Don't Impose Personal Style When Reviewing a Paper

A vertebrate paleontologist of my acquaintance just got back a final review of a paper that he had previously resubmitted, and asked my opinion on the numerous edits to the paper, many of which he felt were unnecessary. This raises an issue on reviewing papers that Bill and I have bitched to each other about in the past: the imposition of personal style preferences on the reviewee.

The main purpose of a review is to determine how successful you have been at getting another human being into your brain. If you have done a good job, the reviewer will find your arguments and reasoning compelling, and agree with your conclusions. However, a more fundamental purpose of reviews is to find out if you have been successful at getting a reader to understand what you are trying to say at all. Anyone who has written a paper (and who actually cares about how good it is) knows that there comes a point after you have re-written and re-edited it over and over again when you are incapable of evaluating your own writing. Your brain knows the patterns of words on the page so thoroughly that they seem natural and right even if they are actually unclear. One useful trick is simply to put the manuscript down for a while and refuse to look at it until you have forgotten what you wrote, but a better route is just getting someone else to read it who has NOT been staring at the same goddamned words for weeks on end. YOU know what you are trying to say, but that doesn't matter if your reader doesn't. You aren't writing to yourself.

A helpful reviewer knows how to reword confusing sentences in a way that improves clarity, such as by breaking it up into chunks, moving a verb to the front on the sentence, clarifying the subject of a sentence, or just completely re-writing it.

For example: "The shape of the lacrimal, the length of the maxilla, and the number of aveoli in the dentary, are all means by which Smilosuchus and Pseudopalatus may be differentiated."

The reader's brain wants to know up front why these things are being listed. Don't keep it in suspense. Try:

"Smilosuchus and Pseudopalatus may be differentiated by the shape of the lacrimal, the length of the maxilla, and the number of aveoli in the dentary."

Also, shorter is better; a major part of becoming a good scientific writer (or good writer in general) is learning to convey the same amount of information with fewer words. You want your reader to have to spend as little time and do as little work is possible to understand your meanings so that they do not lose consciousness before finishing the paper. If there is a paragraph, or a couple of consecutive sentences, that are twice as long as they really need to be, a good editor can condense the whole thing without loosing information.

For example: "The maxilla of Pseudopalatus has an elongate anterior process. The anterior process of the maxilla has a raised anteroposteriorly oriented ridge on the lateral surface. The maxilla also has a rugose lateral surface. Also, the posterior end of the maxilla contacts the jugal. Moreover the shape of the suture between the maxilla and the jugal is serrate in lateral view."

Condense to: "The maxilla of Pseudopalatus has a rugose lateral surface, an elongate anterior process with a raised anteroposteriorly oriented ridge on the lateral surface, and a posterior suture with the jugal that is serrate in lateral view."

All the same information, two lines shorter.

However, it is important to make a distinction between writing clarity and writing style. Just because a writer didn't say something the way that you personally would have written it does not mean that your way is better. Getting back "corrections" on a paper which are strictly stylistic can be extremely annoying. For example, someone might write something like:

"Contrary to the findings of Goober (1965), the maxillae of Smilosuchus and Postosuchus both have a first aveolus twice the size of the more posterior aveoli."

I might personally have written this as: "The maxillae of Smilosuchus and Postosuchus both have a first aveolus twice the size of the posterior aveoli, contra Goober (1965)."

My way cuts down a few words, but not in a really major way, and the meaning of the first sentence is perfectly clear. Therefore, I personally wouldn't edit it. The difference is mostly one of personal style.

Or, someone might write: "The anterior PORTION of the maxilla is mediolaterally expanded", whereas I would write "The anterior PART of the maxilla is mediolaterally expanded", but I know what the fucking word "portion" means in the context without having to think about it.

Another problem some reviewers have is with colloquial terms, such as "the lacrimal is sandwiched between the prefrontal and the maxilla." "Sandwiched" is a fairly unambiguous term, and I know instantly reading this what the sentence means. I probably wouldn't have used the word personally, but I wouldn't suggest changing it. This is a style difference, but not one which hurts the ability of the reader to absorb information.

Incidentally, the particular examples I used were not from a real manuscript. I made them all up, so I hope you weren't taking notes. Douchebag.