Writing: Bartlett revisited

The design, implementation, evaluation and reporting of research is a key challenge. Each of these components is important, but I want to dwell on the last of these: reporting.

The outcome of research usually ends with the broadcasting of findings. This broadcasting tends to take the form of a manuscript that is submitted to a journal to be considered for publication. The way in which a manuscript is written represents a key skill, and a competent scientist has to be a wordsmith. The readability of a manuscript is critical for communication and understanding.

Bartlett (2001) identified some expressions that are commonly used, but that should be avoided. He suggested that Day (1998) and O'Connor (1991), at least, should be consulted. One might now add Truss's (2003) light-hearted view of punctuation.

Rules of grammar and syntax evolve and, by definition, change according to circumstances. This presents a challenge to what can be considered “correct” or “incorrect”. Is the use of split infinitives always wrong? Should sentences never end in prepositions? The answers to these questions are, “probably not”; but does the author or speaker know what these solecisms are—or, for that matter, the meaning of the word “solecism”?

As an author, reviewer and editor, my appreciation of the need for good writing has grown; but regrettably, and as some have been only too quick to point out, my abilities have not grown in parallel. Nevertheless, I offer four particular examples of expressions that increase the furrows in my brow. The first is vernacular, the second is a tautology, the third is an example of superfluous words and the fourth is simply curious to me.

First, the vernacular: “this study looked at”. Studies don't look, they investigate, examine, explore or test (an hypothesis). Second, the tautology: “there are many different types”. If there are many types they must be different, otherwise there would be only one type; “different” is not required. Third, superfluousness: “in order”. This expression tends to be used as a prefix, but its omission makes not a jot of difference to the meaning of a sentence or phrase. Omission, conveniently, reduces the number of words used. Finally, my curiosity: “participants were familiarized with the procedures”. Consider this in the context of the saying, “familiarity breeds contempt”. It is not contemptuous participants that an investigator requires, but those who are habituated, accustomed or well-practised. Each of these four expressions regularly appears in manuscripts and abstracts that I review; sometimes together.

Editorial responsibilities have mixed blessings: on the one hand, it can be a privilege to read excellently presented outcomes of equally excellent work; on the other, ambiguous or otherwise poor writing adds considerably to one's labours. However, I readily acknowledge that is far easier to comment on a piece of writing than produce that writing in the first place.

The ability to write well is usually hard-earned, but the satisfaction gained from having this ability can be considerable. Being able to sit back and say to oneself, “that's good”, is rewarding. However, the acid test is what others think and, to add a slight sting in the tail, the advice offered by Samuel Johnson in 1773—although he claimed he was quoting a college tutor—is off-putting: “Read over your compositions, and where ever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out”.

Happy writing.