Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

On Telling It Like It Was

On Telling It Like It Was JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL RHYTHMS / June 2001 Zatz / EDITORIAL EDITORIAL When I was a postdoc, I worked with John Another, related, ideal is disinterest. We know well Kebabian, another postdoc in the same lab. There that “the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is came a time when we had accumulated some nice true has no bearing over whether it is true or not” (Sir results and I asked him how he thought we should Peter Medawar, 1915–1987). Advocacy is bad, enthu- write them up for publication. He said, “Let’s just tell siasm is suspect. It is important to speak with modesty ’em what we did, tell ’em what we saw, and tell ’em and caution. Plodding sentences are preferred, as if what we think it means.” Good advice. It sounds sim- style and substance were opposed. Reviewers can be ple enough, but it’s not. We pride ourselves on telling counted on to guard against overstatement. Conse- it like it was, but there is a remarkable paradox in the quently, we reflexively qualify all statements as if dull conventions for scientific reports. Our papers have statements are more likely to be true than lively ones, become so stylized, so disingenuous that, essentially, as if weasel-words and mealy-mouthed circumlocu- we never tell it like it was. We don’t simply tell ’em tion indicate circumspection. Why not allow yourself what we did: We choose which data are valid and an occasional harmless flourish? Long, conditional which generated results and which results are mean- sentences abound. (I was once scolded by a reviewer ingful. In our selection and shaping of observations, for using “It did” and “It did not” as complete sen- we routinely reorder the sequence of events and hide tences in a paper.) Why not allow yourself an occa- the true history of our work. Here, however, I want to sional verbal arrowhead? focus on the telling. “Suggests” is our workhorse and our shield. It has Old papers, I mean really old papers, are more become the hallmark and stereotype of a scientist, so interesting for the narrative they provide. I think cur- much so that the media and public often see right rent conventions evolved to serve ideals considered through it—even charlatans say “suggest.” So we go more important than providing historically and further and say “might suggest.” We use it when the experientially true accounts. One is objectivity. Per- contention is far-fetched, and we use it when the con- sonal statements are out, lest opinion creep into obser- tention is ironclad. Another good word ruined. Don’t vation. We now frown on editorializing in papers use “suggest” for results: Use active, unqualified (some people even frown on editorializing in editori- verbs; let yourself say “plummets” or “triples” when als). To avoid even the hint of subjectivity, we take our- appropriate. Do say how confident you are in your selves out of the picture as much as possible. The phe- inferences and conclusions, but don’t mix strong and nomena, the observations, the measurements are weak (as in “clearly shows that X may suggest . . .”). treated as just being there, to be come upon by anyone Try to use words and phrases of graded strength like who happens to wander by while walking in the “possible,” “plausible,” “consistent with” (never “not woods reading nature’s spoor. Experimental manipu- inconsistent with”), “likely,” “evident,” “conclusive.” lations are treated as if they just kind of happen; we Dare to say “demonstrates” when it’s warranted. ourselves have little to do with them, just happened to Finally, returning to the starting point of how to be there at the time to watch or take measurements. write a paper, there’s another simple guide to keep in Thus, the prevalence of passive voice. We say too little mind (modified after Ramon y Cajal, 1852–1934): about the process of science in our papers and the “Have something to say; say it; then stop.” progress of our thoughts. These somehow got linked to the personal and are reserved for memoirs, or, to a Martin Zatz lesser extent, reviews. Still, it’s good to say “we” occa- Editor sionally; it allows you to use more interesting verbs, like “we think . . . .” JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL RHYTHMS, Vol. 16 No. 3, June 2001 195 © 2001 Sage Publications, Inc. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Biological Rhythms SAGE

On Telling It Like It Was

Zatz, Martin
Journal of Biological Rhythms , Volume 16 (3): 1 – Jun 1, 2001
Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/on-telling-it-like-it-was-owu29cOpIp

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © by SAGE Publications
ISSN
0748-7304
eISSN
1552-4531
DOI
10.1177/074873040101600301
pmid
11407778
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL RHYTHMS / June 2001 Zatz / EDITORIAL EDITORIAL When I was a postdoc, I worked with John Another, related, ideal is disinterest. We know well Kebabian, another postdoc in the same lab. There that “the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is came a time when we had accumulated some nice true has no bearing over whether it is true or not” (Sir results and I asked him how he thought we should Peter Medawar, 1915–1987). Advocacy is bad, enthu- write them up for publication. He said, “Let’s just tell siasm is suspect. It is important to speak with modesty ’em what we did, tell ’em what we saw, and tell ’em and caution. Plodding sentences are preferred, as if what we think it means.” Good advice. It sounds sim- style and substance were opposed. Reviewers can be ple enough, but it’s not. We pride ourselves on telling counted on to guard against overstatement. Conse- it like it was, but there is a remarkable paradox in the quently, we reflexively qualify all statements as if dull conventions for scientific reports. Our papers have statements are more likely to be true than lively ones, become so stylized, so disingenuous that, essentially, as if weasel-words and mealy-mouthed circumlocu- we never tell it like it was. We don’t simply tell ’em tion indicate circumspection. Why not allow yourself what we did: We choose which data are valid and an occasional harmless flourish? Long, conditional which generated results and which results are mean- sentences abound. (I was once scolded by a reviewer ingful. In our selection and shaping of observations, for using “It did” and “It did not” as complete sen- we routinely reorder the sequence of events and hide tences in a paper.) Why not allow yourself an occa- the true history of our work. Here, however, I want to sional verbal arrowhead? focus on the telling. “Suggests” is our workhorse and our shield. It has Old papers, I mean really old papers, are more become the hallmark and stereotype of a scientist, so interesting for the narrative they provide. I think cur- much so that the media and public often see right rent conventions evolved to serve ideals considered through it—even charlatans say “suggest.” So we go more important than providing historically and further and say “might suggest.” We use it when the experientially true accounts. One is objectivity. Per- contention is far-fetched, and we use it when the con- sonal statements are out, lest opinion creep into obser- tention is ironclad. Another good word ruined. Don’t vation. We now frown on editorializing in papers use “suggest” for results: Use active, unqualified (some people even frown on editorializing in editori- verbs; let yourself say “plummets” or “triples” when als). To avoid even the hint of subjectivity, we take our- appropriate. Do say how confident you are in your selves out of the picture as much as possible. The phe- inferences and conclusions, but don’t mix strong and nomena, the observations, the measurements are weak (as in “clearly shows that X may suggest . . .”). treated as just being there, to be come upon by anyone Try to use words and phrases of graded strength like who happens to wander by while walking in the “possible,” “plausible,” “consistent with” (never “not woods reading nature’s spoor. Experimental manipu- inconsistent with”), “likely,” “evident,” “conclusive.” lations are treated as if they just kind of happen; we Dare to say “demonstrates” when it’s warranted. ourselves have little to do with them, just happened to Finally, returning to the starting point of how to be there at the time to watch or take measurements. write a paper, there’s another simple guide to keep in Thus, the prevalence of passive voice. We say too little mind (modified after Ramon y Cajal, 1852–1934): about the process of science in our papers and the “Have something to say; say it; then stop.” progress of our thoughts. These somehow got linked to the personal and are reserved for memoirs, or, to a Martin Zatz lesser extent, reviews. Still, it’s good to say “we” occa- Editor sionally; it allows you to use more interesting verbs, like “we think . . . .” JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL RHYTHMS, Vol. 16 No. 3, June 2001 195 © 2001 Sage Publications, Inc.

Journal

Journal of Biological Rhythms – SAGE

Published: Jun 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.