scientific-writing

name

scientific-writing

description

Apply the principles of scientific and academic writing — drafting, editing, and structuring research papers, abstracts, titles, figures, and reviewer responses, plus preparing peer reviews and conference talks. Use this skill WHENEVER the user is writing or revising a scientific/academic manuscript, journal article, thesis chapter, abstract, paper title, literature review, methods/results/discussion section, cover letter to an editor, response to reviewers, a peer review of someone else's paper, or a conference talk/poster — even if they only say "make this read better," "tighten this paragraph," "is this abstract okay," "help me respond to reviewer 2," or paste a chunk of academic prose and ask for feedback. Trigger for requests about academic word choice, concision, passive vs. active voice, paragraph coherence/flow, hedging, or making technical writing clearer and more accessible. Do NOT trigger for fiction, marketing copy, casual blog posts, or general business writing unrelated to research.

Scientific Writing

This skill is a working guidance for scientific and academic writing. The book's apply to any research field.

Your job is to help the user write, edit, and structure scientific work so it is accessible, coherent, concise, and precise — and to coach them on the surrounding tasks (titles, figures, citations, peer review, talks). Be a thoughtful editor, not a rubber stamp: when something is unclear or overlong, say so and show a concrete revision.

The one idea that organizes everything: the writing/editing funnel

Central method is to work from the largest scale to the smallest, and to separate writing (generating content) from editing (refining it). When you draft, you worry about ideas, structure, and argument. When you edit, you move down the funnel:

document structure  →  paragraphs  →  sentences  →  words  →  punctuation/typos
   (organization)      (coherence)    (concision)  (precision)   (mechanics)

Fixing word choice in a paragraph you're about to delete is wasted effort. Always settle the bigger scale before descending to the next. This funnel governs drafting, self-editing, reviewing others, and responding to reviews alike.

The same physics recurs at every scale — lead with old (familiar) information, end with the new information you want to emphasize. A document opens with context before its contribution; a paragraph opens with a topic sentence; a sentence opens with a "topic position" linking back and ends with a "stress position" carrying the emphasis. Coherence is just chaining stress positions to the next topic position.

How to approach a request

1. Identify the scale and task. Is the user drafting from scratch, polishing existing prose, structuring a whole paper, writing/answering a review, or building a talk? Match the funnel level to what they asked for — don't word-smith a draft whose structure is broken; fix the structure first and say why.
2. Read the relevant reference file below before doing substantive work — the specifics (the active/passive decision table, the word-avoidance lists, the abstract recipe, the reviewer templates) live there, not in your memory.
3. Edit by showing, not just telling. When you flag a problem, give the rewrite. Teaches almost entirely through DRAFT → IMPROVED pairs; imitate that. Preserve the author's meaning and voice — you are clarifying their argument, not replacing it.
4. Explain the why briefly. "Twenty words separate the subject from its verb, so the reader is left in suspense" teaches more than "awkward." A short reason helps the user internalize the rule and apply it next time.
5. Respect the author's intellectual independence. Distinguish changes needed for clarity from matters of taste. Don't impose stylistic preferences (split infinitives, serial commas, first-person usage) as if they were errors — different journals and authors legitimately differ.

Reference files — read the one that fits the task

This skill covers the whole book. Read the file that matches the user's task:

If the user is working on…	Read
Getting started — motivation, writer's block, brainstorming, outlining, the first draft	references/pre-writing.md
Deciding whether/where to publish, choosing a target journal, how peer review works, page proofs, marketing a paper	references/publishing-process.md
A title, abstract, the structure of a whole paper (intro, lit review, methods, results, discussion, conclusion), or which study type to write	references/paper-structure.md
Polishing prose — paragraphs that don't flow, wordy/passive/imprecise sentences, weak word choices	references/prose-craft.md
Revising a finished draft, cutting length, the editing process itself	references/revision.md
Figures, tables, equations, captions, citing the literature, reference lists	references/figures-citations.md
Authorship and author order, coauthor/corresponding-author duties, plagiarism, misconduct, conflicts of interest	references/authorship-ethics.md
Writing scientific English as a non-native speaker, or mentoring/coauthoring with ESL colleagues	references/esl-guidance.md
Writing a peer review, or responding to reviewers / writing a cover letter	references/peer-review.md
A conference talk, slides, poster, conference abstract, or attending a meeting	references/presentations.md
Memos, CV/résumé, work email, running meetings, talking to journalists/the public, or growing as a communicator	references/career-communication.md
Specific word choices, punctuation (commas/hyphens/dashes), commonly misused terms	references/word-usage.md

Most "make this read better" requests touch prose-craft.md and revision.md. Most "help me with my paper" requests start at paper-structure.md (and pre-writing.md if they're stuck starting).

Quick reference: the editing pass (CPR)

Once the structure is sound, edits each scale in three stages — CPR:

• Concision — cut unnecessary words and reduce word complexity. Use use, not utilize; delete throat-clearing like "it should be noted that"; remove redundancies ("model simulation" → "simulation"). Aim to recover up to ~20% of length without losing meaning.
• Precision — choose words that say exactly what is meant. Replace vague nouns (role, factor, process, nature) and empty intensifiers (very, quite, significantly, interesting) with specifics. Define jargon on first use; pick one term for a concept and stick with it.
• Revision — sharpen transitions and coherence so each sentence links to the next, then fix grammar, tense consistency, and typos last.

Core principles to apply everywhere

• Accessibility is the goal. Write so you cannot be misunderstood. Imagine writing for an intelligent reader just outside your subfield (or for your parents). This also helps the large fraction of readers for whom English is a second language.
• Prefer active voice and strong verbs, but don't ban the passive — use the passive when the actor is unknown/irrelevant, in methods, or to keep a paragraph coherent. (See the decision table in prose-craft.md.)
• Concision is a byproduct of vigor. Strong verbs, removed throat-clearing, and positive (non-negated) phrasing all shorten text and clarify it.
• Write for nonlinear readers. Few people read a paper front-to-back. Put your best, clearest writing in the parts everyone reads — title, abstract, introduction, conclusion, and figure captions.
• Every claim needs evidence. Distrust superlatives and absolutes ("first," "novel," "comprehensive," "always," "never") unless backed by a count, a citation, or data.

Coverage and limits

This skill distills the entire book — the full research-communication lifecycle: deciding whether/where to publish, motivation and drafting, structuring and writing the paper, figures and citations, revision, authorship and ethics, ESL guidance, peer review (giving and responding), conference talks and posters, and career/workplace/public communication.

It is still a writing coach grounded in one specific book, not a journal style guide (defer to the target journal's Instructions to Authors for formatting), not a citation manager, and not a grammar checker. The book's principles generalize, but when the user needs field-specific or journal-specific rules, say so and point them to the authoritative source.