Here at Neatorama, we try to link to the original work whenever possible. For science stories, this is sometimes impossible because original science research papers are often unreadable. It makes more sense to link to an explanation written by a science journalist who deciphers the science and writes in a way the rest of us can understand. See, scientists write differently from the way you or I or journalists do, because they are
taught to write differently. Adam Ruben teaches science writing for scientists
and science writing for non-scientists and assures us that the two classes are
very different. Then he gives us twelve tips for writing as a scientist would, therefore assuring that no one outside the scientific community will read your work. Here's a sample:
2. Using the first person in your writing humanizes your work. If possible, therefore, you should avoid using the first person in your writing. Science succeeds in spite of human beings, not because of us, so you want to make it look like your results magically discovered themselves.
3. Some journals, such as Science, officially eschew the passive voice. Others print only the passive voice. So find a healthy compromise by writing in semi-passive voice.
ACTIVE VOICE: We did this experiment.
PASSIVE VOICE: This experiment was done by us.
SEMI-PASSIVE VOICE: Done by us, this experiment was.
Yes, for the semi-passive voice, you’ll want to emulate Yoda. Yoda, you’ll want to emulate.
Read the rest at Science Careers.
Link -via
Not Exactly Rocket Science
I'm may not be a scientist (unless engineering counts as science), but I also get frustrated sometimes with the style of language that we get told to use when writing reports. And then professors use these conventions in their lecture notes, which doesn't help students understand better.
However, I can understand the need to keep the vocabulary a bit basic. The idea is to convey unbiased facts, and given how easily manipulated the human brain is, making lyrical metaphors could be used to make the reader tend toward a certain point of view.
The biggest problem we had was how to fit all we want to say within the (very) strict character count. We only got 55,000 character (including spaces).