Abstract
Global academic curricula generally emphasize the explicit teaching of the art of high-quality scientific writing.1,2 Young researchers tend to learn this skill implicitly through personal writing experiences. However, with the exponential increase in online scientific journals, the proliferation of poorly drafted and published scientific literature is escalating. Due to deficits in authors’ skills (and editorial skills), we need more focused training in effective scientific communication.3,4 Manuscripts with deficiencies are often rejected, and those that are published often require substantial revision efforts from authors based on input from editors, peer reviewers, and copy editors. 5 This skill deficit can be discouraging, especially for young scientists from non-anglophone backgrounds. 6
While rigorous scientific methodology is paramount, good writing skills are equally essential to enhance communication and publication success. Young scientists must develop precision in writing while avoiding common errors, a task that cannot be solely achieved through personal experiential learning.7,8 Although writing a scientific article and a novel may have different methods, both quest for a similar role—communicating the ideas effectively to the readers. Inspirations for better scientific writing can come from several sources, especially well-known novelists who write for general readers.
Discussion
George Orwell is a renowned writer, perhaps most famous for “1984” and “Animal Farm.” However, another important work of his is “Politics and the English Language” which was published in 1946. 9 This essay has become a part of English writing curricula worldwide. Though initially aimed at correcting prevalent political thought and literary fallacies, Orwell’s essay offers valuable lessons applicable to modern scientific writing. While scientists do not necessarily need to become proficient English writers, they can initiate their learning journey through Orwell’s recommendations. Below, we highlight and discuss the key concepts of Orwell’s essay that young researchers can adapt to enhance thinking and writing skills:
Orwell’s Six Enquiries for the Writer
Enquiry 1: “What do I want to tell the readers?”: The writer must understand what the central theme is and which parts support it. The central theme and its connections with other parts should be clear to the writer before starting to write.
Enquiry 2: “Is this the best way to tell?”: The writer must communicate the central theme optimally. One must constantly revisit and refine their central theme and its expression until they find the most effective way.
Enquiry 3: “Can it be shorter?”: The writer must realize that “less is more.” Anyone can describe any idea using many words, but the best way to convey a message is with the fewest words possible.
Enquiry 4: “Does anything look ugly?”: The writer must eliminate fundamental writing mistakes, incomplete sentences, grammatical errors, and inappropriate language.
Enquiry 5: “Can I evoke imagery?”: The writer may wish to use the power of visual imagery to drive a point. Visual imagery makes ideas more “real” to the readers.
Enquiry 6: “Have I overdone Enquiry 5?”: The writer must avoid several pitfalls of “imagery-friendly” writing. Commonly used figures of speech evoke no beneficial imagery, while redundant ones may even harm the writing.
Orwell’s Suggestions for Effective Writing Through Examples
Precision
Writers often overlook that their statements may be vague, and a more precise description may help the readers. Precision also does not necessarily mean a shorter sentence; it requires the writer to point the readers’ eyes toward what they must look at. Further, the writers must use scientific words only for their scientific meaning rather than their literal sense.
Example 1: “The patient exhibited some unusual behavior during the assessment.”
Precise writing: “The patient displayed a tendency to repeatedly check and recheck doorknobs.”
Comments: Describing the vague “unusual behavior” gives a better idea of the patient’s behavior.
Example 2: “The participant showed signs of anxiety during the experiment.”
Precise writing: “The participant had increased heart rate, sweating, and restlessness, indicative of heightened anxiety during the experiment.”
Comments: Describing the vague “signs of anxiety” gives a better idea of the patient’s behavior. Precisely describing what made the writer think the participant was anxious lets the readers use their judgment and improves scientific description.
Example 3: “The subject seemed depressed in the interview.”
Precise writing: “The subject reported persistent low mood, anhedonia, disrupted sleep patterns, and thoughts of worthlessness during the clinical interview, consistent with major depressive disorder.”
Comments: “Depressed” is a commonly used term and has different meanings to different people. A precise description of depression points to the readers that the writer is describing clinical depression.
Figures of Speech/Metaphors/Similes
Orwell cautions that although well-placed metaphors can enhance scientific thoughts, common metaphors may not evoke any additional imagery to help the readers. For instance, Watson and Crick described nucleic acid bases as a “pile of pennies”, leading to mainstream scientific terms like “greenhouse” and “cell.” However, writing “Genes are blueprint” does not capture the progressing concepts of genetics as blueprints are stagnant and do not evoke a relatable image for the current generation. A modernized version may be “Genes are recipes.” Orwell also cautions against using uncommon imagery, as it will not evoke a known image or may even evoke a wrong one. Perhaps, older “melting pot” by “smoothie,” “wild-goose chase” by “typing random passwords”? We no longer “break the ice” but perhaps “share memes” to get to know each other, and encouraging someone to do a difficult task by stating, “It’s as easy as pie” may invoke the opposite imagery of how messy and complicated pie making can be. Below are some examples to consider if a metaphor is needed and what may be a better version of old metaphors.
Example 1: “The patient’s mind was a dark, chaotic maze of thoughts.”
Clearer version without the use of metaphors: “The patient’s thought process was complex and disorganized.”
Better imagery: “The patient’s mind was a tangled web of thoughts.”
Example 2: “The therapist helped the client navigate through the stormy waters of emotional turmoil.”
Clearer version without the use of metaphors: “The therapist assisted the client in coping with the emotional challenges during therapy sessions.”
Better imagery: “The therapist helped the client ride out the emotional rollercoaster.”
Example 3: “Depression cast a long shadow over the individual’s life.”
Clearer version without the use of metaphors: “Persistent feelings of depression significantly impacted the individual’s life.”
Better imagery: “Depression darkened the individual’s life.”
Verbal False Limbs
Orwell advocates using the fewest possible words to convey meaning, discouraging lengthy phrases. However, the precision of the sentence should not be compromised, as we often think that the only way to shorten a paragraph is to give less information. However, there may be wordy phrases like “It may be interesting to note that” that can be replaced with single words like “interestingly.”
Example 1: “It is of paramount importance to consider the potential impact of the medication on the patient’s cognitive functioning.”
Improved version: “Consider how the medication affects the patient’s mind.”
Example 2: “It was important to note that the patient is experiencing a notable reduction in symptoms.”
Improved version: “The patient’s symptoms are better.”
Example 3: “It is worth mentioning that the individual has a lack of interest in activities previously deemed pleasurable.”
Improved version: “The person lost interest in past hobbies.”
Example 4: “The observed cognitive decline is consistent with the diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment.”
Improved version: “The cognitive decline matches mild cognitive impairment criteria.”
Closing Platitudes
Pompous and overused prose at the end of a manuscript adds little value. Clear and concise communication is crucial, avoiding redundant phrases like “In the future, well-designed studies are needed.”
Example 1: “In conclusion, this groundbreaking study illuminates the urgent necessity for meticulously designed research to delve deeper into the profound implications unearthed.”
Improved version: “In conclusion, this study underscores the need for further research to explore its significant findings.”
Example 2: “To the best of our knowledge, our work stands as the pioneering vanguard, fearlessly venturing into uncharted territories of comprehensive exploration.”
Improved version: “Our work pioneers new exploration.”
Example 3: “A development destined to unfold in the near future heralds the imminent dawn of revolutionary advancements in treatment options.”
Improved version: “New advances in treatment are coming soon.”
Example 4: “These results, like delicate whispers in the winds of uncertainty, demand a cautious interpretation, beckoning the clarion call for the relentless pursuit of additional research.”
Improved version: “These results need careful interpretation and call for more research.”
Pretentious Diction
Young scientists sometimes consider lucid writing a liability, resorting to pretentious diction. Orwell advises against unnecessary use of Latinate words and complex prose.
Example 1: “The individual manifested a proclivity for melancholic rumination, suggestive of an inclination toward affective dysregulation.”
Improved version: “The person often felt sad, suggesting emotional ups and downs.”
Example 2: “The elucidation of the etiological underpinnings of the psychopathological phenomenon necessitates a meticulous exploration of the multifarious contributory factors.”
Improved version: “We must explore the factors contributing to understand the issue”
Example 3: “The discourse delineates an explication of the cognitive faculties integral to the aegis of psychiatric paradigms.”
Improved version: “Cognitive abilities are crucial in psychiatry.”
Orthodoxy
Blindly adhering to popular writing styles leads to a lifeless style. Orwell argues that meaning should guide word choice and implicitly learned writing skills adhering to orthodoxy need to be unlearned.
Example 1: “The etiological underpinnings of the psychopathological condition were delineated through a comprehensive nosological exploration.”
Improved version: “We explored the causes of the mental health condition through a thorough examination of its classification.”
Example 2: “An exploration of the patient’s psychosocial history was undertaken to elucidate potential predisposing factors for the emergence of the psychiatric symptoms.”
Improved version: “We delved into the patient’s life story to understand possible factors that might have contributed to the development of their mental health symptoms.”
Example 3: “The therapeutic process was undertaken with fidelity to established theoretical orientations.”
Improved version: “We followed well-known therapy approaches during the treatment process.”
“Break Any of These Rules Before Saying Anything Barbarous”
While mistakes can be forgiven, violating the scientific merit of research is unforgivable. Good science is the core of any scientific work, and grammatical perfection alone cannot withstand scientific scrutiny.
Conclusion
As the quality of scientific writing declines, an imitative style perpetuates mediocrity. While software tools can aid in grammar correction, Orwell emphasizes the importance of imagery, precision, and clarity. Young scientists must cultivate English skills relevant to scientific writing, and Orwell’s 79-year-old essay provides an excellent template for this. They must understand that the previous sentence may sound glorified but loses its purpose if it is written as: Young scientists must wield the scalpel of linguistic precision to carve out their place in the hallowed halls of scientific discourse, for the mastery of English prose is not merely a feather in one’s cap but the cornerstone of academic ascendancy. Orwell’s venerable essay serves as a gold standard and a timeless beacon for those endeavoring to hone their quills and navigate the labyrinthine corridors of scholarly communication with aplomb.
Footnotes
Authors’ Declaration
All authors have read and approved the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflict of Interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Declaration Regarding the use of Generative AI
None used.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Permissions
Nil.
Prior Publication
Nil.