How to Write and Illustrate a Scientific Paper ‐ by Björn Gustavii and Successful Scientific Writing. A Step‐by‐step Guide for the Biological and Medical Sciences ‐ by Janice R. Matthews and Robert W. Matthews
Year: 2008
Type: book-review
Abstract: How to Write and Illustrate a Scientific Paper By Björn Gustavii . Second edition , 2008 , Cambridge University Press . ISBN 978-0-521-70393-2 , Paperback, £14.99; Hardback, £40.00 . 1 Successful Scientific Writing. A Step-by-step Guide for the Biological and Medical Sciences By Janice R. Matthews and Robert W. Matthews . Third edition , 2008 . ISBN 978-0-521-69927-3 . Paperback, £19.99 . 2 ‘The critics have been emboldened to assume a dictatorial power, and have so far succeeded, that they are become the masters, and have the assurance to give laws to those authors from whose predecessors they originally received them.’ Henry Fielding (1749). It may seem strange for a retired anatomist, who has published in English without great difficulty, to take an interest in two books on ‘science writing’. The reason is simple. I have moved to Istanbul where I have family as well as a professorial appointment at Marmara University. I help colleagues with manuscripts and with grant applications in English and my daughter is a translator here. I have had to think hard about some of the problems of writing about science in English. There are many books of advice on writing science, and they often leave the impression, as do the two under review, that the critics are in charge, leaving aspiring authors few freedoms. Although English has not been the international language of science for long, it is already changing to fit its new role, going the way of Latin, which was used for many years by each nationality in its own idiosyncratic way. My father's generation in Germany used to laugh at the way in which the English used Latin, and the English reciprocated. Today, preparing an application to a European organization requires not only that the application be written in English, but also that the supposedly English instructions be understood (see Grais et al. 2008 for comments on guidelines ‘riddled with confusing language that puzzles even proficient English speakers’). The European Journal for Neuroscience, which at its founding two decades ago asked the publisher (then Oxford University Press) to help correct the English of non-native speakers, now produces titles like, ‘Protein degradation, as with protein synthesis, is required during not only long-term spatial memory consolidation, but ... ’, and allows sentences that include, ‘The size of the forelimb representation was 42.2% higher than ...’[Eur J Neurosci (2008) 27, pp. 3009 and 2733]. Maintaining standards of comprehensible English may prove difficult; contributions made by books such as the two under review can help with some basics, but sources of errors and confusion are so varied that neither book can make more than a minor contribution to keeping scientific English clear, concise, and grammatically correct. However, it is likely that English will not last long as the international language of science. Consider the number of people who can read Chinese script, the advantages of a script that can represent more than one language with the same sequence of symbols, and the increasing number of Chinese names currently appearing on lists like PubMed. Before long the English, and those who have mastered the language, will no longer be able to pontificate about how to write ‘Science’. Then books like the two under review will no longer be needed. They will be replaced by something different, and perhaps a little less dogmatic. Neither of these two books is strictly speaking about writing ‘science’. They deal with medicine and biology. These, particularly medicine, are subjects for which many universities no longer require significant writing skills. BG is written based on the assumption that ‘the reporting of the randomized controlled trial covers most aspects of the principles of scientific writing’. M&M is broader in scope, but is still limited to ‘biomedicine’. Other areas of science may need less advice, but may also need advice with some different stresses. The developing writing skills of young investigators generally need to be supervised by experienced senior colleagues in the same field, on the basis of actual manuscripts, and such supervision should make these books redundant. The basic needs of someone starting to write scientific papers include an adequate mastery of the language, which is often the most difficult issue. In addition they include a good dictionary, Strunk and White's Elements of Style (see Strunk et al., 2000), Tufte's Visual Display of Quantitative Information, as well as access to either Gower or Fowler and a thesaurus. BG cites Strunk and White and Tufte, M&M cites Tufte only. The great virtue of Strunk and White is that it is brief, clear and well written. I had for long thought that E. B. White, who created Charlotte and her web, as well as Stuart Little, also created William Strunk Jr, but apparently he had no need to do that. Strunk existed and White brought his strongly held views to a wider audience. Tufte (1983) has written a gem of a book on illustrations. Going through these two books on ‘scientific’ writing brought to mind Tufte (1983) quoting Strunk and White: ‘No one can write decently who is distrustful of the reader's intelligence, or whose attitude is patronizing.’ Tufte continued: ‘Contempt for graphics and their audience ... has deadly consequences for graphical work.’ M&M uses marginally relevant comic illustrations far too readily in an attempt to lighten a heavy style. BG sets a bad example by wasting several pages on illustrations that could be rendered in few words. He also has some inappropriate or misjudged humorous graphics; one which encourages the reader to undervalue editorial responsibilities and another which seems to imply that the Vancouver Document on writing and editing for biomedical publication (see http://www.icmje.org) produces a flattening uniformity of style. It almost certainly does have that effect, but I could not find BG explicitly discussing that point in the text, which would have been useful. BG scores over M&M in being briefer, less wordy and more informal in the presentation; it is also cheaper. However, M&M has sections on poster presentations and includes important references on the use of PowerPoint, including the trenchant Tufte (2003) critique. They add suggestions about the use of a PowerPoint presentation. PowerPoint has great adaptability, it can be used in many different ways and, especially for those likely to be publishing in a morphological journal such as the Journal of Anatomy, it offers wonderful opportunities for presenting visual images. The way PowerPoint is best used depends heavily on the nature of the material and the necessary flow of the ideas. Good advice about what not to do is available and useful. However, no one seems yet to be in a position to lay down rules for all of science on the use of this still relatively new tool. Students should consult those in their own field who understand the specific subject and who know how the thoughts should be developed; creativity in the use of PowerPoint is to be encouraged, but a little creativity goes a long way with this powerful tool. Both books have an old-fashioned tone. BG gives advice on keeping typewriter keys clean and M&M suggests 35-mm slides in a carousel as one alternative to PowerPoint. About 3 years ago at a conference one participant came with 35-mm slides and before anyone could find a working projector the order of the talks had to be changed. Anyone who wants to use old slides can easily put them all into a PowerPoint file. For anatomists and many bioscientists there are two important issues that merit more attention than either of these books provide. One is minor and concerns the tense for reporting results. If the relationships to be described still exist in a preparation (slide, dissection) then there is no reason for using the past tense. That is one of the strengths of our subject; we still often describe relationships that exist in the present. The second concerns illustrations and the dangers of manipulating them with Photoshop or similar programs. BG has an index that lacks ‘photographs’ or ‘Photoshop’; under ‘illustration’ it has ‘see graphs’. M&M has a section on photographs which includes a warning that photographs ... ‘may include clutter ... or components you would rather not show. Happily, the ease by which digital images can be altered makes it possible to fix such distracting components (and almost inexcusable not to do so)’. For appropriate comments on this and the broader dangers of misusing Photoshop see Saper (1999) and Pearson (2007). Manipulating images has become a serious ethical issue. Freeman Dyson (1995) wrote about science: ‘The common element is rebellion against the restrictions imposed by the locally prevailing culture.’ On this basis students and junior staff members should not be encouraged to buy these books. However, if they do, they should leave the books somewhere clearly visible so that senior staff can see that the department is failing to provide needed help. My thanks to H. J. Ralston III for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this review.
Source: Journal of Anatomy
Author: R. W. Guillery
Institution: Marmara University
Language: English
Subfield: History and Philosophy of Science
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W1995169984