Telling people about research is just as important as doing it. But many competent researchers are wary of scientific writing, despite its importance for sharpening scientific thinking, advancing their career, obtaining funding for their work and growing the prestige of their institution.
This second edition of David Lindsay’s popular book Scientific Writing = Thinking in Words presents a way of thinking about writing that builds on the way good scientists think about research. The simple principles in this book will help you to clarify the objectives of your work and present your results with impact. Fully updated throughout, with practical examples of good and bad writing, an expanded chapter on writing for non-scientists and a new chapter on writing grant applications, this book makes communicating research easier and encourages researchers to write confidently.
It is an ideal reference for researchers preparing journal articles, posters, conference presentations, reviews and popular articles; for students preparing theses; and for researchers whose first language is not English.
This is a very short primer on scientific writing. I have taken Lindsay's course on scientific writing, and it was excellent. Just as he does in person, Lindsay tells it like it is and doesn't mince words. He writes in a very straightforward matter, is very clear on what he thinks scientific writing should be, and writes very succinctly. If you'd rather not read the longer book by Day and Gastel on the subject, then this book is for you, but I would suggest the two books complement each other very well. Lindsay tends to take a more practical, 'how-to' approach, trying to demystify and simplify the process of scientific writing. He subscribes to the philosophy of using simple sentence structures and avoiding obscure words, which is a great approach for many scientist, but I don't think applies as much to the social sciences and humanities (though he would argue on that point with me). I think this book's greatest strength - as well as his course - is that it forces you to be clear in your thoughts if you are to be clear in your writing. It reminds me of a great piece by Paul Sabatier and others in 2000, wherein he argues that he didn't include interpretivist and constructivist frameworks in his book, Theories of the Policy Process, because they aren't 'clear enough to be wrong'. If you aren't clear in your argument, then a critique will never go anywhere, and it can't advance the field. This is one of the best lessons I got from Lindsay's book: be clear enough to be wrong!
David gives many good examples and counter examples of how to produce good scientific writing. I have returned to this book many times as i write various papers, reports, and even talks. Although the focus of this book is on writing, there is some very good advice on how to adapt a paper or report into an effective poster or presentation.
If you only have time to skim this book you cannot miss the poster discussion that talks about "heated creeps" and "suckling pigs". The suggested poster is pure gold and make me wish i were a piglet in a heated creep.
Provides a common sense logical approach to the task of writing scientific papers. The book provides an invaluable resource to planning, writing and editing journal papers and other forms of scientific article.