How to write consistently boring scientific literature

“Hell – is sitting on a hot stone reading your own scientific publications”
Erik Ursin, fish biologist

Here’s a great resource for all you aspiring scientists out there that is sure you help you along your way to gaining tenure. “How to write consistently boring scientific literature” by Kaj Sand-Jensen, an academic at the University of Copenhagen.

Sand-Jensen says that “although scientists typically insist that their research is very exciting and adventurous when they talk to laymen and prospective students, the allure of this enthusiasm is too often lost in the predictable, stilted structure and language of their scientific publications.”

In his article, published last month in the journal Oikos: Synthesising Ecology, Sand-Jensen presents a top-10 list of recommendations for how to write consistently boring scientific publications. And then discusses how scientists could make these contributions more accessible and exciting.

Here’s how to turn a gifted writer into a dull scientist (works for natural and social scientists, by the way):

1. Avoid focus
2. Avoid originality and personality
3. Write long contributions
4. Remove most implications and every speculation
5. Leave out illustrations, particularly good ones
6. Omit necessary steps of reasoning
7. Use many abbreviations and technical terms
8. Supress humor and flowery language
9. Degrade species and biology to statistical elements
10. Quote numerous papers for self-evident statements

Follow