Scientific Writing Best Practices

Most papers don’t fail on data. They fail on flow. (If readers have to work to reconstruct your logic, they stop trusting your conclusions.) Think of your paper as a guided tour, not a data dump: WHY – Why this problem and gap? HOW – How did you tackle it? WHAT – What did you find? SO WHAT – Why does it matter? If every section and paragraph clearly moves the reader along this path, the paper feels “easy to follow” even when the science is complex. One paragraph = one clear job (problem, gap, method choice, key result, implication). First sentence sets the point; last sentence links to what comes next. Use simple signposts: “Building on this…”, “In contrast…”, “As a result…”, “Taken together…” When in doubt, ask: “Does this sentence bring the reader closer to answering my research question?” If not, cut or move it. If you want feedback, drop in the comments: - Your paper title - Your 3–4 sentence storyline (problem → approach → key result → significance), - The section you feel “doesn’t flow”. I soon be launching research paper surgery in my community where we will go into much more details. Stay tuned! #research #science #publishing #phd #professor #postgraduate #graduate #scientist

How to communicate " Scientific " and " Creative " at the same time? I’ve spent years sitting between two worlds: the rigorous, data-driven world of research and the engaging world of visual communication. Scientists are trained to be precise and cautious. Designers possess the skills to solve problems and facilitate communication. If we don’t find a middle ground, the message gets lost in the gap. Here are 3 ways we can bridge that gap to create impactful science communication: 1. Define the "Core truth" early I ask scientists: "If your audience only remembers one sentence from this 20-page paper, what is it?" That sentence becomes our North Star. It’s not about cutting the science; it’s about prioritising the impact. 2 Co-creating the "Story arc" We map out the "Problem, Process, and Solution" first. I involve researchers in the narrative structure and the creative process (Scriptwriting➡Storyboarding ➡ Animation) so that they feel ownership of the story. This ensures the final result feels like an extension of their lab work, not just a presentation. 3 The "Jargon audit" We go through the script and flag complex terms, words that make sense to the expert but stop the layperson in their tracks. We don't remove them; we illustrate them visually. If we say "Trophic Cascade," we show it happening in real-time through visuals. The best work happens when we stop seeing "accuracy" and "engagement" as competitors. They are teammates. To my fellow science communicators: What’s the biggest "translation" challenge you’ve faced when turning data into a story?

PhDs - how to turn your rejected research papers into compelling stories that reviewers actually want to read. I was ready to quit after my third paper rejection. The reviewers kept saying my work was "difficult to follow" and "lacks coherence." My research was solid, but my writing was terrible. That's when I discovered something that changed everything: Great research papers tell stories. Here's the story framework that got my next paper accepted: Most researchers write papers like technical reports. They dump data and analysis without any narrative flow. But readers need a story to follow your research journey. I started using the Research Paper Story Pyramid: The Hook = Introduction → Set the stage with an intriguing question → Make readers curious about what comes next → Create immediate engagement The Challenge = Literature Review → Introduce the tensions and gaps in your field → Build drama around what's missing → Show why this problem matters The Quest = Methodology → Reveal your master plan for tackling the challenge → Show readers your approach to solving the mystery → Build anticipation for what you'll discover The Discovery = Results → Unveil findings that transform understanding → Present your breakthrough moments → Give readers the payoff they've been waiting for Resolution = Discussion → Link discoveries to the bigger picture → Show broader implications of your findings → Connect back to the original challenge Legacy = Conclusion → End with lasting change and future possibilities → Show how your work opens new doors → Leave readers inspired to build on your research The transformation was incredible: → My paper got accepted on the first submission → Reviewers called it "elegantly structured and compelling" → It became my most cited work with 156 citations → Editors started inviting me to write review articles The difference wasn't my research quality. The difference was telling a story readers wanted to follow. Your research isn't just data and analysis. It's a journey of discovery that deserves compelling storytelling. Most researchers write like robots. Successful researchers write like storytellers. Which part of the story pyramid feels most challenging for your current paper? #phd #academicwriting #research #storytelling

Research-backed accessible text checklist (beyond color & fonts) 1️⃣ Avoid ALL CAPS for long text Reading all caps slows people down by up to 10–20% because we recognize word shapes, not just letters. Uppercase removes those shapes, forcing letter-by-letter reading: https://lnkd.in/e7tCHxUD 👉 Keep all caps for short labels or acronyms only. 2️⃣ Keep an optimal line length Long lines make it hard for the eye to jump to the next line, while very short lines break reading rhythm. Based on classic readability research by Emil Ruder and later UX studies: https://lnkd.in/eJsTZT3w 👉 Aim for ~45–75 characters per line for comfortable reading. 3️⃣ Use generous line height Dense text increases cognitive load and reduces comprehension, especially for users with dyslexia. Recommended in Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (1.4.12 Text Spacing): https://lnkd.in/eam2Uqs5 👉 Use at least 1.4–1.6 line height for body text. 4️⃣ Don’t squeeze letters together Tight letter spacing makes words harder to parse, especially for users with visual or cognitive impairments. Supported by research from British Dyslexia Association: https://lnkd.in/eKc_2HPr 👉 Slightly increasing spacing (e.g., ~0.02–0.05em) can improve readability. 5️⃣ Avoid justified text blocks Perfectly aligned edges may look clean, but they create irregular spacing (“rivers of white”) that disrupt reading flow. 👉 Prefer left-aligned text for most content. 6️⃣ Give paragraphs room to breathe Large text blocks discourage reading and increase cognitive effort. 👉 Use spacing between paragraphs and keep them short (3–5 lines max). 7️⃣ Design for zoom and scaling Users should be able to zoom up to 200% without losing content or readability. 👉 Fixed heights and cramped layouts often break here. 8️⃣ Support scanning, not just reading Most users don’t read - they scan. Structured text helps them find what they need faster. Eye-tracking studies by Jakob Nielsen show “F-shaped” reading patterns: https://lnkd.in/etWrYsM7 👉 Use headings, lists, and clear content chunks. 9️⃣ Be careful with width and layout Very wide text blocks reduce focus, while overly narrow ones feel fragmented. 👉 Balance layout to guide the eye naturally across content. Small changes in spacing and structure can significantly improve comprehension, speed, and user comfort. What’s one text rule you wish more designers followed? #Accessibility #WebAccessibility #UX #InclusiveDesign #Readability

Tired of reviewers calling your paper ‘unclear’ when the science is strong? Most researchers aren’t born great writers but we can become better with practice, feedback and a few key insights. 🌟 1. One idea = one paragraph Don’t overcrowd your paragraphs. Each paragraph should do ONE job, explain one point, one step, or one argument. 🌟 2. Your first sentence is a signpost The first sentence of every paragraph should tell the reader what’s coming. Think of it like a mini-headline. 🌟 3. Write as if explaining to a smart friend Avoid overly complicated language. If your friend from another field can’t understand your abstract, revise it. Clarity is king. 🌟 4. Don’t bury the main point Start your paper, paragraph, or sentence with the most important idea. Don’t make your reader dig for it. 🌟 5. Read your work aloud It’s one of the simplest and most powerful tools. Awkward phrases, missing words, or unclear ideas become obvious when you hear them. 🌟 6. Good writing is re-writing The best papers weren’t written in one go. Editing is where clarity, flow, and structure are born. 🌟 7. Use strong verbs Replace “was conducted to examine” with “examined.” Your writing becomes more direct and powerful. 👉 If English isn't your first language, don't try to sound "fancy." Simpler English is not only acceptable, but preferred in science. PS: What’s your biggest struggle with writing? Or what's helped you improve? Share in the comments REPOST to help others #ScientificWriting #PhDLife #AcademicWriting #ClearWriting #ScienceCommunication #ResearchTips

Stories are not just for entertainment. They are how our brains process and act on information. Here are seven science-backed storytelling principles every communicator should use. 01. Open a Curiosity Loop Start with something unresolved, like a question or twist. This is called the Zeigarnik Effect. Our brains fixate on incomplete ideas until they are resolved. Open a loop at the beginning, and listeners stay engaged until you close it. They cannot stop listening. Example: "Why do 90% of startups fail in their first year? The answer is not what you think." 02. Add Real Tension Share the obstacle, not just the outcome. Stories that trigger emotional tension and resolution activate neurochemicals that boost attention and empathy. Tension makes people lean in. Resolution makes them remember. Example: Do not say "We succeeded." Say "We were three weeks from bankruptcy when everything changed." 03. Make It Visual Do not describe. Depict. Use scenes, not slogans. Neural coupling causes the listener's brain to mirror the storyteller's, creating a shared experience. When you paint a picture, they do not just hear your story. They see it. Example: "The boardroom went silent" beats "They were surprised." 04. Lead With Emotion Open with feeling. Anchor with facts. Dual Process Theory shows emotion captures attention, while logic drives decisions. Start with emotion to hook them. Follow with facts to convince them. Example: "I will never forget the call that changed everything. The data confirmed what we feared." 05. Add a Ticking Clock Frame your story like a race against time. Urgency creates momentum. Deadlines trigger action. Example: "We had 48 hours to save the deal" is stronger than "We worked on the deal for a while." 06. Echo the Beginning at the End Close the loop. Pattern recognition helps the brain lock in meaning and improve memory. When you callback to your opening, the story feels complete and it sticks. Example: If you opened with "Why do most websites get traffic but no clients?" end with "Now you know why traffic alone is not enough." 07. Tell One Story Stick to one core idea. Say it early. Reinforce it often. Cognitive Load Theory shows we retain more when we process less. One focused story dominates memory. Example: Do not tell three unrelated anecdotes. Tell one story with one takeaway, and drive it home. Harvard Business Review found emotionally connected customers have a 306% higher lifetime value and are more likely to recommend your brand. Stories are not fluff. They are strategy. Use these techniques in presentations, sales pitches, and posts. Lead with tension, not features. Make abstract ideas concrete. Close loops. Remember that one powerful story beats ten mediocre facts. Data informs. Stories persuade. Facts are forgotten. Stories are retold. If you want your message to stick, tell a story people cannot forget.

How's your voice? In scientific writing, the grammatical voice a writer chooses shapes the tone, clarity, emphasis and perceived objectivity of the work. Active voice occurs when the subject performs the action of the verb eg “The researcher conducted the experiment.” This voice is preferred for its clarity and directness. Passive voice shifts the focus from the subject to the object receiving the action eg “The experiment was conducted by the researcher.” This construction depersonalises the action and places emphasis on what was done, rather than who did it. It remains common in scientific writing, especially when the goal is to sound neutral and objective. A less familiar option is the middle voice, which is used when the subject appears to act upon itself eg “The solution mixed easily.” While rare in English, this type of construction is useful in science when describing processes that occur without deliberate intervention eg chemical reactions or biological behaviours. Beyond grammar, there are more stylistic or rhetorical 'voices' that can influence scientific communication. One of these is the passive-aggressive voice, which is a tone that emerges when blame or criticism is implied rather than stated directly eg “It’s surprising that no one thought to control for that variable.” This voice is unprofessional and best avoided in formal contexts. Another is the clickbait voice, which is more common in science communication aimed at the public. It uses sensational or emotionally charged language to grab attention eg, “This tiny microbe could change everything we know about life on Earth!” This is a useful tool in headlines or to engage the public or non-experts with scientific content. The impersonal or objective voice is also a hallmark of traditional academic writing. This voice avoids personal pronouns and foregrounds data or procedures eg “A statistically significant difference was observed.” It promotes neutrality and discourages emotional or subjective interpretation. However, the first-person active voice, using “I” or “we,” is now more accepted in many disciplines. Sentences like “We analysed the samples” can add clarity and accountability by specifying the author’s role without sounding egotistical. Some scientific writing also benefits from a narrative voice to take the reader through the process eg “After discovering the anomaly, we revised our hypothesis.” This can be especially effective in case studies, historical overviews, or discussions where process matters as much as outcome. Finally, the promotional voice is used in grant applications, public engagement and abstracts aiming to showcase importance eg, “This study presents a groundbreaking solution to antibiotic resistance.” It is important to balance enthusiasm with evidence and avoid overclaiming. Different voices serve different rhetorical purposes and tone and credibility can hinge on the right voice choice, so knowing them is part of scientific literacy.

Everyone loves a good story. You should be using your data to tell one every chance you get. The importance of narrative in scientific communication cannot be understated. And that includes communication in traditionally technical environments! One thing that gets beaten into you in graduate school is that a scientific presentation is a technical affair. Communicating science is fact based, it's black and white, here's the data, this is the conclusion, do you have any questions? Actually, I do. Did you think about what story your data could tell before you put your slides together? I know this is a somewhat provocative question because a lot of scientists overlook the importance of telling a story when they present results. But if you want to keep your audience engaged and interested in what you have to say, you should think about your narrative! This is true for a presentation at 'The Mountain Lake Lodge Meeting on Post-Initiation Activities of RNA Polymerases,' the 'ACMG Annual Clinical Genetics Meeting,' or to a class of 16 year old AP Biology Students. The narrative doesn't need to be the same for all of those audiences, BUT IT SHOULD EXIST! There is nothing more frustrating to me than seeing someone give a presentation filled with killer data only to watch them blow it by putting the entire audience to sleep with an arcane technical overview of the scientific method. Please. Tell. A. Story. With. Your. Data. Here's how: 1. Plot - the series of events that drive the story forward to its resolution. What sets the scene, the hypothesis or initial observation? How can the data be arranged to create a beginning, middle, and end? 2. Theme - Good vs Evil, Human vs Virus, Day in the life of a microbe? Have fun with this (even just as a thought experiment) because it makes a big difference. 3. Character development - the team, the protein, gene, or model system 4. Conflict - What were the blockers and obstacles? Needed a new technique? Refuting a previous finding? 5. Climax - the height of the struggle. Use your data to build to a climax. How did one question lead to another and how were any problems overcome? 6. Resolution - What's the final overall conclusion and how was the conflict that was setup in the beginning resolved by what you found? By taking the time to work through what story you can tell, you can engage your entire audience and they'll actually remember what you had to say!

📖🧪 What if we taught children #chemistry the same way we teach them to read? ⚗️📚 That’s the idea behind #MolecularLiteracy - helping kids understand molecules as naturally as they know letters and stories. This week’s #TuesdaySciCommFind is all about the work of Colleen Kelley, Ph.D., a chemist and educator who has been reimagining how we introduce chemistry to children through characters, puzzles, and narrative-driven learning. What I love about her approach... 📌 She turns molecules into characters you can imagine 📌 She builds chemistry concepts through storytelling rather than formulas 📌 She gives educators and science communicators practical tools to teach chemistry in a way that finally sticks Colleen’s project, Kids' Chemical Solutions, turns molecules into story protagonists and chemical concepts into accessible puzzles. It’s a wonderful example of how #storytelling can open the door to complex science. If you want to explore her approach, start here: 📺 Her #TEDTalk → https://lnkd.in/e_QwvHdf 🧩 Kids' Chemical Solutions activities → https://lnkd.in/exUWnVwa Image Credit: Kids' Chemical Solutions #SciComm #ScienceEducation

My first paper felt like running in circles. One day it was the literature review, the next it was methods, then back to the abstract. My supervisor said, “You don’t need more hours. You need a sequence.” I built a simple roadmap, and everything clicked. Here’s the 10-step flow I still use: 1. topic   Frame a clear, novel question with scope and keywords. 2. abstract   Draft a rough “everything” version early; refine last. 3. introduction   What, why, how. State the gap and your aim. 4. literature review   Build an argument: themes, methods, contradictions, niche. 5. methodology   Design, sampling, instruments, analysis plan, and justification. 6. preliminary data or results   Show feasibility or early findings; align with the aim. 7. discussion   Interpret results, answer RQs, relate to prior work, and note implications. 8. statement of limitation   Be specific about weaknesses and boundaries. 9. conclusion   Restate the contribution and practical/theoretical value. 10. references and bibliography   Clean, consistent, and complete—cited and uncited resources organized. Tiny tip: work in this order, but keep a living outline so changes ripple across sections fast. Save this post 🔖 and use the roadmap for your next project—sequence beats scramble. ——————————————————————— Follow me 👉 https://lnkd.in/d4b-t6b3 60k+ follow me here—but only a few read The Hybrid Researcher Be one of them 👉 https://lnkd.in/dMB8YJgm Connect on all platforms 👉 https://tr.ee/yEg4hY