Keeping it interesting

When proof reading your journal paper prior to submission (checking the spellings, formatting the references etc.), there is one question that you should also ask yourself before you send off your manuscript – is it interesting? If your paper is not interesting, why should anyone else want to read it? In this editorial I draw upon the paper by Sand-Jensen (2007) who has, in an ironic tone, written ten recommendations for boring scientific writing. Keeping it interesting is not a trivial aim. I hope that authors are not just writing papers to satisfy grant-awarding bodies, but actually have something valuable to say that they want others to read. As Sand-Jensen (2007, 723) states;

Science ought to be fun and attractive, particularly when many months of hard work with grant applications, data collection and calculations are over and everything is ready for publishing the wonderful results, it is most unfortunate that the final reading and writing phases are so tiresome.

I have re-interpreted Sand-Jensen’s recommendations to formulate ten recommendations for interesting scientific writing, just to ensure the irony of the original list is not misinterpreted here:

• Ensure focus

• Insert originality and personality

• Keep it brief

• Include implications

• Use good illustrations

• Include steps in your reasoning

• Avoid unnecessary abbreviations and technical terms

• Use appropriate humour

• Do not degrade biology to statistics

• Do not cite unnecessary references

This is not an exhaustive list and certainly not every paper will need every suggestion to be ticked off – e.g. don’t insert humour when it is inappropriate. But this is a good start to help you review your work prior to submission.