The Scientist's Guide to Writing: How to Write More Easily and Effectively Throughout Your Scientific Career

by Stephen B. Heard

A concise and accessible primer on the scientific writer's craft

The ability to write clearly is critical to any scientific career. The Scientist's Guide to Writing provides practical advice to help scientists become more effective writers so that their ideas have the greatest possible impact.

Drawing on his own experience as a scientist, graduate adviser, and editor, Stephen Heard emphasizes that the goal of all scientific writing should be absolute clarity; that good writing takes deliberate practice; and that what many scientists need are not long lists of prescriptive rules but rather direct engagement with their behaviors and attitudes when they write. He combines advice on such topics as how to generate and maintain writing momentum with practical tips on structuring a scientific paper, revising a first draft, handling citations, responding to peer reviews, managing coauthorships, and more.

In an accessible, informal tone, The Scientist's Guide to Writing explains essential techniques that students, postdoctoral researchers, and early-career scientists need to write more clearly, efficiently, and easily.

Genres: Writing, Science, Nonfiction, Academia, Self Help, Research, Education

316 pages, Paperback

First published April 12, 2016

Reviews

[Chadi Raheb · Rating 3 out of 5]

شاید قبلا نمی‌دونستم یا خودمو میزدم به اون راه. ولی الان بعد از چندین سال خوندن و نوشتن، می‌دونم که هیچ کتابی قرار نیست ما رو نویسنده کنه. ما یا بلدیم بنویسیم و نمی‌نویسیم چون تنبلیم، می‌ترسیم، پرفکشنیستیم، خسته‌ایم، ... یا بلد نیستیم، که اگه هزاران کتاب گاید بخونیم هم نویسنده نخواهیم شد مگر اینکه اون صفحه سفید لعنتی رو بذاریم جلومون و اولین کلمه لعنتی رو بنویسیم.

این کتاب هم مستثنی نیست.
یعنی چی؟

یعنی:
اگر نوشتن علمی آلردی بلدید، مثلا تا حالا مقاله، تز، یا حتی اسی کلاسی نوشتین، این کتاب (به خصوص نیمه دومش) بهتون کمک میکنه استایل
بهتری به کارتون بدین.
یعنی:
اگر نوشتن علمی اصلا بلد نیستین و فکر می‌کنین این کتاب قراره معجزه کنه و بعد از خوندنش یهو اوره‌کا گویان سه مقاله کیو وان پابلیش کنین، کمی دست نگه دارین و به جاش اولش برید تا می‌تونین در فیلد خودتون مقاله بخونین. مقاله‌نویسی با مقاله‌خوانی یاد گرفته میشه. اینکه بگیم حالا ان دوره بگذرونم و ان کتاب بخونم که اصول رو یاد بگیرم و بعد شروع میکنم به نوشتن، چیزی جز اهمال‌کاری نیست.
چرا؟
چون بهتون قول میدم که زمانی که قراره شروع کنین به نوشتن، هیچ کدوم از نکاتی که قراره بولت‌پوینت‌وار در کورس‌های مقاله‌نویسی بهتون گفته بشه و نه هیچ‌کدوم از نکات کتابایی که در این مورد نوشته شده، یادتون نخواهد آمد. زمانی که شروع به نوشتن میکنین، در کل درفت اول‌تون، فقط اون نکاتی به کار برده میشه که در طول مدت‌ها خواندن،
یادگیری و در شما نهادینه شده.

پس کتابایی از این دست به چه دردی می‌خورن؟
به درد درفت دوم به بعد

حالا اگه تا حالا چیزی ننوشتیم، نمیشه یه نگاهی بهش بندازیم؟
یه مقاله محبوب‌تون رو بردارین بذارین جلوتون. یه چیزی که یه جای خفن چاپ شده و نویسنده‌های خفنی داره.
این کتاب رو هم بذارین کنار دستتون.
حالا فصل به فصل عنوان کتاب رو بخونین. مثلا فصل فلان در مورد اینتروداکشنه؟ شما اول برید اینتروی مقاله رو بخونین. بعد فصل اینتروی کتاب رو بخونین که بدونین این سکشن چطور نوشته میشه. حالا با یه ذهن آگاه‌تر برید دوباره همون سکشن رو از مقاله بخونین و آنالیز کنین.

اگه همه این کارا رو کردیم، دیگه تمام؟ دیگه هیچ گایدی لازم نیست بخونیم؟
نمی‌دونم. شخصا از این مدل کتابا یا گاید‌های نوشتن خوشم میاد. نه که لزوما قراره چیزی بهم یاد بدن، بلکه از مرور یه سری مطالب خوشم میاد و اون حال و هوا و فلو رو در من زنده نگه میدارن. شاید این تنها دلیلیه که این کتابا رو میخونم وگرنه که شما میخوای دستت بیاد "هر سکشن مقاله که بود و چه کرد؟" کافیه از مثلا جی‌پی‌تی بپرسی که سه سوت بهت توضیح بده. یا راهنمای هاروارد رواینجا و اینجا و راهنمای ام‌آی‌تی رو اینجا می‌تونین بخونین و تمام.

[Phil · Rating 4 out of 5]

As usual, I don't really know how to rate this kind of book. It could be 3 stars, but I'm going with 4, if nothing else because there are no other books like this one.

The book is about how to write scientific papers, regardless of field. I picked it because it is organized as a very readable (to the degree possible) guide rather than a reference manual, which seemed more likely to work out in Kindle format. Despite best intentions, this is still surely a "eating a big plate of vegetables for your own good" kind of book. Not a summer vacation read.

I'm a pretty experienced technical writer, but I picked up some new ways of looking at things, which is all I really hoped for. I appreciated the treatment of how to approach the *act* of writing. I also appreciated that it established the mindset that clarity in technical writing is a skill that you can purposefully improve over time. It doesn't just fall from the sky for naturally gifted writers. You can accelerate your progression as technical writer if you are mindful about developing the skill.

One important thing that the book did is take concepts that I already more or less know (through hard-earned experience) and explain them in a way that I can now relate to others more clearly. It is difficult to guide inexperienced writers in a constructive way. A great example was the idea that an author should make a short thesis statement (not for the paper, but for themselves) and then weigh all of their technical content against whether it supports the thesis or not. This sounds trivial, but this is an easy to understand rule of thumb that can cut to the heart of a technical content debate.

Another example is the emphasis on the mindset of writing "for the reader". This also sounds trivial, but this perspective is a great way to help an inexperienced writer really understand why intricately ornate formal writing is counterproductive. You don't want to impress the reader with your command of english; you want them to grasp your idea clearly.

Also, simply put, I don't know of any other guide for scientific writing that is remotely like this one.

So what's the down side? First of all, the book is long. Maybe not in absolute terms, but in terms of how much time is spent on all topics, whether there is really anything meaningful to say about them or not. I enjoyed the book more once I let go of my guilt about skipping long passages. I also took several notes using the Kindle highlighting feature and emailed them to myself so I can review some key tips without digging for them again later.

Some topics seem to be covered for the sake of completeness rather than because there was anything truly helpful to say about them. For example, I skipped all of the discussion of how to choose the best word when you have several options at your disposal. That advice sounded more like a collection of platitudes than something you can really act on. I also skipped things like the addendum on beauty and humor in technical writing. That material could have been summed up more succinctly as: "This can be Ok in moderation, or not, whatever you think. Here are some clever examples I've found. You probably have to be a genius to pull this off."

I only found one thing that I outright disagreed with: the advice to proofread at the end of the day while you are tired. I couldn't disagree more. I proofread when I'm alert and have as much creativity as possible for restructuring difficult passages. If anything, use the evening to straighten out citations or get your formatting right, in my opinion.

So what would I want instead, if not this book? I guess I would just as soon have a few very short essays/articles about some of these topics that I could compile into my own list of required reading to suggest for others? But then again, this book wasn't custom written for me specifically.

[Rainer Hayer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is probably one of the most helpful books related to scientific writing. I would highly recommend this for whatever stage of academia you might be in. It is appropriate to skim certain sections, if you feel they don’t apply.

[Nicolas Louw · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing resource while writing a manuscript.

[Jennifer Shaiman · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a great book on writing in the sciences! There aren't many good books on this topic available, and this is the first one I've seen that isn't discipline specific. Heard covers pre-writing approaches, IMRaD structure and approaches for each section, clear style, and revision (from self-revision to professional review). Each section is packed with helpful advice and techniques.

Heard's writing is clear and well-organized. This book is readable from cover-to-cover as well as easy to dip into for advice on specific writing tasks. Chapter summaries and exercises are included at the end of each chapter.

My only reservation about this book is that it sacrifices brevity for voice. I feel this makes the text more readable and less likely to induce a writing-textbook coma, but I can imagine a harried student who may find it frustrating.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author achieves the crystal clear "telepathy" he endorses, all the while sprinkling in touches of humor and whimsy that make you want to keep reading.

[James Zwierzynski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Feels like this should be required reading but in the best way

[Madison · Rating 5 out of 5]

Feels a bit weird to put this on my goodreads, but I did read it cover to cover so... This is truly an excellent guide to writing in the sciences. Enjoyable, organized, humorous, accessible and useful.

[Eric Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book written by Stephen B Heard can only be described by one word: a masterpiece. This book explains how to write scientific text effectively and efficiently. It follows every step that a person would take, starting from detailing the language to use talking about passive and active language to how to effectively organize and structure the text to “Sell your Story”. This book not only tells you what to do, but at the end of each chapter, they give you exercises so that you can work towards that goal.
This book does not give you knowledge on a certain topic or field; it is a foundation to everything. Although this book was intended for writing scientific text, I found that a lot of the ideas taught in this book are usable for general writing. In its entirety, this book is about how to effectively word and structure your work such that you can persuade and effectively deliver your message to the reader. Something I believe is crucial for all text in general.
This book not only is a great book for beginners who just started writing scientific text but also great as a book to look at once in a while to improve your writing. This book overall is great for all skill levels and the insight you gain is different every time you read the book. Even if you have no interest in science, I still would heavily recommend this book.

[Alireza · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book isn't about rigid grammatical instructions to follow to succeed as a writer -- the author deliberately steers off that subject. Instead, the book talks about everything else that surrounds the process of administering and documenting your research. The early chapters are dedicated to the method of producing the science; the role of writing in the development of a scientific study, its results, and proper presentation of the work. For me, the first few chapters were critical skills that I needed to learn to advance my work in academia. The remainder of the book, however, is much like the scientific writing course that you may have taken during your undergrad. A prominent feature of the book that makes it a delightful read is the casual writing style and the occasional humour. Overall, I'm pleased I found this book.

[Darya Biparva · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think it's a good book. In many ways, it gave me tools to use for writing. It also helped me realize I am not alone in my struggle. It helped me look at writing as a craft. I stopped expecting to write immediately and started gathering the tools, imagining how my craft would look like, gathering all my courage to change my mind, etc. I have gone from I can never write anything to "I know I will write it, I am just 8 mental breakdowns away from it."
In general, this book, and my whole journey with scientific writing have made really really interested in learning and thinking about how others, even fiction writers, write. This was actually emphasized in the book. The author asks "If you like a piece of writing, ask yourself why?"

[Pierre · Rating 5 out of 5]

A highly recommended reading for any scientist, even experienced ones.

Even after a few years as a scientific writer and academic, I learned a lot from the advices provided by Stephen B. Heard. Throughout the book, you'll learn to organize your thoughts in order to tell a compelling and coherent story in your paper. The book then explains how each part of a manuscript can be approached to reach the ultimate goal of "crystal-clarity".
Everything is narrated with a light and amusing tone.

This is definitely a book to be kept in the office and given to graduate students who struggle to write their first manuscript.

[Sebastian Joren · Rating 5 out of 5]

A long time follower of his blog, Stephen doesn't adhere to dogmas for dogmas' sake. And that is something we should admire, especially in science. This book is a great guide for starting scientists: how to approach a manuscript in a way that will save yourself a lot of time afterwards. Stephen goes over each section of a scientific manuscript in detail but also spends time on how to actually start putting down sentences instead of procrastinating and overcoming writer's block. The latter chapters also go into the intricacies of managing co-authorships and revision.

A book I definitely wished I would have read earlier in my academic career...

[Michiel · Rating 5 out of 5]

A lucid guide for scientists who want to improve their craft of writing. In addition to the standard chapters on how to write a results section and a convincing abstract, it also deals with the meta-aspects of writing: gaining momentum to write, revisions, managing co-authorship and even having fun while writing!

Clear, applicable and well-organized, this is a guide for all scientists who want to grow their writing skills.

[Johnny · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great explanation on scientific writing. The book explains how you can get to this dense writing that is so typical for scientific papers. Even when I will never create such a type of writing, it gave me many helpful ideas on how to structure a large text and how I should organize my editing phase.

[Jennifer Holmes · Rating 5 out of 5]

A definitive guide on writing as a scientist, especially researchers early in their careers. Heard covers not only the basic IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) structure of a scientific paper but everything from getting and staying motivated to write to writing the response to reviewers letter after peer review.

[CC Chung · Rating 5 out of 5]

An essential read for an undergrad. In uni, perhaps too much emphasis is put on demanding students to write in conventional standards without learning how these forms came to be. This book answers these questions well, and provides veteran suggestions on how best to write so that science is communicated well.

[Maria · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read quite a few books on writing and scientific writing, so there was some redundancy in this book, but still very much worth skimming. I particularly liked the notes on early writing, the structure of the introduction, and common challenges for non-native speakers of English.

[Eryne · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good resource for those of us who write for a living. It's got some really good advice that's presented clearly. I keep a copy in my office and regularly lend it to younger staff so they can improve their writing.

[Jessie Tanner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Useful and also fun. Clearly expresses some vague feelings I had constructed from writing and reading but could never really articulate. Has some especially useful things to say about motivation and procrastination.

[Emilio Garcia · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent book that covers every aspect of scientific writing, but applicable to every type of formal reading and even its philosophy is applicable to every kind of writing. If you want to improve your writing style, this is your book

[Skeetor · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this was well-written. It was easy to read and contained all the information needed for writing a scientific paper.

[Mika Kurohata · Rating 4 out of 5]

The part II is really encouraging and helpful. I will read it someday again.

[Reader · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good guide for graduate students

[Lizzy Li · Rating 3 out of 5]

actually read (skimmed) a significant chunk of this! not bad and it definitely could have been worse and more boring but also would not read again <3

[Martine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lots of very useful remarks. It was tempting to check if the author followed his own advice, but I decided I could better check my own writing.

[Cameo1997 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was easy to use, and helped improve my writing process which has led to better results.

[Mary · Rating 5 out of 5]

My absolute respect to the author. Great book!

[Jiamin Bai · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not sure how useful it is as I'm not yet doing any scientific writing but I felt like I learned something. Overall pretty enjoyable read.

[tomsyak · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the best book about writing *academic* articles I've read. Wish I'd found it sooner. This is the foundation onto which you can then add the zinssers and the lamottes.