Oikos 000: 000-000, 2007

doi: 10.1I 1 l/i.2007.0030-1299.1 5 6 7 4 . ~

Copyright
Oikos 2007, ISSN 0030-1293
Subject Ediror: Per Lundberg, Ac~epted25 January 2007

c,:

How to write consistently boring scientific literature

Kaj Sand-Jensen
Kuj Sand-jcn~rn((ksudy~mm
Fbi.R

v .

Freshwater Biologicai L~bardroy,Univ. of Coprnhngen, Hekingursgad~ 51, DK--3400

Hilkrrd. Denmark.

Although sc~entistsgpically insist thar heir research rs v e v exciting and adventurous when they talk to laymer.
and prospecrive studenu, the al!ure of rhis enrhusiasm is too often lost in the predictable, stilrcd structure and
language of their scienr~fic
I present here, a top-10 list of recommendations fur how to write
consisrenrly boring scirnrific publications. 1 then discuss why we shouiil and how we could make rhese
contributions more accessible and exciting.

rible original articles. I r has been a greac relief from time

to time to read and write essays and books instead.
Because science ought to be fun and attractive,
particuIarly when many months of hard work with
grant applications, dara colleccions and cdculations
ace over and everyrhir~~
is ready for publishing the
wonderfd results, i r is most unfortunatk thac the-final
Turn a gifted writer into a dull scientist
md rririnp. phvcr
are so tiraomc.
I have therefore tried co identify what characteristics
.4 Scandinavian professor has told me an ir~teresting
make so much of our scientific writing unbearably
story. The first Engiish manuscript prepared by one of
boring, and I have come up with a top-10 list of
his PhD students had been written in a personal style,
recommendations for producing consistently tboring
slightly verbose but with a humoristic tone and
scientific writing (TabIe 1).
thoughtful
side-rracks. There w z absolutely no chance,
"
however, thac it would meet che strict demands of
breviry, clarity and impersonaliry of a standard article.
Ten recommendations for boring
W i h great dificulcy, rhis student eventually learned the
scientific writing
standard sryle of producing technical, boring and
impersonal scientific writing, thus enabling him ro
1. Avoid focus
write and defend his thesis successfully (Fig. 1).
" Thcr~
are many c x r q tions 111 ecoiogy. The author /la>
sunirnatized t h m in juur books"
Why are scientific publications boring?
Jens Borun:, ecologisr

u ~- d
iJ
on a hot
rcudingyour own
scient$c publications"
Erik ursin, fish biologist
J~~~~

I recalled rhe irony in this srory from many discussions

who have been forced to restrict their
humor, satire and wisdom to the ryranny of jargon and
impersonal style chat dominates scientifis writing.
Personally, I have felt it increasingly difficult to
consume the steeply growing number of hardly dignwith colleges,

Lntroducing a multitude of questions, ideas and

possible relationships and avoidrng the formulation of
clear hypotheses is a really clerver and evasive trick. This
tactic insures thar the reader w1ll have no d u e about the
aims and the direction of the author's thoughrs and it
can successfully hide his lack of origi112l ideas.

Online Early (OE): 1-OE

Fig. 1 .
mctl

" Congmhtlntions, you urc now

cnpabk of writing ~chnical,imprrsnnal and bariq papen like

rny1rlfand

- weirvmc to Acmirmin". Drawing by Svcrrt Stein Nielsen.

Ifan autho: really wants t o make sure that the reader

I recommend char helshe does not
introduce the ideas and main findings straightaway, but
Instead hide chem at the end of a lengthy na~rative.The
technique can be refined by putting the same emphasis
o n what is unimportant or margi~lzllyimportant as on
what is really in~pottantto make certain that the w r i r i n g
creates rhe proper hypnotic effect which will put the
reader to sleep.
looses inrerest,

2. Avoid originality and personality

"I: bus been shoum numerow limes that seagrasJe5 are

wty important ro ro~talprodrrcrivi~
(Abe 1960, Bebc
1970). It was dpridcd to examine whcthtr this wnr a h
the cur in Atlansis"
Fictive Cebe
Publicati~nsreportiag aperiments and observations
that have been made 100 cinm before with the same
resulc are really mind-numbing, particuinrly when no
Table 1 . Top-10 list of recommendauons for writing
tently boring publications.

Avoid

focus

Avoid uriginaliry and personality

Write 1 o n g contributions

Irn lications and speculrr~ons

Ltavz our iiutrationr
Omit necessary steps of reasoning
Use many abbreviations and terms
Removc

Suppress humor and flowery language

Degrade biology ro sratisria

Quote numeram papers for trivial smrernenls

consis-

the olhcr ~ n r k -

original ideas are being tested. Cornpararive science

requires that prricular tneasurements be repeated
under different environmer~taland experiniental conditions to reveaI patterns and mechanisms. Therefore,
results should be written in a way that does nor explain
the experimental conditions. This will insure that
repetitious experiments remain uninteresting and no
synthetic insight can be generated.
I also r e c o m m e n d that these studie5 be reported with
no sense of excitement or entl~ilsiasm.Nowhere in the
approach, analysis and writing should there be any
mention of the personal reflections Ieadsng to this
intensive study thrr robbed five years of thz author's
youth. This is beyond boring; it is t:uly sad.

3. Write I o n g contributions
" A doctorn/ thesis i s 300 pages rtpomng romeching
jmPomnt
ad u,rfi rcaoned-orr - or
, 5 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~
Erik Ursirl, fish biologist

One should always avoid being inspired by short

papers, even if they are written by famous Nobel
&;reares and are published in prestigious journals like
Science and Nature. O n e should insisc that the great
concepts and discoveries in sciet~cecan nor be described
in relatively few words.
Scientists know that long papers display o~~e'sgreat
scientilic wisdom and deep insight. A short paper
should, rherefore, be massively expanded from its
original two pages to its final 16-page Iayouc by
including more and more details and rnenrd drivel.

4. Remove most implications and every

speculation
"It has not acaptd our

notice that the y c c f i r pairing

have poszuhrcd immediately su&ptsrs a possible
copying mccbanism j5r the genrtic mated"
James Watson and Francis Crick (1 953)

we

This famous closing senrmce suggested a perfect

copying mechanism for DNA. Had the irnpIication of
their DNA model not been induded, Watson and
Crick could have pwented its rapid acceptance.
In many other instances, reluctance to state the
obvious impIications of important findings has successfully delayed their recognition. This has generated room
for repeated rediscoveries and insured thac the person
finally being honored was often noc the original
discoverer.
Thus, enjoyable spcculiltions on possible relationships and mechanisms and presentation of interesting
pardlels ro neighboring research areas should be
dismissed from the paper's discussion. This will stifle
the creative thought process and prevent the opening of
new avenues for research, thereby securing the research
field for thac aurhor done, while reraining the paper's
necessary boring tone.

Fig. 2. A d r n w i q can Jay morr than a thournnd wrrdr; the

marine
food web - including the rnicrob~dloop.
After Fenchel (1 338).

5 . Leave out illustrations, particularIy good ones

Sentences chat are needed in an ordinary text to

of rexoning and
insure the logic of an argument should be omitted in
'2 tram car"
the scientific writings by mcnlbers of the chosen clerisy
of a particular science discipline.
Jens Borum, former student
If restricted rta~oningis practiced in texthuoh, the
Poetry stimulates our imagination and generates authors are cerr;lktl to cducate only a very small but eIite
group of srudents who may guess the meaning of these
pictures for the inner eye. Scientific writing, on the
words, whiIe the majority of readers wiI1 he lost. The
other hand, should not be inagin~civc, and the
immediate visual understanding should be prevented
sryle will also effectively prevent communication with
ordinary people - a process which is far too tirneby leaving out illustrations.
Scientific papers and books mn be made impr~ss~vely consuming.
dull by including few and only bad illustrarion in a n
otherwise good text. Because illustrations, which are
7. Use many abbreviations and lechnicai terms
fundamentally engaging and beautiful, can often portray
very complex ideas in Forms that are easy to visualize but
impossible to explain in cfiousartds of words (Fig. 2),
" When I sktrted my geology studhi in i 962 what we
boring science writing should not use them.
learned above the & r ~ d e(f nlincrulr and j$ssilr was
absolutely nonscnr. Tbr poor reuchers did not u n h jand what thty wrre bcccruring, but hid thtir i'oranre
6. Omit necessary steps of reasoning
behind an enormous rrrminology. All this changed with
the rhroy of plate tectonics"
"J once knew a man rFotn N ~ UZtdIUnd
J
u~hodid
Finn Surlyk, geoiugist (2006)
nor hduc a jingk tooth kfr in his mouth. Nonerhcltss, I
have tmjcr met anyone like him that could phy thr
Scienrisrs train for many years to master a plethora
of technical words, abbreviations and acronyms and a
dmms "
very complex terminology which make up the "secret
Freely after hiark Twain, journalist
Ewrni~~cc
"What can 't you idenrib on this microsrope
picture ofa cell lyirng in f m n r ofyou? Resigned srudPnr

gradually unfold the necessary steps

languagew of their specialized scientific discipline. !

rewmmer~d this approach for all scienrific writing,
because it tends to enhance the author's apparent
wisdom and hide histher Iack of understanding. The
approach makrs the field of study inaccessible to
outsiders who are unfamiliar wirh h e terrninolog..
After all, since we went through all rhe trouble m learn
this "sccret language", we musr make sure that the tlext
generatiot~sof students suffer as well.
This practice wiil also prevent b r t a k i i ~ r o u ~ hand
s
incerdi~ciplinar~
understanding wirhour a massive investment i11 cooperative transIatiuns hecween jargonridden scientific disciplines. It must remain menttily
overwhelming for readers to cross the borders between
disciplines on their own.

further examination, these models are ofcen indistinguishable from each other, and many have no biological
meaning. Hence, writing abour: them will inevitably
produce dry, humorless, uninspired text.

10. Quote numerous papers for self-evident

statements

When all else is lost, and one's scientific paper is

beginning to make ruo much scnse, read roo clearly,
and display too much insight and enthusiasm, I have
one last recommendation chat can help the aurhor to
maintain the essentiaI boring trrne. My advice is ro
make sure that all written statements, even trivial ones,
must be supported by o n e or more references. It does
not matter that these statenisnts are self-evidrnt or that
8.Suppress humor and flowery language
they comply with well-established knowledge, add a
reference, or preCerable 3-5, anyhow.
" We faund a rrew p i e s of ciliate during a marine
Excessive quotarion can be developed to
Jeid course in Ranbcrg and w m e d it C~fiteria such that the meaning of whole paragraphs i s veiled in
rocn bergensis bci.uure of its voracio w and indisrrimimte rhe litnited space benveen references. This technique
apprtia aj%r marry dinner d t r m ~ i o n s in the l o r d l maintains the boring quality of scientific publications
cnfrtrria "
by slowing down the reader, hiding any interesting
Tom Fenchel, marine biologisr
information, and taking up valuable space. When
aurhors are unsure of which paper t o cite, they should
Naming a new species Cufiteria, or for that matter
always resort to citing their own work regardless of its
calling a delicare, transparent medusa Lizzia blondina, relrvance.
shov,~slack of respect and will prevent us from ever
forgetting the names. 1 highly discourage creatillg rllese
kinds of clever names, because science writing should
Alternative writing style and variable
remain a puritanical, serious and reputable business.
outlets
Fortunately, scientists that do not have English as
their morhcr tongue are reluctant to use this wordy
language of science to write funny andtor narurd There are movements among scicnrisu and editors
which are in d~recropposition KO the disgraceful advices
flowery narratives. Furthermore, many Englishmen
in Table 1. They have the altrrnative goal of produwho enjoy this precise and flexible language as thcir
cing cxciring and attractive pubIications for a wider
native tongue also regard it as bad t a r e to use fully in
audience.
their profession~l writing the language's potential for
Many journals do in h r r insist that articles must be
poetic imagery and play-on-words humor.
original, focused, brief and we11 morivared. and that
technical terms and concepts are hIiyexplairled. Very
few
journals and editors, however, endorse the idea that
9 . Degrade species and biology to statistical
flowery language a ~ l dpoetic description promote readelements
abiliy or that thoughtful speculations advancs the
science.
A vrry special beech forest, l o u t e d 120 km away,
While the criginal article continues to be the most
howes numerous rare planr specres. There is no reason
standardized and eficient (albrit p u r i t a n i d ) outlet of
to nukc a fuss about this particular forest because the
all scienss contributiol~s,books can, in contrast, provide
number of common species in a nearby forest is nor
an alternative venue thar encourages personai and
significantly different.
Our scientific writing in hiology shouId reduce all entertaining styles of scietltific writing that r n l y include
humor, poetry and speculations. For example, zoologist
species to tlunlbers and statistical elements wirhout
Steven Vogel { 1934) has combined humor and clear
considering any interesting biological aspects of adaptarian. behavior and evolution. T h e primary godl o f
explanations in his b o o b on the dpplicacion of fluid
ecological study shuuld be the statistical testing of
dynamics to biology. Other exceptional books have
played a similar catalytic role in the educatiou of new
different models. This is especiaIly true because, on

generations of students and the development of ecology

(Warming 1836, Odum 1971).
Over ten years, ecologist John Lawton's (19901399) informal essays enttrtai ned numerous readers.
The basic idea of essays is that h e y should have few
restrictions to their form, but be brief, personal and
humoristic. Essays have the additional advantage chat
h e y can treat important aspects of scientific activity in
the fields berween science and polirics, science and
culture, science and ethics and, h e renewed battle field,
science and religion. These topics are not normally
covered by articles, reviews and textbooks.
Journals should encourage discussion and debate of
timely issues and synthesis of ideas within and across
disciplines by combing reviews, synthesis, short communication of viewpoints, refltcrions and informed
speculations ( L u n d b q 2006). In an atmosphere of
increasing competition among educations and scieatifii
disciplines, I argue here chat we desperately need more
accessible and readable scientific contributions to attract
bright new scientists and produce integrarrd understanding.

- Thanks to Hcnning Adsetsen, Jew

Borurn, Carlos Duarre, Torn Fenchel, Michael Kemp and
Carsten Kiaer for help and suggestions. Michael Kemp
polished the language and strengthened the irony.

Acknou~kdgcrnenfi

References
Fcnchel, T. 1998. Marrnc plankton food chains. - Annu
Rev. Ecol. Sysr. 19: 19-38.
Lawton, J. 1990-1 399. V ~ e w sfrom The Parb. A series of 27

m a y s . - Oikos 59-8'.
Lundberg. P 2006. Editorial. - Oikos 1 13: 3 .
Odurn, E. P. 1971. fund mental^ of ecology, 3rd ed.
Saundcrs.
Surlyk, F. 2006. Pladetekron~kkcr~.
- Aktuel Narurvidenskab
3: 28-30.
Warming, J. E. B. 1896. Lehrbuch deer okologischcn
PflanzengeograFhie. - Bornrraeger.
Watson, I. D. and Cr~ck,F. H.1953. Molecular srrucrure of
nucle~cacids. - Nature 171: 737-738.
Vogt), S 1934. Life in rnoblng fluids, 2nd ed - Princeton

U n ~ v .P r m .