Let’s try a little roleplay. Imagine you are a government official or a family doctor. You’re on a committee considering the licensing of a new drug. It’s the first meeting after lunch, so you’re not at your sharpest. You need the next session to be sharp and focused. You open up the briefing papers to find these publiation titles:
“Multifactorial Determinants of Adherence in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Undergoing Inhalation Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational and Interventional Studies.”
“Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of Single Rising Intravenous Doses of Drug X in Healthy Male Subjects (Single-Blind, Partially Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Design).”
You groan inwardly. Perhaps you give a sigh. At any rate, part of your brain has already checked out at this point. Why can’t these scientists get to the point?
More usefully, can we promote clarity in the academic healthcare sector, without diluting the complexity of ideas? The answer is yes.
The English Language – An Apology
Not Dumbing Down
The idea of plain language is not to dumb down complicated ideas, nor to present scientific ideas in the style of popular science books. It’s about effective communication and the scientific imperative to convey facts and ideas transparently.
How do we define it? George Orwell’s essay, Politics and the English Language sets out six clear useful rules for effective writing. Of the six rules, three are relevant to academic writing:
- Never use a long word where a short one will do
- If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out
- Never use a scientific or jargon word if you can think of an everyday equivalent
Why does this matter? Two reasons. Firstly, science writing invariably has crucial information to impart. Secondly, an academic publication’s audience extends beyond the community.
Think of the Audience
Most of the people who read an academic paper, particularly one that is likely to be of relevance to drug approvals and regulatory processes will not be scientists. They will be politicians, civil servants, executives, NGO workers, and others. No matter how experienced and diligent, these are non-scientists and they will always have a subjective preference for language that doesn’t require them to crack open a dictionary or risk looking foolish.
On a more serious level, inaccessible language can increse the risk of misunderstandings, policy errors, miscommunication or a failure to recognize and act on crucial findings. In the high pressure field of pharma regulation and approval, why leave the crucial stage of communication to chance?
Don’t We Already Have Academic Editing?
All reputable journals conduct some form of editing. Our experienced team at SeeingTheta has significant experience of this work, and while this form of proofreading is important, it is focused on consistency of language, spelling, punctuation, format and grammar. To edit a paper for plain language would require the editor to get involved in rewriting the paper, and this is beyond the scope of academic journal proof reading.
I’ve Got a PhD, I Know How to Write!
You certainly do. Anyone who has successfully come through higher education can reasonably claim this as proof of a certain facility with language. But when you’re drawing up your research and carefully crafting your report, how high is plain language on your list of priorities? We’d be willing to bet it is not as high as accuracy of referencing, accuracy of data and other findings, appropriate citations, clear hypotheses and logical arguments.
The fact is that you don’t have the time to approach your academic paper solely from a plain language perspective. That’s what SeeingTheta is here for.
Peeling the Potato
“Why Patients with COPD Stick to Inhaler Treatments: What Studies Tell Us”
“A Study on the Safety and Effects of Drug X in Healthy Men.”