The study, , suggests that most general writing rules are not as effective in scientific publications, which may reflect the influence of online search upon how science is discovered and consumed today.
鈥淲hat I think is funny is there鈥檚 this disconnect between what you鈥檇 like to read, and what scientists actually cite,鈥� said , professor of evolution and ecology at the University of Chicago, fellow and faculty, and senior author of the study. 鈥淚t鈥檚 very suggestive that we should not trust writing tips we take for granted.鈥�
During a seminar for incoming graduate students on how to write effective abstracts, Allesina wondered whether there was hard evidence for the 鈥渞ules鈥� that were taught. So Allesina and Cody Weinberger, a University of Chicago undergraduate, gathered hundreds of writing suggestions from scientific literature and condensed them into 鈥淭en Simple Rules,鈥� including 鈥淜eep it short,鈥� 鈥淜eep it simple,鈥� 鈥淪ignal novelty and importance,鈥� and 鈥淪how confidence.鈥�
The authors, which also include University of Chicago associate professor of sociology, Computation Institute Senior Fellow, and director of James Evans, then collected one million abstracts from disciplines such as biology, chemistry, geology, and psychology, and tested how the above rules affected a paper鈥檚 citations, relative to other papers in the same journal. For example, testing 鈥淜eep it short,鈥� looked at the relationship between the number of words or sentences in an abstract and subsequent citations.
This particular analysis found that shorter abstracts led to fewer citations across all disciplines tested -- a refutation of the idea that 鈥渂rief is better.鈥� Other tests found that using more adjectives, adverbs, uncommon words, signals of novelty and importance, and 鈥減leasant鈥� words boosted citations, despite frequent warnings or rules against using each of these features.
Taken together and literally, the results would advise using a 鈥渓engthy, convoluted, highly-indexible, self-describing abstract鈥� to attract more citations. But the authors don鈥檛 actually recommend that approach.
鈥淚f you were to follow all the rules, it would be absolutely horrible, terrible to read,鈥� Allesina said. 鈥淚 would discount the suggestions you are typically given, but I would not blindly embrace those we provide. There鈥檚 no magic trick; you have to write good papers and good abstracts, and it has to make sense.鈥�
However, 鈥渕ore might be more, rather than less,鈥� Evans suggests. "In an era of online searching, a more complete description can attract more eyeballs, the results of more searches and, ultimately, more attention and acclaim.鈥�
The authors hypothesize that the results reflect changing patterns of scientific discovery and consumption, as researchers access articles online instead of in print. Many commonly used databases, such as PubMed or Web of Science, search only abstracts when a user submits a query. As a result, longer abstracts with more specific words about the research within the full paper are more likely to be found, and subsequently cited.
Regardless of the reason for the relationship, the results suggest that journals do a disservice to scientists and their research by enforcing low word counts for abstracts. Instead of writing constraints, science indexes that search the full text of articles would be more effective at helping scientists find relevant research, Allesina proposed.
鈥淢y feeling is that with these word limits, the stricter the worse,鈥� Allesina said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 completely unnecessary in this day and age, when articles are rarely printed.鈥�
The article, "Ten Simple (Empirical) Rules for Writing Science" was on April 30, 2015. The authors are funded by National Science Foundation grants #1042164 and #1158803.
RSS