PG’s Tips

Keeping to the theme of acknowledgments, here’s something that I think is too formal for modern-day scientific writing and should be abandoned:

Acknowledgment: The authors would like to acknowledge the NIH for funding this project.

I have two problems with this sentence.

The first is that it uses the word “acknowledge” within an Acknowledgment—we know that things are being acknowledged in this section, so the authors should be more specific. (I have the same problem with starting a Conclusion section with, “In conclusion,” but that’s another entry for a future date.) I suggest “thank” as an all-purpose word in this situation. It works every time.

My other peeve is that the sentence is written in the third person (”the authors”) and passive voice (”would like to thank”). Traditionally, scientific papers have been written in the passive voice (I think that’s outdated and one day I will write my thoughts on that subject), but, even so, the Acknowledgment is the one place in a manuscript where the authors can show some emotion and be grateful, thankful, and complimentary. I think no one would object if “the authors” show their face and say, “We would like to thank.” But rather than “like to thank,” why not just do it and “thank” whoever it is you would like to thank?

Acknowledgment: We thank the NIH for funding this project

How much more personal and effective is that sentence?

Should “Acknowledgements” be written with that extra “e” and “s”?

The “e” question is easy to answer: American spelling, which dominates scientific language, says that there is no extra “e” in “Acknowledgment.” See here for example. If you are submitting your manuscript to a journal that requires British spelling, then you might need to stick that extra “e” in there, but those journals are quite rare these days. (Off the top of my head I can think only of Nature that demands British spelling.)

Now, should it be singular or plural? My preference is the singular form: “Acknowledgment.” My reasoning is that the word is used as a heading for a section, much like “Introduction” and “Experimental,” which are written as singular yet can feature more than one thing. “But, Pete,” I hear you say, “‘Results’ and ‘References’ are always written as plural, and they are also headings to sections!” OK, you’ve got me there. Let’s agree that it can be written as singular or plural depending on the context. Consider the following examples:

Acknowledgment: We thank the NIH for funding this study.

Acknowledgment: We thank H. G. Nelson and Roy Slavin for performing the spectroscopic studies.

Acknowledgments: We thank the NIH for funding this study and H. G. Nelson and Roy Slavin for performing the spectroscopic studies.

If only one thing is being acknowledged—such as “the NIH”—then the heading should be singular. If you are thanking two people (or perhaps two funding agencies) for doing one thing, then I would still use the singular. If you are acknowledging multiple entities for performing multiple tasks, then I agree that “Acknowledgments” is appropriate.

(Updated October 27, 2009, to fix dead link)

Consider this hypothetical article:

Title: Using FTIR spectroscopy to monitor the reaction between PVP and PMMA

Abstract: In this study we used Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy to investigate the rate of formation of esters from polyvinylphenol and poly(methyl methacrylate). We found that the rates of reaction increased upon increasing the concentrations of both PVP and PMMA.

Introduction: FTIR spectroscopy is a powerful technique for determining the kinetics of organic reactions. In recent years, the cost of FTIR spectrometers has decreased considerably so that they are affordable for most laboratories. PMMA and PVP are common polymers used industrially for many applications…

Because FTIR spectroscopy is pretty well known technique, an author could probably get away with using the acronym “FTIR” in the Title and be understood. But does everyone know the abbreviations for polymers, even common ones? Remember that many readers see only the Titles and (graphical) Abstracts when they perform online literature searches, so you want them to get all the information they need in an understandable form. So for this Title, I would provide the names of the polymers without their acronyms. Perhaps spell out “Fourier transform infrared” as well.

My Abstract has two problems. First, I have defined FTIR when the term is used only once in those two sentences. Again, if someone sees only the Title and Abstract, why would they need to see an acronym for something mentioned only once? In this example, I would spell out “Fourier transform infrared” and delete “(FTIR).” The second problem is that the polymers’ names are provided one time in full and another as acronyms, without the acronyms having been defined.

My Introduction assumes that the reader knows what all the acronyms mean. This is a mistake. I should not assume that the reader has read my Abstract. When the Introduction begins, that’s when the paper really begins—I should define all acronyms when they appear for the first time in the main body of the manuscript (but only if they will reappear later in the text).

To summarize, here are my rules:

(1) Don’t use any acronyms in the Title unless they are so common (e.g., IR, UV, NMR) that every chemist knows what they stand for.

(2) Don’t define any acronyms in the Title—either write out the term completely or use its acronym. For example, don’t write “Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy” in the Title.

(3) Don’t provide any acronyms in the Abstract for terms that are used only once. If a term is used two or more times, define the acronym the first time and then never use the full term again.

(4) For the main body of the text, follow rule (3) above.

Using these rules, here is how I would rewrite my hypothetical manuscript:

Title: Using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy to monitor the reaction between polyvinylphenol and poly(methyl methacrylate)

Alternative Title: Using FTIR spectroscopy to monitor the reaction between polyvinylphenol and poly(methyl methacrylate)

Abstract: In this study we used Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy to investigate the rate of formation of esters from polyvinylphenol (PVP) and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA). We found that the rates of reaction increased upon increasing the concentrations of both PVP and PMMA.

Introduction: Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy is a powerful technique for determining the kinetics of organic reactions. In recent years, the cost of FTIR spectrometers has decreased considerably so that they are affordable for most laboratories. Polyvinylphenol (PVP) and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) and are common polymers used industrially for many applications…

Many of the manuscripts I edit have a sentence in the Introduction that says something like

“This study describes the preparation of…”

or

“In this paper we prepared a…”

or

“In a previous study we reported…”

If you are prone to writing phrases such as these, think for a moment who is describing the results—the study? Where did you do the preparation—in the paper? Can you really report in a study? Here are my suggestions to polish the sentences above:

“In this paper we describe the preparation of…

“In this study we prepared…”

“In a previous paper we reported…”

Note that these sentences are all written in the active voice. I’ll write about active and passive voices in a future entry.

While I’m still in “study” mode, here’s a little change to class up your manuscript. A lot of papers that I edit feature a sentence that begins something like this:

“In this work we prepared…”

I have a problem with the use of the word “work” in this context. (I think my former bosses would all agree that I have a problem with work in general, but that’s another story!) Work is not something you do for fun; it has the connotation of drudgery, something that is hard and laborious and requires a lot of time and effort. A “study” on the other hand implies something done for the sake of intellectual pleasure, learning, and curiosity—all noble pursuits. Even if your study did involve many hours of stress and strain, there is no need to send any negative signals to the referees. I suggest that we banish “work” from our manuscripts:

“In this study we prepared…”

Ah, that sounds more comfortable to me. What do you think?

Many authors begin the titles of their papers with “Study of”—for example:

“Study of the Diels–Alder Reactions of Cyclopentadiene”

I think it is a bad idea. Why? Because every paper that’s published in the primary scientific literature is a study of something. That’s what scientists do—they study things and then they report them. Therefore, every paper could begin that way, which would be boring. Indeed, it is boring! I think my example above would be just as informative—and much more effective—if it had a shorter title:

“Diels–Alder Reactions of Cyclopentadiene”

I recommend that authors never use term “study of” in future. Agree?

I’ve been editing scientific papers for a living for almost six years now and I come across a lot of the same types of grammatical and formatting errors every day. I’ve decided to start this blog to give some writing tips to authors in the scientific community—particularly those who aren’t native English speakers—so that they can have a greater chance of having their papers accepted in high-quality journals. Because there are many other places on the web to find expert advice about English grammar and writing, this site will focus on the peculiarities associated with writing scientific manuscripts, particularly those dealing with the field of chemistry. I’ll try to post a short entry at least once a week.