Syntactical Style for Peer-Reviewed Publications

[rick.taiwan]

I have been looking at the skimpy guidelines offered to potential authors by science journals.

 

There is very little guidance on syntax and style. Many of the referees seem to be unfamiliar with English, possibly because it is not their first language.

 

There are issues such as the following:

Suppose one is doing a literature review. One writes: "Smith (2003) did a series of experiments and originated the Smith-Jorn model, which has grown in popularity."

 

The experiments are clearly in the past, but the Smith-Jorn model is still popular.

 

Next should one write: "The Smith-Jorn model has three variables," or "The Smith-Jorn model had three variables"?

 

 

That's a very simple example -- I would probably go with the present. However, that would entail mixing past and present tense in one paragraph, which I consider to be bad style.

 

Another common ground for complaint is the use of personal pronouns. Now that science papers are allowed to have active verbs as well as passive ones, writers can agonize over whether to say, "We annealed the metal," "The team annealed the metal," or "The metal was annealed."

 

Does anyone have favorite style guides --e.g. Chicago Manual of Style or something similar? I can definitely say that the AP Style Book is *not* adequate to guide scientific writing.

[hermanntrude]

There is a paper by G. W. Whitesides called "how to write a paper" or something along those lines. It doesn't go into a lot of detail about syntax but it IS extremely helpful when writing a paper.

 

Correct english is always the preferred syntax, and in this case you are correct that ideally you would use the present tense, since you're referring to something which STILL HAS three variables, rather than something which used to have three variables. You may run into opposition with this, since a lot of people have been told that all papers should be written solely and entirely in the past tense. In fact the past tense is used in general but when grammatically correct, future and present tense are allowed.

 

To avoid putting past and present tense in the same paragraph, perhaps consider splitting into two paragraphs. there is no rule that a paragraph should be long.

[Glider]

I have been looking at the skimpy guidelines offered to potential authors by science journals.

 

There is very little guidance on syntax and style. Many of the referees seem to be unfamiliar with English, possibly because it is not their first language.

If you want detail, the American Psychological Association (APA) Publication manual is quite good. It gives detailed instructions on presenting written work and also tips on acceptable grammar and syntax. However, as hermanntrude says, correct syntax is preferrred.

 

As a general rule, academic prose is written in the 3rd party, and journal articles are written in the past-perfect tense (because you are writing up a study that you have already done).

 

Within the paper there are exceptions. The results section for example. It's common to see people start of 'The results showed a significant (whatever)'. The past tense is not appropriate here because unless you have committed a type I error, then you are demontsrating an effect that still exists (and re-analysis of the same data would still show the effect). The other exception is, obviously, when discussing possible future research.

 

There are issues such as the following:

Suppose one is doing a literature review. One writes: "Smith (2003) did a series of experiments and originated the Smith-Jorn model, which has grown in popularity."

 

The experiments are clearly in the past, but the Smith-Jorn model is still popular.

 

Next should one write: "The Smith-Jorn model has three variables," or "The Smith-Jorn model had three variables"?

If you are referring to the model (if it is still popular) then you should use the present tense. If you are writing about the experiments then it depends. If you are writing about the procedure then (as it already happened) past tense. However, if you are writing about the results, use present tense, unless the results of the experiment have been refuted. If the results of a study show A > B, then those results will always show A > B unless the study is refuted.

 

That's a very simple example -- I would probably go with the present. However, that would entail mixing past and present tense in one paragraph, which I consider to be bad style.

Not if it is correct grammar and syntax.

 

Another common ground for complaint is the use of personal pronouns. Now that science papers are allowed to have active verbs as well as passive ones, writers can agonize over whether to say, "We annealed the metal," "The team annealed the metal," or "The metal was annealed."

I tend to advise my students to keep to the passive voice. Whilst it may be acceptable these days to use personal pronouns when referring to the experimental procedure (e.g. 'we connected the electrodes to the participants ...'), it is just as easy to say 'The electrodes were connected to the participants ...', and as it is not usually relevant who wired the participants, it prevents irrelevancy creeping in. The area of Psychology is still quite strict on the use of personal pronouns, except in qualitative studies.

 

Not using personal pronouns at all prevent them from using them inappropriately, e.g. 'As we/you can see from the results...', or 'We all accept that...' and so-on.

 

Does anyone have favorite style guides --e.g. Chicago Manual of Style or something similar? I can definitely say that the AP Style Book is *not* adequate to guide scientific writing.

As mentioned, the APA publication manual (now in its 5th edition) is very detailed and should be helpful to you. Although sections of it won't be relevant to your area, it does cover general rules that are universally applicable.