It is crucial that scientists are able to communicate their science. These tools and instructions were used by FLEET researchers to develop and distribute stories about new papers. We see this as a three step process:
While you are writing the article you might find some of these to be useful prompts and hints:
QUOTES Once you have finished, go back into your article and turn a couple of key statements into quotes. One from you, and one from your co-author(s). This will ensure that your name is used by any platform that picks up the story. Use this format: “We found that XYZ,” says lead author Dr Albert Einstein (Monash University). “And that led us on to discover that ABC and 12345.”
TEASER If you are going to distribute the article as a press release, you will need a short, <80 word “teaser” paragraph, which persuades someone that it’s worth reading. This is usually a version of your introduction section, but shorter. Note this is not a summary – don’t cram in all the important stuff in case the reader doesn’t click to read the article. The purpose of this paragraph is to persuade the reader to click to read more.
VIDEO Consider recording a short video explaining the study. This could be as short as one or two minutes. You might be able to get your Faculty, School or Centre to host it on their Youtube account, or host it on your own account and then ask them to share it (or re-share) it via their social media channels. You can aim it at whatever audience you like: general public, non-expert scientists or specialists. Also handy for your CV/linkedin!
Errol’s ‘rules’ of writing:
- There are no rules about length, but most of my articles are 500-800 words (sometimes close to 1000, but that’s almost certainly too long).
- Start simple then get complex (so if you lose people, they’ve at least learned something) Don’t assume anyone will read thru to the end (this is why I put all the boring mandatory content at the end!)
- Short sentences are always better than long sentences, particularly when writing for the web. One idea per sentence. In scientific writing, it’s -unfortunately- traditional to cram a dozen qualifications, organisations and ideas into a single sentence. Don’t do that.
- Short paragraphs are always better than longer paragraphs. Two or three sentences max. If you want to emphasise something, a short, one-sentence paragraph really makes your statement stand out. (This is one of the biggest differences between an article and normal scientific writing: insert lots of line breaks!)
Generally speaking, you should write in third person, ie, talk about ‘the researchers’ or ‘the team’, rather than ‘we’. However see notes about quotes from researchers above.
Simple first: More-complex later
Unlike the strict ‘rules’ of scientific writing, you don’t have to fully define stuff the first time you mention it, if you define it soon after. I sometimes do definitions in boxes off to the side, like BECs here, so it doesn’t “stop” the flow of the writing. Sometimes I insert an entire ‘explainer’ section.
In scientific writing, it’s -unfortunately- traditional to cram a dozen qualifications, organisations and ideas into a single sentence and at the start. Don’t do that.
Similarly, you can mention key organisations here (two or three maximum), so you don’t have to cram them into the first sentence of the introduction. (You can name-check others even later in the article, under “the study”).
‘Sprinkling’ organisations into the text to keep your opening sentences clean
This is a tactic I use to make the introduction to an article cleaner and more ‘engaging’…
Instead of tagging all the mandatory organisations and bureaucracy in the opening sentences, I try to make sure that those opening sentences are as ‘clean’ as possible. Keep them short, engaging, and mention all the most interesting stuff.
This is to avoid horrible, unreadable opening statements like: “An Australian-led collaboration led by Chief Investigator Professor Something Something of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Future Low-Energy Electronics Technologies (FLEET) at the School of Physics and Astronomy at Monash University In collaboration with [org 1], [org2], [org3] and [org4] has ….whatever…”
(By the end of that horrible long sentence, it doesn’t matter if you have cured cancer. No-one is still reading!)
Instead, you could start with “an Australian-led collaboration has [whatever it is that you have done, in brief].”
And then you can “sprinkle” the mandatory organisational guff into the following sentences when you are explaining the study…
Like, “Led by FLEET at the University of Queensland, the team [whatever you did in slightly more detail, or expanding on the first bit].”
And then later again…
“In collaboration with [org 1], and [org2], the authors employed a [yet more detail].”
I find this a really useful tool for producing writing that’s as clear and engaging as possible, while still making everybody happy. (I sometimes even shift the mandatory guff/orgs even further down – on the slightly cynical theory that uni comms will just hit control-F and look for their name, they don’t care where it appears!)
Again, this is unlike traditional scientific writing that crams a dozen qualifications, organisations and ideas into a single sentence before getting to the point.