Bad Habit #1: Saying too much

What this looks like: Too many thoughts crammed into one sentence.

For example: A groundbreaking study has shown that CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can be used to correct genetic mutations responsible for inherited heart disease in human embryos, providing a potential avenue for preventing genetic disorders and advancing precision medicine, though ethical considerations surrounding germline editing remain a significant challenge.

This sentence is grammatically correct, but it is not well-written. Scientific papers are full of complex sentences just like this one, often presenting multiple ideas in quick succession. In this example, we find at least three different talking points.

While it may be more efficient for you to write one sentence instead of three, it is more difficult for your reader to grasp. Plus, an important point may be lost on the reader if it’s hidden in the middle of a lengthy sentence.

Try to break this habit by introducing fewer ideas at one time.

Alternative: CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can correct genetic mutations in human embryos that lead to inherited heart disease. In the future, it may enable us to prevent genetic disorders and advance precision medicine. However, ethical considerations surrounding germline editing remain a significant challenge.

Breaking this passage up into three sentences makes it so much easier to digest.

Bad Habit #2: Saying too little

What this looks like: Long sentences with little substance.

For example: A comprehensive investigation has revealed that the modulation of enzymatic activity through the phosphorylation of key residues within the active site can significantly alter the catalytic efficiency of the enzyme, thereby impacting metabolic flux and contributing to the regulation of critical biochemical pathways.

Here we find another example of a too-long sentence. However, this time the issue is not with introducing too many thoughts, but rather too few. Sprawling sentences like these contain mostly fluff that serve no purpose other than to slow down the reader.

Unfortunately, many of us were taught to write this way to sound more scientific.

How do you break this habit? Focus on delivering a simple message. Ask yourself: what am I really trying to say here?

Alternative: Phosphorylation of key active site residues alters enzymatic activity and regulates metabolic pathways.

By focusing on the key message, we eliminate 30 words (!) and greatly enhance readability.

Bad Habit #3: Writing exclusively in the third person

What this looks like: Dangling modifiers without a subject.

For example: After purifying the enzyme, the reaction rate was found to increase dramatically.

At some point, we decided that writing manuscripts in the third person (he/she/it) instead of the first person (I/we) would make our writing more objective. But avoiding “we” forces us to construct passive sentences that are less readable and more error-prone.

Consider the example above. Can you tell who purified the enzyme? It appears that “reaction rate” (the subject) is doing the action, but that can’t be right.

This is a type of grammatical error called a dangling modifier, in which the intended subject of the sentence (we?) is missing. Why did they leave it out? Well, perhaps the writer was too busy avoiding “we” to notice the error.

Break this habit by freeing yourself to write in the first person when it is more natural and equally as objective.

Alternative: After purifying the enzyme, we found the reaction rate to increase dramatically.

In the first-person alternative, “we” is doing the action of purifying the enzyme. Because this is a fact, it is just as objective as writing in the third person.

Bad Habit #4: Hiding behind hedge words

What this looks like: Multiple hedge words and writing that lacks confidence.

For example: This suggests the possibility that the gut microbiome might play a role in modulating the body’s response to cancer immunotherapy, potentially influencing treatment outcomes.

Hedge words (suggests, might, sometimes, potentially, etc.) do have a place in scientific writing. They allow us to share theories and possible explanations, while cautioning readers that investigations are ongoing.

But to avoid criticism for making bold claims, scientists tend to use multiple hedge words in the same sentence—when only one is necessary. Using too many hedge words betrays a lack of confidence in your own ideas. If you don’t believe in them, no one else will.

In the example above, we see four hedge words: suggests, possibility, might, and potentially.

Alternative: This suggests that the gut microbiome modulates the body’s response to cancer immunotherapy, influencing treatment outcomes.

By trimming the excess hedge words, we express an appropriate level of hesitancy without undermining our credibility.

Bad Habit #5: Overselling novelty

What this looks like: It’s unclear what is novel.

For example: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a direct link between specific gut microbiota alterations and cognitive impairment has been established through both behavioral assays and comprehensive microbiome analysis in a rodent model.

Grant agencies want to fund novel research. Innovation is even a core component of the Research Strategy in NIH grants. So, novelty = more money for research.

It makes sense why researchers want to highlight what is novel about their work. However, scientists too often claim their work is novel when it may be only incrementally so.

The example sentence raises several questions about the work’s novelty:

• “to the best of our knowledge, this is the first time” – Is it really the first time, or are you just not sure?
• “a direct link” – Has a link been established, but indirectly?
• “specific gut microbiota alterations” – Why “specific?” Have more general alterations been linked to cognitive impairment?
• “established through both behavioral assays and comprehensive microbiome analysis” – Has the link been shown using other experimental techniques?
• “in a rodent model” – Has it been observed in other model systems?


If multiple conditions must be met for an observation to count as the first, it’s not the first.

Break this habit by being more honest and direct about which of your findings are new. Although, if you truly are the first, you should own it.

Alternative: Our work is the first to establish a link between alterations in the gut microbiota and cognitive impairment.

The rewrite makes it crystal clear that the link itself is novel.

Good scientific writing strikes a balance.

I’m not suggesting that you should never write long sentences, or use hedge words, or write in the third person, or talk about the novelty of your work.

It’s about balance and making your reader’s life easier.

Good writing includes a variety of sentence lengths, but where the longer sentences contain substance, not clutter. It should strike the right balance between caution and confidence in the research findings. And it should remain objective yet still easy to read and understand.

Thanks for reading!