Writting Eglishh Academy

Scientific and
Medical Writing
for Investigators
The Keys to
Precision
and Style
“Scientific and Medical Writing for Investigators: The Keys to Precision and Style” is published by Scientific Researchers
Resources, Inc., 9990 Coconut Road, Suite 316, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 USA. Telephone: (800) 303-0129 ~
Fax: (239) 676-0146 ~ Email: info@principalinvestigators.org ~ Website: www.principalinvestigators.org
This guide is endorsed as a valuable tool for continuing professional development by Principal Investigators Association.
Retired Founder: Leslie C. Norins, MD, PhD
© 2014 Principal Investigators Association. The entire contents of this publication are protected by Copyright, worldwide. All rights
reserved. Reproduction or further distribution by any means, beyond the paid customer, is strictly forbidden without written consent
of Principal Investigators Association, including photocopying and digital, electronic, and/or Web distribution, dissemination, storage,
or retrieval. Report violations in confidence; a $10,000 reward is offered for information resulting in a successful prosecution.
Economical rates for bulk or electronic purchases are available upon request; institutional inquiries welcome. Principal Investigators
Association—as well as this report—is completely independent and not controlled by any government agency, organization or society,
consultancy, contractor, or vendor. Opinions expressed by private authors are their own, and not official government opinions. Although
the publisher believes the presented information is accurate, grant writing is part science, part art, and interpretations and strategies
differ, even among experts. Also, individual circumstances vary. Therefore, no warranty is made that the information will apply in any
particular case, or that a grant application will result in an award.
Scientific and Medical Writing for Investigators: The Keys to Precision and Style
m t h e P u bli sher
A Note fro
yle” from
Dear Profession
al:
s: The Keys to Precision and St
g for Investigator
in
and Medical Writ
yo u fo r or de rin g the “Scientific
Thank ion Library.
igators Associat D, co-author of
the Pr in ci pa l In ve st
re w or d by W illi am E. Russey, Ph
Parmely, with a
Fo Related Fields.
te n by w rit er and editor Nancy al Pu bl ic at io ns in Chemistry and
This report is w rit sion
eports to Profes
ifi c W rit in g: From Student R fers a free bi-
The Art of Sc ie nt
pa l In ve st ig at or s Association of
inci d
up the library, Pr ars — all devote
th e sp ec ia l re ports that make -lo ng se rie s of interactive webin an
In addition to anuals, and a ye
ar
arch. Our goal as
eN ew sl et te r, gr ant application m e do in g w ha t you love: the rese rs in all
monthly ore tim ation for our mem
be
ov e pe rfo rm an ce and spend m -o rie nt ed in fo rm
pr lts st
to helping you im of real-world, resu strategies and be
to be th e w or ld ’s leading source id an ce , ca se studies, success ou p
gu
association is
approach — deliv
ering targeted well as a loyal gr
nc e. O ur un iq ue an d hi gh -v al ue information as
fields of scie efulne ss e’re glad
ed us a re pu ta tion for depth, us in is tra tiv e an d funding duties. W
earn them with their ad
m
practices — has stigators.org.
re ly on th at in formation to help d se rv ic es at www.principalinve
of members who ts an
all of our produc If
d in vi te you to review of service to you.
ways we can be
th em an
you’ve joined er ne ed s, an d m e. I
g topics, research sitate to contact
s on th e lo ok out for interestin ur co lle ag ue s, please do not he be st advice
We are alw ay e with yo n with th e
es s st or y yo u would like to shar rv in g yo u an d your organizatio
you have a succ se
I look forward to
de lig ht ed to he ar from you, and
would be ture.
available in the fu
and information
Best Regards,
D, PhD
Leslie Norins, M
Retired Founder n
ators Associatio
Principal Investig
oad Suite 316
9990 Coconut R
FL 34135
Bonita Springs,
vestigators.org
Info@principalin
Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org 2

Table of Contents
A Note from the Publisher ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Foreword................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Preface ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................ 12
Phase I: Organize for Clarity................................................................................................................................ 15
Statement of Purpose...................................................................................................................................... 15
Working Outline............................................................................................................................................... 17
Phase II: Draft for Content, Clarity, and Flow..................................................................................................... 22
Rough Draft...................................................................................................................................................... 22
Working Draft – Flow........................................................................................................................................ 32
Phase III: Revise for Precision............................................................................................................................ 33
Revise for Conciseness.................................................................................................................................... 34
Revise for Grammar......................................................................................................................................... 53
Revise for Word Usage.................................................................................................................................. 100
Revise for Mechanics..................................................................................................................................... 120
Phase IV: Edit Proofread.................................................................................................................................... 144
Editing Process.............................................................................................................................................. 145
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................................... 150
Appendix A: Tense and Its Use in Scientific Writing............................................................................................. 156
Appendix B: Tense and the Use in Passive Voice................................................................................................. 157
Appendix C: 100 Most Often Misspelled Words................................................................................................... 158
About the Author................................................................................................................................................... 159
“Scientific and Medical Writing for Investigators: The Keys to Precision and Style” is published by Scientific Researchers
Resources, Inc., 9990 Coconut Road, Suite 316, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 USA. Telephone: (800) 303-0129 ~
Fax: (239) 676-0146 ~ Email: info@principalinvestigators.org ~ Website: www.principalinvestigators.org
This guide is endorsed as a valuable tool for continuing professional development by Principal Investigators Association.
Retired Founder: Leslie C. Norins, MD, PhD
© 2014 Principal Investigators Association. The entire contents of this publication are protected by Copyright, worldwide. All rights
reserved. Reproduction or further distribution by any means, beyond the paid customer, is strictly forbidden without written consent
of Principal Investigators Association, including photocopying and digital, electronic, and/or Web distribution, dissemination, storage,
or retrieval. Report violations in confidence; a $10,000 reward is offered for information resulting in a successful prosecution.
Economical rates for bulk or electronic purchases are available upon request; institutional inquiries welcome. Principal Investigators
Association—as well as this report—is completely independent and not controlled by any government agency, organization or society,
consultancy, contractor, or vendor. Opinions expressed by private authors are their own, and not official government opinions. Although
the publisher believes the presented information is accurate, grant writing is part science, part art, and interpretations and strategies
differ, even among experts. Also, individual circumstances vary. Therefore, no warranty is made that the information will apply in any
particular case, or that a grant application will result in an award.
3 Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org

Foreword
By William E. Russey, Ph.D.
I want to make it clear from the outset that I am stepping well outside my comfort zone in preparing
this Foreword: I have always felt much more at home functioning as an editor or a “polisher” than
trying to be a writer. The fact that I once co-authored an entire book on the challenges and techniques
associated with preparing for publication various kinds of scientific manuscripts, in no way refutes this
claim to preferring the editor’s role. I am sure my two friends and co-authors on that book project, Hans
Ebel and Claus Bliefert (now in Germany and France, respectively), would readily acknowledge that I
was much more involved in translating into English their original insights than I was in creating text of
my own. (Admittedly I did introduce some ideas — but even here, thoughts due to my colleagues were
typically the stimulus.)
That said, my background and interests should still put me in a good position to address what Nancy
has presented us with in this remarkable volume — which differs radically from ours, incidentally, while
at the same time complementing it beautifully. We were concerned primarily with overall structure, and
with the conceptual design of a manuscript. We thus chose to forego almost totally any direct treatment
of mechanical and technical matters, despite how crucial these are in successfully conveying one’s ideas
to the reader. Serious shortcomings here can in fact render the whole effort pointless, since even the
most motivated and enthusiastic reader will give up and simply discard the carelessly prepared report or
article (or book, even), irrespective of its potential importance or originality.
The quotation with which Nancy begins — “The sweetest sounds I ever heard are still inside my
head” — signals the essential starting point: writing requires first that the underlying IDEAS be there,
waiting to be communicated; but the quote also hints at another basic consideration: in sharing those
ideas the conscientious author will strictly avoid “dis-chords”, and the “tones” that are selected for the
task will be combined in such a way as to form the most pleasing “melody” possible.
Given the nature of the subject matter involved (science or medicine), it should be safe to assume
that anyone who has chosen to read this far will already meet the first criterion: he or she is bound to be

a wellspring of ideas waiting to be shared, no matter how vaguely formulated these ideas may so far be.
In other words, it is now time to extract and dust off perhaps the best or most timely of the original ideas
available, and then organize the relevant material so that it becomes possible to express it effectively.
Then, however, comes the hardest and most time-consuming part: REVISE, REVISE, REVISE (a
process to which, quite appropriately, nearly three-fourths of the present book is directed). Only after
(several rounds of) serious revision will it make sense to turn your attention to the crucial finishing
touches, applied through a combination of editing and proofreading (again, both methodically and
repeatedly).
One important message stressed in the book, even if implicitly, is that (good) writing is difficult
for nearly everyone. This is a skill that must be acquired, and its practice —need I say it? — is time-
consuming, more so than one almost ever anticipates. For each project undertaken, that time will also
need to be invested over an extended period of time. But with painstaking persistence, the skill of
writing well is a skill that can be developed, and for those in a profession that demands a considerable
amount of painstaking writing (as with virtually every scientist or medical professional engaged in
research, for example), time invested in improving one’s writing is time very well-spent indeed.
I can warmly recommend Nancy’s book as an excellent starting point!

PREFACE
This expression, often attributed to a famous composer of

“The sweetest sounds I ever
classical music, may not immediately resonate with those who
heard are still inside my
find their “music” in life to be the written word. However, these
head …”
words have genuine relevance for all writers; for the writer of
science and medicine they are of particular significance. Hidden
in the simplicity of this brief statement is the challenge faced by all scientists who know they have
something important to say, but just cannot find a way to say it. It might be expressed differently; the
scientist might say, “The finest words to prove my work have somehow gone unsaid.” Yet the challenge
remains the same.
Those longing to express the “sweetest sounds” or their “finest words,” know that the struggle
is not about the music; it is not about the science or the medicine. It is not even about the acquiring
of knowledge or the possessing of vision; rather, it is the challenge of expressing that knowledge, of
sharing that vision. It is not the fight to put information into the mind, but the battle to draw it out – to
put thought into words, to move words onto paper.
As an editor, I have frequently observed this struggle among various groups of professionals; some
of the most challenged have been writers from the scientific and medical fields. Writers in science
and medicine themselves readily acknowledge this challenge; most will admit to the frustration that
accompanies the struggle. It is a frustration, ever simmering beneath the surface, that speaks to the true
depth of the challenge. To communicate in a way that is meaningful and lasting does, indeed, continue to
be a unique struggle for today’s scientific writer.
Why is this? What makes the struggle unique?
In recent decades, professionals from within the scientific community itself have repeatedly pointed
to a tradition of “academic snobbery” as the primary reason for a steady decline in the quality of today’s
scientific writing. They point to an attitude of mental superiority, built and perpetuated from within.

Numerous expressions from well-respected scientists underscore the widespread concern. For
example, in 1975, Dr. Michael Crichton (1944 - 2008), author of Jurassic Park and The Andromeda
Strain, voiced his exasperation with writers of medical prose. In a piece published in the New England
Journal of Medicine, he held that “dense and forbidding medical prose is designed as a display of
scientific profundity, and not as an attempt to communicate experience.”
The result? “Even the simplest concepts are re-stated in unrevealing forms. The stance of authors
seems designed to astound and mystify the reader with a dazzling display of knowledge and scientific
acumen,” Dr. Crichton concluded.
In 1994, Dr. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, wrote a book
entitled The Astonishing Hypothesis; in it he bluntly observed:
“There is no form of prose more difficult to understand and more tedious to read than the average
scientific paper.”
Dr. Crick and others of his generation witnessed the transformation of scientific prose from
reasonably understandable to largely unreadable. Crick was simply acknowledging what many of
today’s scientists openly admit: that a great deal of scientific writing has become a tedious chore to read,
a frustrating challenge to comprehend.
Most recently, in early 2014, Christopher Dant, PhD, a faculty instructor at Dartmouth Medical
School and the Norris Cotton Cancer Center, stated, “One universal tenet of writing is that scientists
often equate long, complex sentences and paragraphs with deep thinking.” He added, “But the simple
fact is that academic puffery – stilted, complex and confused writing – is misunderstood by the reader
and doesn’t serve the author.”
Of particular concern to Dr. Dant is the effect such writing has on a new generation of scientists. He
writes of how “the student is among learned and very critical colleagues and often feels insecure in his
writing and therefore borrows these erudite-sounding pompous phrases from other papers he has read.”
He goes on to describe current scientific writing as “weighed down by a tradition of pompous academic
writing that has been perpetuated in the literature.” Thus, he portrays a stifled environment, one shaped
by poor example and self-perpetuated by a professional culture so impressed with academic achievement
that it often finds itself applauding even the illusion of intelligence.

A second factor that scientists themselves point to as contributing to the current decline in the
quality of scientific writing involves the very nature of science today. With the demand for constant
adjustment, made necessary by on-going research in a world exploding with expanding knowledge and
new discoveries, science continues to become ever more specialized and complex. Today’s scientist can
quite understandably become caught up in these complexities; as a result, thinking becomes confused
and confined by excessive detail. Relevant findings are mentally misplaced, even lost. Unable to
consistently think clearly themselves, scientists then find it ever more difficult to clearly communicate to
others the results of their fine efforts. They struggle to write those words that “prove their work,” further
challenged by an acute awareness that the failure to do so may indeed mean the difference between a
good career and a great one, between sharing results with a handful of colleagues and sharing them with
the world.
As an editor, I have observed this struggle many times. Some of my most difficult editing
assignments have been with writers who seemed the most intelligent. It was hard to understand: the
“deeper” the subject, the more confused the writing; the more complicated the science, the more
disorganized the paper. It was striking to observe how these professionals, who knew the science, who
knew the medicine, just could not put that knowledge into clear and understandable expression.
In addition to the tradition of “academic snobbery” and the growing complexity of science, a third
factor contributing to poor writing in science and medicine today is an influence that has significantly
affected virtually all other fields of writing as well. This is the striking influence of an ever-advancing
technology. Technology has provided us with amazing communication capabilities that are undeniable –
it has taken communication to a whole new level. However, such incredible advancement brings with it
legitimate cause for concern. Marilyn vos Savant, American magazine columnist, author, lecturer, and
a Mensa member once listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as possessing the world’s highest
IQ, has observed, “Email, instant messaging (IMing) and cell phones give us fabulous communication
ability, but because we live in our own little worlds, that communication is totally disorganized.”
Much of this “disorganization” results quite naturally from the extensive use of email, instant
messaging (IMing) and cell phones. These tools have significantly affected our ability to spell, to use
punctuation properly, and to construct sentences correctly. If you doubt the significance of that effect,
ask yourself: “What does ‘c u @8 2nite-TTY’ mean?” Is the punctuation correct? Did you even think
about the punctuation? Is anything misspelled? Is anything spelled correctly?

Researchers observe that most people who spend significant time IMing or texting – sending and
receiving acronyms, misspellings, and typos dozens of times a day – find it difficult to switch back and
forth between these methods of communicating and standard (formal) writing.
This serious difficulty places younger ones at the greater disadvantage; researchers contend –
logically – that the longer an individual uses these fast and easy forms of communication, the harder the
switching becomes. Those who have grown up with these tools, who have been sending and receiving
text messages since they were in grade school, are presented with unique challenges. Attached to a text
message vocabulary before being exposed to basic grammar lessons, many of them may never have
learned the essential building blocks of good writing to begin with: the ability to spell, to use correct
punctuation, and to construct sentences properly.
This is of legitimate concern for writers of science and medicine; although the ability to write clearly
and effectively is one of the most valuable skills anyone can possess, it is an absolute necessity for
today’s serious scientific writer. Editors and reviewers alike consistently point to unclear writing as a
major reason that papers are rejected and grants are not funded. In fact, confusion of thought, lost in the
obscurity of poor expression, often leaves journal editors and grant reviewers too perplexed to know
how to offer constructive criticism.
Serious consequences result. Valuable knowledge fails to be effectively used or clearly conveyed.
Careers are jeopardized. Bright researchers are demoralized. Science suffers, as talented professionals
abandon the effort to publish, their unique findings lost or even forgotten.
In recent years, scientists themselves have searched for ways to address this decline in the quality
of scientific writing; they have sought new approaches to overcome the negative influences of stifled
academic tradition, increased scientific complexity, and advanced technology. However, success has
been limited, solutions remain elusive.
Throughout the years, as I watched some of the most educated writers struggle to clearly express
themselves, I began to notice a common “limitation,” something missing. This limitation was not about
the science – it was never about the knowledge, motivation or professional ethic. Eventually, it became
clear why the solution to this decline in the quality of scientific writing was so elusive. The solution was
not about trying something new – it was a matter of finding something old, something that had been lost.

What, exactly, had been lost? And how could it be recovered?
A brief illustration may help to characterize the dilemma:
While working in a rural community, late one night a policeman comes upon a man at the edge of
town, frantically searching for something under the streetlight. Concerned, he approaches the man and
asks what he is looking for.
“I’ve lost my keys,” the man says.
“What happened – how did you lose them?” the policeman asks.
“Well, I fell asleep driving my car, and I went in the ditch, and somehow in the confusion of
everything, I lost my keys!”
The policeman glances around and, not seeing a car, he asks, “Well, where’s your car? Where did
you go off the road?”
The man shrugs, motions behind him and answers, “Back there, about a quarter of a mile in some
tall weeds.”
Confused, the policeman shakes his head and asks, “Then why are you looking for your keys
HERE?”
“Well, that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?” the man replies, “The light’s better here!”
Scientists have lost the keys to something vitally important, something critical to their professional
success: somehow they have lost the keys to clear, effective writing. Where are these keys to be found,
where might today’s scientist search for them? Under the streetlight of tradition, in the examples of
previous papers characterized by what Dr. Dant describes as “academic puffery”? In writings Michael
Crichton labels “a dazzling display of knowledge and scientific acumen,” where, he observed, “even the
simplest concepts are re-stated in unrevealing forms”?

It does little good to search for keys where they are clearly not to be found, doing so because it is
professionally the more comfortable choice; it serves little purpose to keep searching in all the wrong
places just because scientific momentum continues to support a status quo.
The keys to clear, effective writing are back there in the basics of good organization of thought, back
in the fundamental principles of proper grammar and usage. The only real solution, then, is to go back
and look for them there; to go back to the basics and find them. No matter how well the weeds of time
and circumstance have hidden these keys, they can be found – and they can prove very useful.
What would the policeman in our story do next? Quite likely, he would pull out his flashlight and
offer to walk back with the man and help him find his keys.
Similarly, this guide can serve as the “flashlight” you need to find the missing keys to powerful
written communication. Together we will walk back and find them. These can then become your
personal set of keys – they will provide you with what you individually need to overcome the writing
obstacles standing between you and the professional validation you deserve.
With these keys, you will discover how satisfying it is to write simply, how easy it is to develop your
thoughts by following an organized plan. With these keys, you will discover your own potential to write
with clarity, precision, and style.
And with these keys – perhaps along the way – you may even discover those “finest words to prove
your work.”

INTRODUCTION
This guide describes a focused effort to rapidly improve your “Communication is a skill
ability to write with precision and style. To prepare for that effort, that you can learn. It’s like
we will here consider a brief overview of the material.
riding a bicycle or typing.
If you’re willing to work at
PHASE I - Organize for Clarity
it, you can rapidly improve
the quality of every part of
1. Statement of Purpose your life.”
2. Working/Sentence Outline
- Brian Tracy, author and
The purpose of PHASE I is to organize your thoughts and
public speaker
establish mental clarity. This phase has two main parts: a Statement
of Purpose describing what you intend to accomplish, and a Working Outline. This Working Outline
is not a formal outline; the sole purpose of this outline is to keep you organized throughout the entire
writing process.
PHASE II- Draft for Content, Clarity, and Flow
1. Rough Draft – Content and Clarity

Sentences
Paragraphs
2. Working Draft-Flow
Entire Manuscript Text

In PHASE II, you will be creating a Working Draft of your entire manuscript. Using the outline you
created in PHASE I, you will first write a Rough Draft, being mainly concerned with getting your ideas
written down and then developing those ideas sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. Once the
Rough Draft is complete, you will use it to create a Working Draft, concentrating on content flow. This
Working Draft will be used for PHASE III (Revision).
PHASE III- Revise for Precision
1. Revise for Conciseness

2. Revise for Grammar
3. Revise for Word Usage
4. Revise for Mechanics
Using your Working Draft, you will first work to make your writing more concise. Applying the
instruction on carefully and consistently following the rules of Standard English for both grammar and
word usage will lend further clarity and precision to your writing. The Revise for Mechanics section
will give attention to such elements as punctuation, spelling, capitalization and numbers. By the end of
PHASE III, you will have transformed your Working Draft into a precise, Complete Draft.
PHASE IV- Edit/Proofread
Complete Draft
1. Self-Edit
2. Recruit Others
3. Professional Editor
4. Self-Edit/Colleague Edit
Final Draft
5. Editor Read- Final Draft
6. Self- Read- Final Draft

The final phase, PHASE IV, is a series of editing and proofreading sessions. Enlisting the services
of a professional editor is an essential element of this phase. By the end of PHASE IV, you will have
completed your Final Draft.
These four keys, or phases, make up an effective method for planning, organizing, and writing a
concise scientific paper, one marked by a precision that results from careful attention to detail. It will
be most effective if you progress through the phases in order. Don’t skip ahead; do not move forward to
the next phase until you’ve finished the current one. Within the context of this method, the four keys,
or phases, function somewhat like a combination lock: to open a combination lock, you have to follow a
specific forward-then-back (right-then-left) sequence.
Similarly, as when working a combination lock, you can go back to your Working (Sentence) Outline
to make adjustments where necessary, and then go forward again. This will give you the flexibility you
need to keep your project focused and your thoughts organized.
For example, while you are drafting in PHASE II, you might realize you forgot an important point;
you will want to go back to your Working Outline (PHASE I) to find the best spot to logically add that
point. Or perhaps during PHASE III (Revision), you decide that a short section of your writing is really
just repetitive. Return to your Working Outline and remove the unwanted points; by doing this, you keep
your Working Outline current and your writing remains logical and clear.
The exception to this “never-forward-always-back” rule is found in the drafting phase (PHASE II);
within this phase, you can choose to work on the separate parts (the Introduction or the Conclusion,
for example) in any order that you choose. Just don’t move to PHASE III until you’ve finished with
all parts of PHASE II (until you’ve completed your entire Working Draft). Among other things, it can
prove counter-productive to skip ahead – you might, for instance, spend valuable time making grammar
revisions on material you later decide to delete altogether.

Scientific and Medical Writing for Investigators: The Keys to Precision and Style Phase I: Organize for Clarity
PHASE I: Organize for Clarity
1. Statement of Purpose “Organizing is what you do

2. Working Outline before you do something, so
that when you do it, it is not
all mixed up.”
Statement of Purpose - A.A. Milne (1882-1956),
English author and
To write clearly, you have to first think clearly. To establish
humorist
clarity of thought, you will begin by first developing a
Statement of Purpose.
This statement will be a concise description of your project. To begin formulating your Statement of
Purpose, ask yourself:
• Why am I writing this scientific paper?

• What do I want readers to know, to understand, or to do when they finish reading?
If you can answer the Why and the What of your paper, and put those answers into a few brief
sentences, the purpose of your writing will be clarified in your own mind. This will simplify your entire
writing process.
To help you to answer these two questions, consider three parameters:
1. Style: scientific papers (and grant applications as well) are written in a formal style, as opposed
to an informal or casual style. This is considered an “elevated” style, and it affects a number of
features of your writing.
2. Audience: those who will be reading your paper. Who are those readers and what do they
already know about your subject? What are their needs or interests in relation to this subject?
3. Scope: sometimes defined as the depth and breadth of detail you will consider, it involves your
decisions about what you intend to include and what will not be included in your paper (or grant
application).

It might be helpful to think of this process in the context of a road trip:
Style describes the kind of trip you are planning to take. Because it is a scientific paper, it might best
be described as “strictly business,” rather than a trip taken for a less formal purpose – perhaps for leisure
or recreation. Audience explains who will be coming along on the trip, and Scope is a description of
what significant landmarks you will be touring, as well as what you will not be stopping to investigate.
Keeping these parameters in mind, answer the Why and What questions. Now try to express your
purpose in two or three clear, simple statements. This becomes your Statement of Purpose, a brief
description of your entire trip.
To illustrate, in organizing for this guide, I considered the three parameters:
Style
My trip was not a scientific or academic paper itself, it was about that subject, so I did not have a style
pre-determined for me. I wanted to be able to have a little more literary freedom to explore various aspects
of scientific writing. I therefore thought of it as a business trip with stops along the way to tour educational
sites or even to briefly sightsee. I set the style as formal-with-a-slightly-informal (or literary) mix.
Audience
Writers trained in some field of science or medicine would be coming along on this trip.
Scope
With my set destination of producing a guide that would enable those in my audience to write a
scientific paper with precision and style, I planned to give a guided tour of all the necessary landmarks,
with an occasional stop to discuss current issues that might affect readers when they wrote their own
papers. I knew, for instance, that the use of active and passive voice in scientific papers and grant
applications continues to be debated, and I wanted to briefly explore the terrain surrounding this issue.

Also, because scientific and medical writing make extra and varied application of the mechanics of
writing (such as punctuation, spelling, capitalization and numbers), and because those uses vary from field
to field within both science and medicine, I quickly realized that I would not be able to stop to visit all
those little places. Finally, formatting issues for tables, graphs, bibliographies and references are subject
to both science-specific requirements and to guidelines provided by professional journals and funding
agencies; therefore, we would not be stopping to visit those subjects either; I planned to just point them
out as we drove by.
Taking all these points into consideration, I answered the Why and What questions and wrote my
Statement of Purpose:
To help writers in science and medicine develop an organized process for presenting professional
papers in a clear, precise way. This involves first getting thoughts and ideas clear and organized
in the writers’ minds, and then helping them systematically work through the individual parts
of a writing project. Additionally, the guide should motivate writers to work toward developing
an individual Style, with a capital S – a style that is both unique in presentation and powerful in
impact, one easy for others to understand, appreciate, and remember.
When you finish your Statement of Purpose, it is time to develop a Working Outline.

Scientific and Medical Writing for Investigators: The Keys to Precision and Style Phase II: Draft for Content, Clarity and Flow
PHASE II. Draft for Content, Clarity, and Flow

1. Rough Draft-Content and Clarity
Sentence Level Drafting “Words – so innocent and
Paragraph Level Drafting powerless as they are, as
standing in a dictionary,
2. Working Draft- Flow
Entire Manuscript Text
how potent for good and
evil they become in the
hands of one who knows
how to combine them.”
Rough Draft - Nathaniel Hawthorne
To create a Rough Draft, you will develop your material by focusing on ideas and logical thought
development. Clarity, making content as clear as possible, is largely achieved through logical structure
and proper progression of ideas. Concentrate therefore on first converting your outline into sentences
and paragraphs and then placing them in a logical order. At this point, it is not necessary to be overly
concerned about exact wording.
Sentence Level Drafting
Since the topic sentence states the main idea of the paragraph and the rest of the sentences you write
for that paragraph will support and develop the main idea, topic sentences must be strong and focused.
Choose sentences from your Working (Sentence) Outline as the basis for topic sentences; although these
are already in sentence form, you will likely find that you have to rephrase them somewhat as you work
them into the actual text of your draft.
For example, the first sentence in my (Preface) Working Outline read:
This expression (from a composer) may not resonate with those whose “music” is writing.

I rephrased this sentence into a topic sentence for the first paragraph of the Preface:
This expression, quite often attributed to a famous composer of classical music, may not
resonate with writers who find their “music” to be the written word.
Once you have selected and written a topic sentence, choose other sentences from your Working
Outline that you want to use in that paragraph. In addition, other thoughts from your sorted notes on the
same point or subject can be used. Sentences are the building blocks of the paragraph, so remember that
each sentence must contribute something meaningful to the paragraph.
To illustrate, after I had selected and written the topic sentence for the first paragraph of the Preface:
• This expression, quite often attributed to a famous composer of classical music, may not resonate
with writers who find their “music” to be the written word.
I chose the next three sentences from my Working Outline:
• But these words have real relevance for all writers; great significance for scientific writers.
• It might be expressed differently, one might say “The finest word to prove my work, etc.
• However, the challenge is the same.
Then I rephrased them somewhat:
• The expression has real relevance for all writers, but for writers in science and medicine they
have particular significance.
• It might be expressed differently, the scientist might say, “The finest words to prove my work have
somehow gone unsaid.”
• But the challenge is the same.
Finally, I checked my additional notes (from the folder I had labeled “Preface”), and decided to
include an additional point:

• Hidden in this brief statement is the challenge faced by all who feel they have something to say
but just cannot find the words.
At this point, I was ready to select the next topic sentence and repeat the process, working down
through all the sentences in my Working Outline.
As you work your way through the Rough Draft, try to construct each sentence so that the meaning
is as clear as possible. Here are three suggestions to increase sentence clarity:
1. Go from old information to new information.
Sentences are easier for the reader to follow if you begin with something mentioned in a previous
sentence or something the reader already finds familiar. By beginning a sentence with established
information, the reader is subconsciously grounded and better prepared to comprehend new information.
This can be rather subtle:
The USDA Food Pyramid (old) has been replaced by the MyPlate Nutrition Guide. (new)
It might be more obvious:
Standard treatment for this sports injury used to be heat compresses (old), but now most team
doctors apply ice. (new)
2. Use parallel structure.
When you want to use a series of words, phrases or clauses, put them in a similar grammatical form
so the reader can clearly identify the linking relationship.
If you want to benefit from our research program, you must be punctual, courteous and
conscientious. (parallel words)

If you want to benefit from our research program, you must recognize the importance of being
punctual, of behaving in a courteous manner, and of studying conscientiously. (parallel phrases)
If you want to benefit from our research program, you must arrive punctually, you must behave
courteously, and you must study conscientiously. (parallel clauses)

Scientific and Medical Writing for Investigators: The Keys to Precision and Style Phase III: Revise for Precision
PHASE III – Revise for Precision
A fundamental purpose of writing is to be understood. To be

truly understood, however, the writer’s message must be clear. “Put it before them briefly
Therefore, the goal of all good writers is to meet this demand for so they will read it, clearly
clarity by making their message as well-defined and understandable so they will appreciate it,
as possible. picturesquely so they will
remember it, and above all,
The writer of science and medicine, however, faces an even
greater demand. The expectation generally held out for scientific
accurately so they will be
writers is that all discussion will be presented with an impeccable guided by its light.”
clarity that reflects their professional pursuit of scientific precision. - Joseph Pulitzer
In other words, it is expected that, for work that is precise,
reporting on that work must be equally precise.
Precision basically refers to the stating of exactly what is meant; as such, it is highly dependent upon
a thorough knowledge of vocabulary and grammar and the proper use of both. It is not a matter of using
words that make one sound smart or knowledgeable; rather, it is an issue of choosing words that most
accurately and effectively communicate a specific message. A serious call for precision also implies a
more subtle demand, that of meticulous attention to detail.
Though learning to express yourself with such true precision is demanding, acquiring this skill is
well worth the effort– precision adds unique dimension to the value of clarity. Like a diamond cutter
who uses precision to increase the clarity of a beautiful stone, scientific writers can use precision to
highlight the value and relevance of their work. Those who successfully do so stand to benefit greatly
from such high-quality writing and the endorsement that it will invariably receive.
To that end, we will focus attention on developing effective ways to compose with maximum
precision.
1. Revise for Conciseness

2. Revise for Grammar
3. Revise for Word Usage
4. Revise for Mechanics

Revise for Conciseness
Mark Twain: “I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”
Mark Twain understood the problem well: it is far too easy to say too much. To achieve clarity, for
writing to be truly clear to the reader, it must be concise.
To be concise, all extraneous and repetitive words, phrases, clauses, and even sentences must be
removed without sacrificing clarity or essential detail.
Being concise can reduce length and at the same time increase comprehension. However, conciseness
is not a synonym for brevity; a long report may still be concise, a short one may be too wordy. Concise
writing does not always have the fewest words, but it should always have the strongest words.
Therefore, we will begin by considering the advice of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.:
“Speak clearly, if you speak at all; carve every word before you let it fall.”
Identify and Eliminate Casual Words or Phrases
Casual Words or phrases are inappropriate in formal writing and should be eliminated. Some examples:
Quite a few
Sort of
Fairly
Interestingly

In a sense
Rather
As a matter of fact
By the way
Identify and Delete Informal Phrases
Though not considered casual, informal phrases still signal a familiarity that is generally not
appropriate for a scientific manuscript or grant proposal written in formal style; eliminate these as well.
Some examples:
It is of interest to note
In a sense
Interestingly
That said
As already mentioned
Draw your attention to the fact that
Needless to say
It goes without saying
You no doubt agree that

Limit Intensifiers
Intensifiers are adverbs that are used to emphasize degree.
Intensifiers can appropriately be used for emphasis, but they are easily abused. Eliminate those that
do not make an obvious contribution.
Very
Numerous
Many
Clearly
Basically
Quite
Most
Absolutely
Completely
Reduce or Replace Wordy Phrases
A wordy phrase is technically called a circumlocution: “the use of an unnecessarily large number
of words to express an idea or describe a meaning.” Shorten the phrase or look for a more concise
equivalent.

Circumlocution Replace with

Prior to Before
Due to the fact that Because
In a considerable number of cases Often
The majority of Most
During the time that While
In close proximity to Near
Have an effect on Affect
At the present time Now
As a result of Because
Commented to the effect that Said
In the event that If
In order to To
Replace longer words with shorter words.
“I would never use a long word where a short one would answer the purpose.”
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
Possess Have
Sufficient Enough
Utilize Use
Usage Use
Demonstrate Show
Assistance Help
Terminate End
Subsequent After

This does not mean that all long words must be replaced by shorter ones at all times – doing so can
make writing monotonous, and thereby decrease the reader’s interest. Do, however, make judicious use
of longer words that have shorter equivalents.
Delete Redundant Words
A redundant word is one that is so similar to another that it essentially serves as a duplicate.
Therefore, use of redundant words creates needless repetition. In the list below, the words in bold are
redundant and should be deleted.
Final outcome Skin rash
Reduce down Repeat again
Red in color Soft in consistency
Small in size Important essentials
Close scrutiny This afternoon at 4:00 p.m.
Add together This morning at 9:00 a.m.
Entirely complete Audible to the ear
Combine together Interval of time
Sum total Completely full
Fuse together High fever

After resting for a short interval of time, we returned to check on the patients at 4:00 p.m. in the
afternoon. (redundant)
After resting for a short time, we returned to check on the patients at 4:30 p.m. (concise)
NOTE: The abbreviations a.m. and p.m. can also correctly be expressed as AM and PM. There are
no periods used when the abbreviations are written with capital letters.
He arrived at the lab at exactly 5:30 PM.
She is scheduled to work tomorrow at 6:00 AM.
Close scrutiny of the young man for only a short interval of time enabled the experienced doctor
to get an entirely complete picture of the sum total of his patient’s symptoms; by reducing down
his high fever, he was able to effectively address the skin rash that had been beet red in color
only a few short hours earlier, and by 9:00 a.m. in the morning a completely successful final
outcome had been reached. (redundant)
Scrutiny of the young man for a short time enabled the experienced doctor to get a complete picture
of his patient’s symptoms; by reducing his fever, he was able to address the rash that had been beet
red a few hours earlier, and by 9:00 a.m. a successful outcome had been reached. (concise)
Address Poor “Metadiscourse”
An exact definition of the term metadiscourse remains somewhat unclear. A working definition
includes all the tools or methods a writer uses to “converse” with the reader about what is written.
Signposting and hedging are two tools of metadiscourse often used by the scientific writer.

Signposting
Signposting is a form of commentary made in the course of writing that tells the writer what is going
to be discussed.
When used properly, this type of metadiscourse is helpful. Just the act of saying, “Here I will do
this…” or “In the next section I will discuss this…” can provide clarity to writer and reader alike.
Poor Signposting
Poor signposting could be characterized as “writing a lot without telling anything.”
For example, it would be poor signposting to say:
The Methods section will discuss the methods we used. Then the Results will be discussed;
finally, remarks will be given in the Discussion section.
Since readers already understand the form the author is using, they learn nothing new with this kind
of signposting.
Effective Signposting
Effective signposting sets readers’ expectations; it gives them a mental map of where the discussion
has been and where it will be going. It guides them by telling what will come next and showing how that
is connected to what has come before. For example:
The Methods section will explain how we applied our new formula to six discrete samples. The
Results describe the accuracy this formula yielded, irrespective of variations in sample weight,
temperature, or volume. Finally, in the Discussion section we suggest how this formula might
best be used in laboratories today and why its potential for future applications invites further
research.

Hedging
Hedging is the technique of stating conditions, qualifications, or exceptions to an assertion; it is an
admission that something might contradict the assertion.
Problematic Hedging
Hedging is problematic when it indicates a great degree of uncertainty or a lack of confidence. It
is characterized by words like: seems, some evidence, suggest, may be, maybe, to some extent, might,
could, can, appears, certain.
Our research seems to suggest to some extent that there may be some evidence of causal
connection between certain levels of exposure to high-power lines and some cancers.
Legitimate Hedging
Hedging is a legitimate writing strategy when used properly. It is typically characterized by words
like: may, probably, likely, usually, rarely, and frequently.
The results of our study show that children who skip lunch are frequently ill.
Likely, environmental factors do not affect hatch rate of this species.
Identify and Eliminate Slang
General Slang
Because general slang is a part of virtually everyone’s informal speech, the list of general slang
words and phrases is seemingly endless. Some examples:

Phony
He is always acting like he’s so educated. What a phony!
Bigwig
Don’t bother my supervisor- she’s a bigwig in this hospital.
Blow your stack
If you lose your temper and blow your stack, you’re liable to be left cleaning all the glassware in
the lab.
Eager beaver
Don’t be such an eager beaver; just slow down and we’ll finish the experiment on time.
Elbow grease
Removing the odd substance in this petri dish is going to take some elbow grease.
Legit
I’m not sure his sudden illness is legit.
Psyched out
They won because they psyched out the competition.
Doctor-speak
When I asked what was wrong with my heart, he just gave me a bunch of doctor-speak.

Professional Slang
Professional slang is slang limited to the activities and interests of a single profession. It is used in
casual conversation among members of that professional group.
Attending Attending physician

Bleed out Bleed to death
Case Patient
Negative (Lab) test result normal
Positive (Lab) test result abnormal
Prepped Prepared
Cardiac diet Diet for a patient with heart disease
All slang – professional or otherwise – is considered casual speech; it is not appropriate in formal
writing. Carefully scrutinize your words and eliminate all slang.
Identify and Eliminate Jargon
To understand what jargon is, see if you can decipher the following sentence:
Feathered bipeds of similar plumage will live gregariously.
(Birds of a feather flock together.)
Birds of a feather not only flock together, they also talk together, and jargon might be depicted as a
form of “shoptalk.”
Jargon might further be described as “the specialized vocabulary of any profession, trade, science or
hobby.” However, to those who do not share that profession, trade, science or hobby, jargon can sound
like the sentence above: overly-technical or more scientific than necessary.

There are three primary reasons for using jargon:
1. Affectation
It makes the user feel more knowledgeable than others, perhaps even superior to others.
Jargon often involves the use of language that is more technical or scientific; many feel it lends a
degree of authority to their writing. In reality, however, it can have the opposite effect. It can irritate the
“outside” reader, who is now forced to work harder to understand the writer’s meaning.
2. Evidence of belonging to an elite group

Users feel they are important because they belong to an exclusive group. However, if some in the
audience are outside of the specialized vocabulary, use of jargon may cause them to feel excluded.
Wise writers seek to draw all readers in, to be inclusive in their writing. Therefore, use of jargon can
be counter-productive; once readers feel excluded, they will likely lose interest in what is written.
3. Short-cut to communication among a given group

It serves as a short-cut, an efficient means of communicating, within a closed society or group.
However, the benefit of a communication short-cut does not apply when all in the audience do not
belong to the society or group and thus do not share the vocabulary. There is an obvious potential for the
reader to feel confused or excluded (or both).
Although jargon is acceptable in some settings (such as at speaking events when it is known that all
in the audience do, in fact, belong to the specialized group), it is not appropriate in formal writing. The
potential for “reader frustration and alienation” renders it counter-productive in this setting.
An example of the negative effect of scientific jargon:
In one official bulletin, acid rain was referred to as “atmospheric deposition of anthropogenically-

derived acidic substances.” In the non-technical environment where this bulletin was circulated, few
would have known what anthropogenically-derived meant. An individual who puzzled over its meaning
commented, “My word processor flagged it as an unknown, and it wasn’t in my edition of Webster’s
Dictionary. It took me some time to find it online, only to learn that it simply means, ‘caused by
humans.’ I was thoroughly disgusted with the waste of time.” This illustrates the frustration readers can
experience when unfamiliar jargon is inappropriately used.
Carefully scrutinize your writing to identify and eliminate all jargon.
Examples of medical jargon:
Idiopathic Unexplained cause

Acute paronychia Infected hangnail
Suture Stitch
Lesion Injury
Epistaxis Nosebleed
Xerosis Dry skin
Extrapolation Educated guess; expected cause or effect
Here it may prove edifying to recall the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.: “I know there are
professors in this country who ‘ligate’ arteries. Other surgeons tie them, and it stops the bleeding just
as well.”
Eliminate Popular – Usage Idioms
Idiomatic expressions are illogical expressions that do not conform to any basic rules of grammar; in
fact, they are often in direct violation of these rules.
There are basically two kinds of idioms: standard-usage idioms and popular-usage idioms.

Standard-Usage Idioms
There are hundreds of these idioms in the English language; they are expressions that are so familiar,
so deeply-ingrained and widely-used that they are not generally even recognized as idioms. These are
considered to be part of Standard English grammar and are acceptable in formal writing.
A few examples:
take back, take effect, take out, look on, look out, look over, abstain from, adhere to
Popular-Usage Idioms
Popular-usage idioms are more easily recognized as idioms. To form an idiom of this type, generally
a number of words are combined and the result takes on a totally new meaning; the idiom usually ends
up expressing something only remotely related to the meaning of the original words. For example:
Read between the lines
If you read between the lines, you can understand the funding agency’s concern.
Bed of roses
Writing grant proposals is no bed of roses, that’s for sure.
Toe the line
If he doesn’t toe the line from now on, his boss will fire him.
Walking papers
They gave me my walking papers, so I packed up my office and left the same day.

Step on his toes
I don’t want to step on his toes by explaining his research before he gets the chance to do so
himself.
Bend your ear
I didn’t mean to bend your ear, but I needed to talk to someone about my funding concerns.
Rub elbows with
At this conference you’ll rub elbows with several of my colleagues.
Though popular-usage idioms are acceptable in some informal settings, those who are not native
speakers find these expressions particularly difficult to understand. They are not appropriate in formal
writing; many feel that omitting them even in less formal settings is a proper courtesy to extend to
members of today’s multi-national scientific community.
Eliminate Sexist Language
To boldly go where no man has gone before. – Captain James T. Kirk, “Star Trek”
(1966-1969)
To boldly go where no one has gone before. – Captain Jean-Luc Picard, “Star Trek:
The Next Generation (1987-1994)
As the expressions above illustrate, the term gender has evolved from a grammatical term
(indicating whether words in certain languages are feminine, masculine or neutral) to one that includes
social and cultural aspects; thus according to the AMA Manual of Style, 9th Edition, “Gender signifies an

individual’s personal, social and legal status without reference to genetic sex.” This reference goes on to
state: “The careful writer avoids generalizations and stereotypes and is specific when choosing words to
describe people.”
Sexist language is language that stereotypes men or women. Using gender neutral, sometimes called
gender-inclusive language, is a matter of courtesy and shows respect for others.
Below is a list of sexist terms, each followed by more appropriate choices:
Chairman Chairperson, chair, moderator

Mankind People, humans
Manpower Personnel
Workman Worker, laborer
Weatherman Weather forecaster, meteorologist
Policeman Police officer
Mailman Postal worker, mail carrier
Fireman Firefighter
Congressman Member of Congress, legislator
Clergyman Minister
It is appropriate to use a gender-attached term (such as chairman or spokesman; chairwoman,

spokeswoman) if you actually know the gender of that individual.
Bob Smith is the chairman of our biology department.
Ann Brown is the current spokeswoman for the group researching funding possibilities.

It is, of course, appropriate to use men or man when you refer to a group of all men or to a specific
man.
The men who join this study about depression should be widowers.
The only man in the study is over the age of 65, and he is a non-smoker.
It is likewise appropriate to use women or woman when referring to a group of all women or to a
specific woman.
This semester, members of the faculty softball team are all women.
The woman who was dropped from the study in week 12 was a 35-year-old diabetic.
Do not try to change all expressions that contain the word man in them by substituting the word
person or individual. This can end up sounding awkward or even silly.
All of the items donated for the hospital charity auction are manmade.
All of the items donated for the hospital charity auction are individual-made. (awkward)
All of the items donated for the hospital charity auction are person-made. (silly)
When possible, choosing a gender-neutral equivalent is appropriate.
All the items donated for the hospital charity auction are handmade. (neutral)

Many terms are gender-neutral (nurse, scientist, doctor, physician). These do not need to be modified
(male nurse, female doctor, female scientist) unless the sex of the individual (s) is somehow relevant to
the issue or discussion.
My professor’s daughter recently became a female doctor. (unnecessary)
We are beginning a study involving female doctors under the age of 30. (necessary)
Sexist Pronouns
The use of he, him and his to refer to either gender is considered an outmoded and sexist tradition.
The researcher must be diligent in supervising his assistants. (sexist)
The principal investigator must make a choice: should he apply for a grant, or should he seek
funding elsewhere? (sexist)
An easy way to revise sexist language is to make the antecedent plural.
Researchers must be diligent in supervising their assistants. (neutral)
Principal investigators must make the choice: should they apply for grants or should they seek
funding elsewhere? (neutral)
An alternative option is to recast the sentence:
The principal investigator must make a choice: should he apply for a grant or should he seek
funding elsewhere? (sexist)
The principal investigator must make the choice to apply for a grant or to seek funding
elsewhere. (neutral)

The reaction a patient has to various therapies depends on his personality and his self-image.
(sexist)
The reaction a patient has to various therapies depends on personality and self-image. (neutral)
If a person wishes to go on vacation in June, they have to submit their request in January.
(grammatically incorrect)
A person wishing to go on vacation in June must submit a request in January. (more graceful)
Use of the expression “he or she” (“his or hers”) should be reserved for the occasional use; look for
more graceful alternatives whenever possible. It may be necessary to recast the sentence.
The man or woman who accepts this position can choose the office he or she prefers. (awkward)
The man or woman who accepts this position can choose his or her office. (awkward)
The person who accepts this position can choose any office. (recast and more graceful)
The use of he/she or his/hers (pronouns separated by a forward slash) is considered outdated and
therefore inappropriate.
When referring to an individual, or those in a group, where the sex of the participants is specifically
known (for instance in the clinical or scientific study context), it is appropriate to use gender-specific
pronouns.
Each participant in the post-menopausal bone density study is expected to provide her medical
records.
Each of the 26 men in the control group was asked to give his full name and a list of the
beverages he regularly drinks.

When referring to a group of mixed gender, the sentence may need to be restructured somewhat to
avoid an awkward expression.
The 25 men and 16 women in the control group were asked to give their full names and a list of
the beverages they regularly drink. (restructured)
NOTE: To avoid issues involving both sex-specific pronouns and awkward construction, some
writers use a plural pronoun with a singular indefinite antecedent. For instance:
Everyone spends their vacation in the lab.
A person must decide how to budget their research funds.
One must send in their reports on time.
Although this is becoming a more popular practice, especially in informal conversation, this is not
grammatically correct. It is not acceptable in the formal setting of scientific and medical writing, where
proper subject-verb agreement is always observed. These sentences must be recast:
All the researchers spend their vacations in the lab.
A person must decide how to budget time.
Individuals must send in their reports on time.

Scientific and Medical Writing for Investigators: The Keys to Precision and Style Phase IV: Edit/Proofread
PHASE IV- Edit/Proofread
Complete Draft “No author dislikes to be

Self-Edit edited as much as he dis-
Recruit Others likes not to be published.”
Professional Editor Russell Lynes (1910-1991),
Self-Edit/Colleague Edit American historian
Final Draft
Editor – Final Read
Self – Final Read
Since “to edit” means to assemble by cutting and re-arranging, and “proofreading” is a slow and
methodical search for misspellings, typographical errors and omitted words or word endings, you
may feel that you completed these tasks in PHASE III. Revision, especially the methodical revision
presented in PHASE III, does indeed involve extensive editing. Additionally, a significant amount of
proofreading was necessary, especially in connection with editing the mechanics of your Working Draft.
However, it is now time to turn your Complete Draft into the Final Draft. Each reading of your
manuscript will be an attempt to find and correct every error in grammar, every mistake in punctuation,
every complicated sentence or confusing statement that has somehow been overlooked.
Although it can at times be tedious, it is essential that you embrace the proofreading and editing
process – do not underestimate its value. Journal editors and grant reviewers alike point to poor
editing as a major reason for rejecting papers or dismissing grant proposals; they continue to admonish
applicants to submit manuscripts that reflect conscientious editing and professional polish.

Scientific and Medical Writing for Investigators: The Keys to Precision and Style Phase IV: Edit/Proofread
The NIH, for example, advises all grant applicants: “Have zero tolerance for typographical
errors, misspellings, grammatical mistakes or sloppy formatting.” Their justification for such strong
admonition? “A sloppy or disorganized application may lead the reviewers to conclude that your
research may be conducted in the same manner.”
Editing Process
We begin with a Self-Edit.
Rather than focusing on one aspect of your writing at a time, as you did in Phase III, you will now
read through your entire paper – slowly – looking for any and all mistakes or choppy wording. You
might be surprised at how many little things you missed during the Revision phase. Such things as
dangling modifiers and words typed twice, or words left out, can be hard to spot in your own work; we
often read what we intended to write, not what we actually wrote. Therefore, it may help to read aloud,
speaking every word written.
Once you feel you’ve found and corrected all your errors, it is time to enlist the help of others.
Ask family members and friends – anyone willing – to read your text and look for mistakes or unclear
expressions. Remember, every reading will likely yield at least a few mistakes – what one reader
misses, another catches.
If you have colleagues who are willing to read your paper, be quick to accept their offers of
assistance. A colleague may be in a position to point out issues unique to the science or math of your
research subject. It can be a little threatening, but try to remember that every mistake that is found only
makes your paper better, your writing stronger. Be quick to make valid corrections after each reading.

Scientific and Medical Writing for Investigators: The Keys to Precision and Style Conclusion
Conclusion “The sweetest sounds I ever

heard are still inside my
head …”
For all its simplicity, a key is truly a marvelous thing.
It can reveal: a key can unlock the smallest of treasures or expose a vast fortune.
It can seal: a key can protect a tiny keepsake or secure an entire collection of fabulous art.
Similarly, the writing keys you’ve discovered can also reveal and seal.
• They can reveal your weaknesses:
These keys can help you to identify and address your weaknesses. Working methodically through
the entire writing process enables you to readily see where you have difficulties. You can then determine
what you need to focus on to improve.
If, for example, making a sentence outline was hard for you, go to the information in PHASE I and
review the instructions carefully. Consider making adjustments – customize the process to make it easier
for you to use. Then practice making word and sentence outlines whenever you have the opportunity.
If subject-verb agreement gives you problems, work on this aspect; if you come to realize that you
habitually use redundant phrases, work on that. Remember: knowledge is power, so each weakness that
you identify and successfully overcome can be a small treasure. Over the course of time, addressing
your problem areas will bring about progress that can be worth a fortune.
• They can seal, or lock in, your strengths:
Just as you can learn where you struggle, your keys will enable you to note areas where you do well.
This knowledge seals, or protects, small “keepsakes” of self-confidence that over time will develop into
a personal treasure. Part of that treasure will be the self-assurance you acquire along the way.

As you continue to make good use of these Keys to Effective Writing, your personal and professional
progress will no doubt open new doors of opportunity, new windows of possibility, thus enabling you to
continually broaden your professional horizons.
For example, preparation of grant proposals continues to provide opportunity to broaden professional
horizons; most agree that the process is a challenging one. The effort required may even necessitate
adding to your key collection. Why?
Current limited budgets of major funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
and the National Science Foundation (NSF) make obtaining research funding difficult; it is generally
acknowledged that today’s research climate is more competitive than ever. This often leaves reviewers
with the unenviable task of reading through piles of applications, knowing from the outset that only a
handful can be accepted. The result?
According to principal investigators who have served as grant reviewers, most reviewers today have
all but made up their minds regarding a proposal’s merit by the time they finish reading the first page of
an application! From that point on, they read with a view to finding evidence that supports their initial
impressions. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that the sooner an applicant engages a reviewer’s
favorable attention, the greater the chances of holding that attention and obtaining a positive review.
Here the keys to what is known as “Scientific Storytelling” might prove useful. Found among
the many effective Keys to Persuasive Writing, the Keys to Scientific Storytelling provide the grant
applicant with a unique opportunity to capture and hold a reviewer’s attention.
What is Scientific Storytelling?
Dr. Rafael E. Luna, a research fellow investigating the biochemical mechanisms of cancer at Harvard
Medical School, recently taught the first ever Scientific Storytelling workshops for researchers at both
the Harvard Medical School and Harvard University. He describes a “Scientific Story” as “a logical
sequence of events, or scientific experiments, conducted to resolve a problem centered on a scientific
‘protagonist’ (main character).” He adds, “A Scientific Story must always resolve a problem (scientific
unknown). Scientific truth is always reproducible and fits the curve of a dramatic arc.”

Dr. Luna goes on to note that Scientific Storytelling is “a form of technical writing that allows
the broader scientific community to understand, grasp, and remember your research.” He highly
recommends its use to all scientific writers today. Why?
“Since stories tap into the cultural identities of every human being, Scientific Storytelling levels the
playing field for everyone conducting research throughout the globe,” he states.
Although perhaps not immediately obvious, scientific and medical writing actually lends itself
quite naturally to a storytelling approach; consider just two important features they hold in common:
precision, and what might be described as “an inherent ability to convince.”

About the Author
Nancy Parmely is a freelance writer living near State College, Pennsylvania. She
attended the University of Iowa, and has been involved in the writing and editing of
both technical and non-technical projects for over 30 years, maintaining a flair for
original and expressive wording, instructive illustrations and detailed explanations.
Nancy continues to write and edit extensively in the sciences, working not only with
individuals but also with several professional organizations as well, including the
Gas Research Institute, Polished and Professional and, more recently, with the Principal Investigators
Association. She can be reached at nparmely@gmail.com.
Foreword Author
Dr. William E. Russey, who wrote the Foreword to this report, is a Professor Emeritus in Chemistry
at Juniata College in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. While pursuing his PhD at Harvard University, he was
awarded grants from both the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Institutes of Health
(NIH). He currently serves as an editorial consultant and translator for VCH Publishers, Germany (now
a division of John Wiley).

Writting Eglishh Academy

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Writting Eglishh Academy

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Scientific and

Retired Founder: Leslie C. Norins, MD, PhD

Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org 2

Retired Founder: Leslie C. Norins, MD, PhD

3 Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org

Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org 4

I can warmly recommend Nancy’s book as an excellent starting point!

5 Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org

This expression, often attributed to a famous composer of

Why is this? What makes the struggle unique?

Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org 6

7 Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org

Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org 8

9 Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org

What, exactly, had been lost? And how could it be recovered?

A brief illustration may help to characterize the dilemma:

“I’ve lost my keys,” the man says.

Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org 10

11 Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org

PHASE II- Draft for Content, Clarity, and Flow

1. Rough Draft – Content and Clarity

Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org 12

PHASE III- Revise for Precision

1. Revise for Conciseness

PHASE IV- Edit/Proofread

13 Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org

Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org 14

PHASE I: Organize for Clarity

1. Statement of Purpose “Organizing is what you do

• Why am I writing this scientific paper?

To help you to answer these two questions, consider three parameters:

15 Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org

It might be helpful to think of this process in the context of a road trip:

To illustrate, in organizing for this guide, I considered the three parameters:

Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org 16

17 Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org

PHASE II. Draft for Content, Clarity, and Flow

Sentence Level Drafting

For example, the first sentence in my (Preface) Working Outline read:

Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org 22

I chose the next three sentences from my Working Outline:

Then I rephrased them somewhat:

23 Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org

1. Go from old information to new information.

This can be rather subtle:

It might be more obvious:

2. Use parallel structure.

Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org 24

25 Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org

PHASE III – Revise for Precision

A fundamental purpose of writing is to be understood. To be

1. Revise for Conciseness

33 Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org

Revise for Conciseness

Identify and Eliminate Casual Words or Phrases

Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org 34

Identify and Delete Informal Phrases

Draw your attention to the fact that

It goes without saying

You no doubt agree that

35 Principal Investigators Association | www.principalinvestigators.org

Intensifiers are adverbs that are used to emphasize degree.

Reduce or Replace Wordy Phrases