It’s often said that scientific writing is different from creative writing. However, as someone who writes poetry as well as writes and edits scientific articles, I’ve come to feel that the two modes of writing, when done well, share important similarities.
Let me explain. In popular culture, poets are often depicted as dreamy people who sit down and bare their souls in a torrent of perfect phrases. But anyone who writes poetry knows it rarely works this way. Writing a poem is more perspiration than inspiration. You start with an idea and manage to put it into words and from there you revise again and again, weighing every word, until you feel the poem has clarity and impact.
Scientific writing is the same. You write about what you did (your study), and then revise each sentence, word by word, until your writing possesses clarity and impact.
Let’s consider two examples, one from a haiku and the other from a scientific manuscript.
Here is the draft of a haiku I wrote several years ago. (Abiding by a 5-7-5 syllable structure is no longer considered necessary in English-language haiku).
a late afternoon walk
the shadow of a heron
makes a bridge across the river
Does this haiku feel wordy to you? Let’s scrutinize it line by line.
a late afternoon walk
This line provides context: the author is taking a late afternoon walk. But isn’t it obvious that he’s walking? I’d say walk can be cut, along with the article a, so the first line becomes:
late afternoon
There. We’ve set the time and mood. Now what about the next line?
the shadow of a heron
The function words (the, of, and a) outnumber content words (shadow and heron), giving the line an ungainly feel. A possessive would eliminate the prepositional phrase:
the heron’s shadow
Less is more! Now the last line is a mouthful:
makes a bridge across the river
But by using bridge as a verb, we could cut makes, a, and across. Now we have:
late afternoon
the heron’s shadow
bridges the river
Eliminating extraneous words gives the content words greater impact. The best writing lets the nouns and verbs shine, creating a vivid image in the reader’s mind.
Now, let’s look at a sentence from a manuscript I’ve edited, with details altered:
Although recent developments in AI suggests the possibility that some copy-editing tasks can be made automated, it is essential to note that human editors remain indispensable for the remainder of the editing process due to the limitations of automated interventions in consistently meeting high standards.
Right away we can spot the agreement error; suggests should be suggest. We may also notice some verbiage—that is, wordy expressions. Let’s highlight some of that verbiage.
Although recent developments in AI suggest the possibility that some copy-editing tasks can be made automated, it is essential to note that human editors remain indispensable for the remainder of the editing process due to the limitations of automated interventions in consistently meeting high standards.
Removing these expressions, we have:
Although recent developments in AI suggest that some copy-editing tasks can be automated, human editors remain indispensable to the editing process due to the limitations of automated interventions in consistently meeting high standards.
This reads better, but limitations doesn’t feel right. It seems the authors want to say that AI interventions fail to meet high standards. Revising accordingly, we have:
Although recent developments in AI suggest that some copy-editing tasks can be automated, human editors remain indispensable to the editing process due to the failure of automated interventions to consistently meet high standards.
Tightening it further:
Although recent developments in AI suggest that some copy-editing tasks can be automated, human editors remain indispensable to the editing process as automated interventions fail to consistently meet high standards.
With these revisions, we went from 45 words to 30, a one-third reduction in length. When a reader encounters a manuscript full of verbose and abstract sentences, their minds will quickly start to wander. By keeping the writing tight you help the reader to stay focused and continue reading. What more can a writer ask for?