In an age where messages can be sent anywhere in a matter of seconds, one might ask why it is necessary to take months to put together a carefully crafted scientific paper. After so much work, it would be hoped that the eventual paper communicates the data from a study succinctly and unambiguously, and conveys the steps of thinking that lead to the conclusions. Only if these different components of the paper are clear can other scientists evaluate the data and logic that are being presented, and then confirm or question the conclusions.
Well-written papers have value that might continue for decades; for example, older field work is still very relevant, and in some parts of the world it may not be easy to replicate. Field studies provide a very important setting and context for laboratory work, and there are times when a small amount of field work can save an embarrassing publication.
As a reader and possibly a manager being handed a report to read, there is a huge difference between a carefully crafted document compared to a brain dump of fragmented words and dot points collected during a meeting and put together hastily. The former makes a positive impression and will have a big influence on achieving a favourable outcome if a set of choices are involved. The latter brain dump of notes conveys laziness and a dis-organised mind; it will not contribute to a decision between options, and may not even be read in its entirety. Inevitably, a well-written document will be, at least subconsciously, correlated with a strong case that merits support.
Ambiguity in writing and reading can occur even in our first language. I read a short document recently that I was being asked to sign to acknowledge that I understood what I was not allowed to do during an activity. Coming across the contraction ‘etc’ and knowing that it was derived from Latin and short for ‘and other things’, I enquired as to what was being covered by the use of etc in this document. I was told that no one had asked this question previously or had needed to know, and that the company was using etc to include anything else that might be important. Translated to science, how is a reader expected to interpret etc in the way that the writer has meant? It is even possible that the writer has not even thought through what is being meant.
We owe it to our readers to be as clear as possible in our writing, and to keep in mind that many will be reading documents and papers in their second language.
Neil Phillips
Editor