Scientists need to know how to write, argues editor

Doing research is not enough, being a good scientist means knowing how to write scientific articles, says Carl Webster, editor of World Aquaculture Magazine

By Fabio Reynol *

Agência FAPESP – Brazil fails to publish many high-quality scientific works in high-quality magazines simply because they are not appropriately written. This assertion was made by Carl Webster, of Kentucky State University’s Aquaculture Research Center, at the 5th Congress of the Brazilian Society of Aquaculture and Biological Aquatics (Acquascience 2012) held in Palmas (TO) from July 1 – 5.

Webster, who gave a course on writing scientific articles during the event, is the editor of World Aquaculture Magazine, a publication of the World Aquaculture Society (WAS).

The first step, according to Webster, is to select the subject to be dealt with according to the publication. “Saying that ammonias presents toxicity for pirarucu, for example, is not new at all, but if you write an article on the physiology or histology related to the subject, the interest will be major,” he says.

According to Webster, knowing how to divide research into parts that are interesting to different scientific periodicals and, then, relating them to each specific publication is one of the attributes that reviewers most value.

The organizer of the course, José Eurico Possebon Cyrino, Associate Professor of the Department of Zootechny at the Universidade de São Paulo's Luiz de Queiroz Agriculture School (Esalq-USP), agrees. Instead of focusing articles on species that are exclusive to Brazil, Cyrino recommends selecting details of research that are common among other fish, which could make all the difference during selection for publication because it broadens the generalizability of the study.

After having concluded several other projects, Cyrino, who is currently coordinating three projects supported by FAPESP under the affiliation of Regular Research Support, is responsible for the publication of the annals of Acquascience. He indicated a deficiency in the training of researchers the world over with regard to scientific writing.

“We must show graduate and postgraduate students the importance of writing a scientific article well, with the risk of the work not having the repercussions it deserves,” warned Cyrino in the course he co-conducted with Webster at the conference.

Webster, on the other hand, stressed the quality of Brazilian research in agriculture, despite the difficulties in writing: “Brazil has conducted excellent work in the investigation areas and could publish much more,” he affirmed.

Despite the difficulties faced by Brazilian writers, Webster believes the quality of a study can supersede language barriers. “I will not discard a potentially good article because it is poorly written; however, a well written paper makes a lot of difference when it comes to making a final decision,” he said.

Webster advises scientists who do not have a good command of English to give a manuscript to a fluent colleague before sending it to a magazine. Adapting the article to each publication is another tip. For this reason, it is not advisable to send one article written for one magazine to another. Each one has peculiarities and objectives that must be observed.

For the same reason, the scientist recommends careful attention to the norms of each publication. “Many works are rejected because they do not follow the basic rules established by the editors,” he notes.

According to Webster, when choosing a publication it is important to verify the impact factor, which is an indicator of the citations that the publication has had over the course of the previous two years. Publishing in poorly reputed magazines can negatively affect the reception of the work.

Nevertheless, the impact factor is not everything because one must determine whether the work is suited for a particular magazine. “In several countries, a high impact factor can cause an avalanche of works submitted to a magazine, and many of them have little to do with the publication’s stated mission,” he notes.

Webster warned about the need to always restrict each article to a central topic. “A study could present numerous experiments, as long as it has one focus,” he suggests. At the same time, it is preferable to have abundant parameters and to compose a database that supports research.

Cyrino suggested that participants acquire good English dictionaries, preferably illustrated, making it easier to find the anatomical parts of animals, for example, when writing biological sciences or entomology studies. The USP professor presented a long list of reference books for scientific writing.

Giving his two final tips, Cyrino cautioned against the use of automatic translation software found on the Internet and called attention to a common error in international submissions, the use of the title PhD.

“If you did not do your doctorate in the United States or the United Kingdom, do not write PhD beside your name, but doctor in sciences,” he recommends. According to Cyrino, PhD presupposes fluency in scientific writing in the English language, and if the author does not have this ability, he or she will frustrate his or her evaluator.

* Fábio Reynol is a press officer at Embrapa Pesca e Aquicultura.