundation of all writing. If you cannot use them, your thoughts will be incoherent and you will be unable to communicate them to other scientists.

The previous section recommended marking the start of a paragraph by indenting the first line. In your A4 manuscript, the indent should be at least one centimetre; otherwise, the start of the paragraph may not stand out clearly. An alternative option is to leave a blank line between paragraphs. However, be aware that if a blank line falls between two pages, the start of the paragraph may easily be overlooked.

A curious problem with paragraph structure has arisen with the widespread use of word-processing software. The problem stems from the symbol for a paragraph (¶), introduced with the “enter” or “return” key. This symbol should only be used at the end of a paragraph. A significant minority of students erroneously use this symbol at the end of each sentence.

If you are unsure about constructing paragraphs, the exercises in chapters 3 and 5 are designed to help you use them. Learn to recognise paragraphs by examining their structure in newspapers or journals. In your own writing, you should always ask yourself whether the paragraphs are correctly assembled and clearly mark all paragraphs requiring improvement.

2.1.4Write simple sentences

Sometimes one has difficult things to say, but one ought to say them as simply as one knows how.

G. H. HARDY

Simple sentences are the best way to express complex thoughts. If you are just starting out and English is not your first language, you may find it difficult to control the length of your sentences. If your first language is German, you may have a natural tendency to write sentences of obscene length. It is important that you put this tendency away when you write in English.

I offer two pieces of advice to students who have problems constructing simple sentences. First, use only one idea per sentence. Second, write your sentences as direct or straightforward statements. Such sentences (like this one) have the subject at the start. The verb and the object follow straight away. There is no long, explanatory phrase at the beginning of a direct sentence. There is no marginal information somewhere in the middle.

Another way to find out about direct sentences is to listen to how people talk to each other. People talk in short sentences, even in German. One of the secrets of the most able science writers is that they write as if they were speaking to the reader. This automatically leads them to use simple, straightforward sentences. Jacob Bronowski's wonderful book “The Ascent of Man” is a fine example. In the videos that accompany this book, two of the students very effectively empahsise this point by speaking in short, clear sentences (see section 7.4).

Box 2.1 provides you with four sentences that are too long. Can you split them into two? section 2.5.1 has some suggestions.

Writing short, straightforward sentences is a starting point. Of course, it is necessary to add minor points or to qualify the content of a sentence in scientific writing. For instance, a common construction to qualify the content in scientific writing is the escape route or disclaimer. In this construction, a scientist first makes a clear statement. A second part then follows, indicating that the statement is probably not true for every situation. For example, consider the following two sentences which a virologist might hopefully write one day.

“We have developed a vaccine against HIV. However, we have not yet tested it against all known strains of HIV.”

The second sentence qualifies the direct statement in the first. This allows the scientist to escape in case the vaccine is not universally applicable. The meaning is clearly expressed by the two sentences. However, combining the sentences connects the qualification or escape route more closely with the first sentence.

“We have developed a vaccine against HIV, although we have not yet tested it against all known strains of HIV.”

With more practice and experience, you can begin to construct sentences with more than one idea and qualify statements with one sentence as above. Always keep in mind, though, that simpler sentences are generally more manageable.

Box 2.1Shortening sentences by splitting them into two

These four sentences are too long and should be split into shorter ones. What would you suggest? Compare your ideas with mine in section 2.5.1.

1. To be a good scientist, you have to be tolerant and patient when experiments or interpretations do not turn out as you had predicted, you must be able to stand high levels of frustration.

2. 62% of certified drug addicts believe that cannabis has effects on the behaviour of car drivers and machine operators which lengthen their reaction time, 45% of students shared this opinion and only 38% of customers interviewed at discotheques were aware of this negative effect of cannabis.

3. Finally, the correlation has been clearly shown, even though not all parameters have as yet been investigated and further investigations have to be done.

4. This results in texts which are extremely difficult to read as well as revealing to the world that their authors are clueless about paragraph structure.

2.1.5Write positive sentences

What is the difference between positive and negative sentences? Negative sentences contain words such as “no”, “not”, “none”, “nor”, “nothing” and “never”. Positive sentences lack these words. Generally, positive sentences are easier to understand and more simple to construct than negative ones. Compare the following two versions of the same thought.

“Scientists for whom English is not their first language should not be at a disadvantage.”

“Scientists for whom English is a second language should have the same status as native speakers.”

Which was simpler to construct? Which do you think is more comprehensible? Box 2.2 gives you ten further examples to practise turning negative sentences into positive ones.

Here is another example with two negatives taken from the preface (p. xvi) to Fintan O’Toole’s excellent treatise “Heroic Failure” on how Brexit came about.

“Nor does this purport to be a profound analysis of the economic dislocations and insecurities without which English unhappiness could not have had such a dramatic result.”

Even the lady at the publisher who gave me permission to use the sentence agreed that this is quite a sentence. Here is a clearer version without any negatives.

“This (book) also avoids an analysis of the economic dislocations and insecurities that allowed English unhappiness to have such a dramatic result”.

Which version do you think is clearer? I also selected this sentence because it introduces you to the word “purport”, often used in science instead of pretend. “Purport” is often found in the introduction to an unfavourable review of a manuscript as in the following imaginary example.

“This manuscript purports to show a relationship between A and B. However, the manuscript fails to achieve this goal for the following reasons.”

If you are still unsure about the meaning of this word, you can find examples of its use by searching PubMed for abstracts that contain it.

I have tried to write positive sentences in this book. Clearly, it is impossible to permanently avoid negative words, so that there are quite a few negative sentences. It is just something to keep in mind. Check your work for complex negative sentences and try to keep them to a minimum.

Box 2.2Positive and negative sentences

Turn the following negative sentences into positive ones. They contain most of the standard negative constructions used in English. You may find some of the following words useful: absent, avoid, constant, contain, fail, ignore, lack, overlook, questionable, resistant. My suggestions can be found in section 2.5.2.

1. The experiment did not work.

2. No changes were observed in any of the variables tested.

3. There is not a piece of evidence supporting this hypothesis.

4. The variation was never more than 1%.

5. None of the alternative explanations seemed likely.

6. Neither the fear of global warming nor the number of fatal accidents influence car drivers.

7. Nothing is dangerous about this method.

8. No-one noticed the discrepancy between the two sets of data.

9. In none of the samples could the desired compound be found.

10. No less than eleven substances were present in the mixture.

2.1.6Write active sentences

What is the difference between active and passive sentences? “We mixed A and B” is an active sentence. “A and B were mixed together” is the passive version. Active sentences are more direct, shorter and clearer. Compare the following two versions of the same thought.

“The ability of the antibiotics to inhibit bacterial growth was examined by using standard techniques.” (15 words)

“We used standard techniques to examine the ability of antibiotics to inhibit bacterial growth.” (14 words)

The active sentence is much clearer. Here is another example, based on a sentence frequently found in scientific writing. Once again, the active version is preferable.

“The improved versions are presented in section x.” (8 words)

“Section x presents the improved versions.” (6 words)

Another motive for writing active sentences is that they are more natural. We do not speak in the passive. If you do not believe me, try explaining what you did today in the passive. “Coffee was drunk at breakfast. Afterwards, teeth were brushed.” Relating daily experiences in this way is not natural. Why then should we use the passive for scientific writing?

It is your decision whether you use more active sentences than passive ones. If you think you can transmit your thoughts better using passive sentences, then go ahead. Just remember though that good writing should sound as if you are speaking to someone.

2.1.7Omit needless words

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the command “Omit needless words!” originates from the book “The Elements of Style”. This concept of removing superfluous words often comes as a surprise to some students. Many share the conviction that high-class scientific writing requires numerous complicated words. The most productive step for such students on the path to writing more concisely is to abandon this belief.

Recognising and removing unnecessary words is, like many skills in writing, a question of practice. Several exercises in this book provide that practice and enable you to build up the experience to judge whether a word, a phrase, a sentence or a paragraph may be superfluous. As an example, examine the following two sentences.

“The fact that many young scientists need a significant amount of practice to improve their written communication skills is a case in point. It can be seen from the diagram in Figure 1 that those students who regularly handed in written work performed at a higher level than those who did not.”

The words at the beginning of the two sentences are typical phrases which turn up in scientific writing but which do not add to the meaning. The shortened versions are much more effective.

“Many young scientists need practice to improve their writing. Figure 1 shows that students who wrote regularly performed better.”

Discussion in class with my students on writing active or passive sentences invariably leads to the question whether it is acceptable to use “I” or “We” in scientific writing. Clearly, if I encourage the use of the active voice, I must also accept the use of first person pronouns. What about the scientific community as a whole? Ken Hyland and Kevin Jiang (2017) have provided data to answer this question. The authors noted an increase in the use of “I” and “We” in recent years in the natural sciences but less so in the social sciences. Thus, such sentences at least in the natural sciences are becoming more commonplace. My advice to my students at the end of the class discussions is pragmatic. If the writer feels that the clarity of the sentence benefits from “I” or “we”, then their use is justified.

Box 2.3 has a further six sentences with many needless words. section 2.5.3 presents the improved versions.

Box 2.3Omit needless words!

Rewrite the sentences to make them simpler. See how many words you can remove. My suggestions can be found in section 2.5.3.

1. It can be seen from Figure 1 that there is a significant correlation between the rate of growth of the incidence of cardiac-related disease and illness and the increasing frequency of the possession and use of a television.

2. It is a fact that 20% of the world's population has no clean water or enough to eat.

3. The effect of compound X on blood pressure has not yet been investigated in any detail.

4. Another important reason for this optimisation is the fact that we should try to get rid of pollution.

5. Synergy will lead to a significant reduction in the amount of funding required.

6. There is a considerable, if not extensive, body of literature dedicated to demonstrating that the Earth can be considered as a spherical body traversing a circular path around a similarly shaped, although significantly larger and completely different in nature, body which is in common parlance termed the Sun.

2.1.8Read and think about your work

If you have not read your work, why should anyone else? Do this on a printout as errors, inconsistencies and discrepancies are often very difficult to detect on the computer screen. In addition, the printout lets you compare different pages. This is very time-consuming on the monitor. For instance, if there are two abbreviations for the same chemical in various parts of the manuscript, it will be very difficult to find this inconsistency on the monitor.

Reading your work is only the first step toward improving it. You must also start to think critically about it. Put your writing into question. Does the text fit together? Read it out aloud to find out. Are the sentences too complex? Read them aloud to find out. Is the text written in formal English? Look at chapter 1 to check. Did you keep the guidelines from chapter 2 in mind whilst writing? Search again for complicated sentences and needless words. Simplify the sentences and omit the needless words. Did you think about the reader whilst writing? Do all the sentences express your thoughts so that the reader will understand them? These questions are the first steps on the way to writing a coherent text in scientific English. Box 3.2 has further suggestions to help you identify problems in written work.

2.2Just to make you feel better

Do as I say, not as I do!

CHILD-REARERS' ADAGE

The first two chapters contained a plethora of guidelines and suggestions for scientific English. You are perhaps wondering how long it will take to grasp their use and whether you will be able to apply them to every text you write. My advice is not to worry for now. Just try as much as you can to use them in your writing. The more you practise, the more they will come automatically.

To make you feel better, here are two examples in which native English speakers have difficulties with the use of scientific English. In the first, the editor of Nature mislays his own principles. In the second, the level of English in manuscripts written or proofread by native speakers is criticised by peer reviewers.

2.2.1An example from a former editor of Nature

Remember too that even experienced writers are not perfect and can sometimes forget their own principles. Even a writer as experienced as an editor of “Nature” can mislay his principle of writing for an international readership. The text entitled “A word in your ear” (Campbell, 1998) provides an ironic example. The editor's text was aimed at encouraging established scientists to take more care in their conference presentations. The editor stressed the importance of the “clear transmission of ideas”, an admirable initiative. Sadly, though, the editor did not pay attention to his own suggestions. The vocabulary contains some uncommon words (see box 2.4) and most of the sentences are too long. For instance, look at all those complex negative sentences at the end of paragraph 3 and the beginning of paragraph 4. The one at the end of paragraph 3, in a modified form, is used as an illustration in section 2.1.5. Are there other sentences which you found difficult to comprehend? How would you improve their clarity?

In short, everyone can have an off-day. The goal is to make such off-days as rare as possible. Constant practice in applying the guidelines and suggestions from chapters 1 and 2 is the best way of achieving this goal.

2.2.2Reviewers are humans too

In addition to examining the level of the science in a manuscript submitted for publication, reviewers are also asked to comment on the authors' level of English. Over the years, I have noticed that some reviewers appear to use the authors' affiliations as a criterion to judge the English. Indeed, almost all the native English-speaking scientists that I know in Vienna have had at least one manuscript returned with the comment that the English should be revised by a native speaker. Presumably, the reviewers did not expect well-written English manuscripts from Viennese scientists. These native English speakers included a fellow of the Royal Society, a former chair of the EMBO Science & Society Committee and me. Thus, if a reviewer suggests English revision you are in good company! In each of the three cases above, we all simply wrote back that the English had been checked by a native speaker (which was true) without making any language changes. This course of action has also been recommended by Janet Carter-Sigglow (1997), working in the translation centre of a research institution in Germany.

In short, if you receive unpleasant remarks about your level of English, do not despair. Read through your text again and see whether the reviewer is correct. Obtain the opinion of an English native-speaker and accept their comments. If they agree with the reviewer, then your manuscript will have been improved; if not, then you can write back in the way that I mentioned in the last paragraph.

Finally, reviewers themselves are also human. Here are two reviewers’ comments on the standard of English in two manuscripts written and/or read by English native speakers.

“Finally if authors should improve their English lnguage that will be helpful.”

(The misspelling of the word “language” was in the original comment)

“This study is better to understand the concepts of how they determine protein degradation in some proteins. The data are interesting, however it is not suitable for publication unless language extensively was edited."

Both manuscripts were not surprisingly returned to the journals concerned without any English language corrections.

Box 2.4Vocabulary of “A word in your ear” (Campbell, 1998)

The editor of “Nature” wrote the text cited in (Campbell, 1998). 20 words from the text (printed in blue) that may be unfamiliar are explained below. You may also be unaware of the identity of Ionesco mentioned in the text. He was a Romanian and French playwright who liked to make fun of ordinary situations and felt that much of life repeated itself without purpose.

dumbfounded – speechless with surprise

exasperate – annoy

convey – transmit

bestow – place a talent upon someone

overwhelm – overload with something

intricate – made with a complex design which is difficult to understand

sustain – keep going

ply – follow

considerable – significant or a large amount

bemoan – complain about pore

over – study closely and seriously

dismantle – take something apart

equation – an expression that certain quantities are equal to each other. They usually contain an equals sign (=). a + b = c is a basic equation.

tenure – have a permanent position, especially at a university

breed – a type or variety. This word is very important in genetics.

relish – look forward to and enjoy

nurture – look after and train

commendably – doing something in a way which deserves praise

conscientious – doing something very carefully

ineptness – inability

2.3Take-home messages from Chapter 2

The take-home messages from this chapter are simply the eight headings from section 2.1. Write them down yourself without referring back to the chapter.

2.4References
Articles

Campbell, P. (1998) A Word in Your Ear. Nature 394, 403.

Carter-Siglow, J. (1997) Beyond the language barrier. Nature 384, 509.

Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? Engl. Specific Purp. 45, 40–51.

Books

Bronowski, J. (1973) The Ascent of Man.

O'Toole, F. (2018) Heroic Failure.

Strunk, W., Jr. and White, E. B. (1918) The Elements of Style.

Websites

www.bartleby.com/141

www.pubmed.gov

2.5Improvements to exercises
2.5.1Improvements to box 2.1 "Shortening sentences by splitting them into two”

1. To be a good scientist, you have to be tolerant and patient when experiments or interpretations do not turn out as you had predicted. You must be able to stand high levels of frustration.

2. 62% of certified drug addicts believe that cannabis has effects on the behaviour of car drivers and machine operators which lengthen their reaction time. 45% of students shared this opinion whereas only 38% of customers interviewed at discotheques were aware of this negative effect of cannabis.

3. Finally, the correlation has been clearly shown. However, some parameters remain to be examined and further investigations should be done.

4. This results in texts which are extremely difficult to read. In addition, they also reveal to the world that their authors are clueless about paragraph structure.

2.5.2Improvements to box 2.2 “Positive and negative sentences”

1. The experiment failed.

2. All variables tested remained constant.

3. This hypothesis lacks supporting evidence.

4. The variation was always less than 1%.

5. All alternative explanations seemed implausible.

6. Car drivers ignore both the fear of global warming and the number of fatal accidents.

7. This method is safe.

8. Everybody overlooked the discrepancy between the two sets of data.

9. The desired compound was absent from all the samples.

10. The mixture contained at least eleven substances.

2.5.3Improvements to box 2.3 “Omit needless words!”

1. Figure 1 shows that the incidences of heart disease and television viewing correlate well.

2. 20% of the world population lacks clean water and sufficient food.

3. The effect of compound X on blood pressure remains to be determined.

4. Another important reason for this optimisation is to eliminate pollution.

5. Synergy will significantly reduce the amount of funding required.

6. Much work has demonstrated that the spherical Earth travels around the similarly shaped Sun.

Or: The Earth orbits the Sun.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.