By Claire Bacon, 15 October 2026
Those of us who work with scientific research writers will know how hard they work to get their research published. But a published manuscript is worthless if nobody reads or cites it. Scientists need to engage their readers, and to do that they need to understand how to write a manuscript that is suited to their audience. In this blog post, I outline how to avoid common problems in research writing so that your client can meet their reader’s needs.
Don’t get technical
Scientific research can be difficult to understand, but the writing doesn’t need to be. Scientists often think that long words and complicated sentences sound ‘clever’. It is our job as editors to convince them that explaining complicated findings using words and sentences that are easy to understand is much more effective. We can also remind our clients that many of their readers do not speak English as a first language and will be grateful if they keep things simple. For example, they should use familiar words rather than obscure ones (such as ‘cause’ instead of ‘etiology’).
Abbreviations are another problem area. Research scientists often use abbreviations to avoid having to write out long words and technical phrases – but this does not always help the reader. On the one hand, abbreviating common terms (e.g. PCR instead of ‘polymerase chain reaction’ or DNA instead of ‘deoxyribonucleic acid’) can improve the clarity and flow of a text, but unfamiliar abbreviations can cause confusion. Ask your clients to consider whether their reader will prefer the abbreviation over the full term before including it in their manuscript.
Speak in a common language
Our clients are usually experts in their field and often forget that their readers have a different level of expertise and will quickly stop reading if they cannot follow the argumentation. Our clients need to bridge the gap between their own knowledge and that of their readers. This means giving all the details needed to understand a point, even the things that seem obvious to them. We editors are excellent communicators but rarely have the same level of scientific expertise as our clients; this means we can often spot gaps in logic where extra information would help the reader.
Consistency is key
Editors are skilled at ensuring consistency and can use this skill to make sure their clients are consistent with word choice. This helps the reader to make sense of complicated results. For example, say your client has generated six different genetically modified cell lines and has used them in four different experiments. If they use different names for the cell lines in different experiments, their reader will struggle to understand the methodology and results. You can help by making sure they give each cell line a name and stick to it. Problems with consistency aren’t limited to word choice. Subtle inconsistencies in spelling, punctuation, abbreviations, capitalization and citations can also distract the reader. Our eye for detail can help here by smoothing out these inconsistencies.
Convince the reader
Our clients also need to convince their readers that their interpretations and ideas are sound by backing them up with reliable evidence. We can help here by making sure that arguments are balanced. Check that alternative ideas are properly discussed and that theories are explained in full. Arguments can be strengthened by providing specific details and avoiding vague expressions that add no value to the narrative. If you come across vague expressions like ‘there were differences between the two groups’, tell your client to specify what these differences were and back this up with specific data.
Don’t rely on AI
In this age of AI, more scientists are turning to large language models to do their writing for them. But this does not necessarily help the reader, who will likely prefer to read something unique written by a human rather than predictable AI output. Although AI is constantly improving, it cannot reproduce the unique writer’s ‘voice’, which is the product of the writer organizing their own arguments and opinions logically and backing these up with evidence. Clients who choose to work with human editors likely already appreciate this; convincing those who choose to rely on machines to communicate is where the challenge lies.
*This blog post was adapted from a previous post published on the Bacon Editing blog
|
Blog post by: Claire Bacon |
