Writing Guide
Broad Basics
- When writing about scientific research, rephrase findings in your own words rather than quoting studies directly.
- Use active voice—for example, say “researchers found” instead of “it was found”—to make your writing clearer and more engaging.
- Avoid unnecessary jargon or complex terms, especially if they appear only once or if a simpler word conveys the same meaning.
- Write with a high school-level understanding of biology in mind to ensure accessibility.
- Always rely on primary, peer-reviewed literature and go beyond the abstract to grasp the full context and methodology.
- Finally, proofread your work carefully and read it aloud to catch grammatical errors and improve flow.
Fine Details
- When writing about scientific research, spell out numbers less than ten—for example, use “five” instead of “5”—to maintain consistency and readability.
- Avoid using “et al.” entirely; instead, refer to authors by their last name only after they’ve been properly introduced.
- Use the word “significant” exclusively when referring to statistical significance, and include a brief explanation of what that means within the guide to help readers understand its importance.
- When defining jargon that’s essential to the article, give it its own sentence or clause rather than embedding the definition mid-sentence.
- Limit the use of abbreviations, and always spell them out the first time they appear.
- Finally, avoid using the word “causes” unless the study explicitly makes that claim.
Common Mistakes
| Type of Mistake | Why It's Wrong | Example Mistake | Example Correction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overuse of “studies show,” underuse of explanation of studies, using “studies show” but only citing one study. | It’s fine to say things like “studies show,” but we do want to make sure that the article is at least attempting to explain a few of the studies in depth. | Recent studies have shown that BD patients have lower circulating BDNF levels compared to healthy controls, with a noticeable reduction during manic and depressive episodes and a negative correlation with the severity of affective symptoms. [10] Another study indicated that serum BDNF can play a significant role in distinguishing BD patients from healthy controls, and also included a suggested cut-off point as a reference for future studies. [11] These findings, compounded with its established link to the development of stress-linked psychiatric conditions, make it a good biomarker candidate for BD. [12] | A recent study showed that BD patients have lower circulating BDNF levels compared to healthy controls, with a noticeable reduction during manic and depressive episodes and a negative correlation with the severity of affective symptoms [10]. Another study indicated that serum BDNF can play a significant role in distinguishing BD patients from healthy controls, and also included a suggested cut-off point as a reference for future studies. [11] These findings, compounded with its established link to the development of stress-linked psychiatric conditions, make it a good biomarker candidate for BD. [12] |
| Jargon or defining jargon by simply inserting another sentence that says “This means…” or “The [jargon] is defined as…” | Grey Matters aims to increase the accessibility of neuroscience for everybody, meaning including terms the general public is not likely to be familiar with impedes our ability to do so. Ask yourself what the reader needs to know, which can often be better explained using simpler/descriptive language. | It should be noted that this specific study was a retrospective one [Melnyk, et. al. 2017]. This means that the actual treatment of patients was done before the study was undertaken and hypothesis made. As a result, the study has less predictive value then a prospective study, where a hypothesis is made and then an experiment is carried out. | It should be noted that this study collected data from a pre-existing set of conditions, so the observations were correlational rather than causational. Future studies should investigate this phenomenon using experiments to reduce the chance that there are unwanted variables at play. |
| Defining terms in parentheses | Use of parentheses imply the information within is less important than the surrounding text, even if this is not the intention of the author. Readers are more likely to skip over content included in parentheses, which is obviously not what we want when we provide a definition / explanation. | If it does not cross, it is inactive and will be drained out through the cerebrospinal pathways or undergo apoptosis (programmed cell death). | If the author wishes to use apoptosis as a term later: If it does not cross, it is inactive and will be drained out through the cerebrospinal pathways or undergo programmed cell death, a process called apoptosis. If the author does not return to the term apoptosis: If it does not cross, it is inactive and will be drained out through the cerebrospinal pathways or undergo programmed cell death. |
| Using “et al” | This is verbiage that is inaccessible and mostly irrelevant for people. | A study by author X, et al. | Report the name of the first author and say “and colleagues” or “research from a team led by Author X.” You can also just say “a team of researchers,” since the results/conclusions of the study are more important for the reader than the name of the scientists who conducted the study. |
| Using an acronym without defining it | No one will understand what you are referring to (even if you think it is used colloquially). | A concussion happens when your brain moves within the CSF and hits the skill. | Define the term, and put the abbreviation in parenthesis the first time it is mentioned. After that first reference, the abbreviation can be used freely. Your brain sits in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), protecting it from hitting your skull. A concussion happens when your brain moves within the CSF and hits the skill. |
| Providing an acronym but not referencing it again and / or not referring to it again until far later in the article | It makes the article challenging to follow. | Researchers also noticed increased activation of the prefrontal cortex (PVC), primary somatosensory cortex (PSC), and the primary motor cortex (PMC). | So many Ps and Cs! If this is just additional information consider cutting it out entirely because readers are unlikely to differentiate between the three if they are not central to the article. |
Workshop Slides
During our production schedule, we teach workshops in chunks. You may access them again here!
All That Research
A slide deck on finding reliable research articles, how to read them, and how to report on them accurately.
How do You Relate
A slide deck on making your article more relatable to readers, and why relatability is important in your writing.
It’s All About the Flow
A slide deck to guide your article’s organization, flow, hook, and overall composition.
The Grey Matters Style
A slide deck on writing with precision and clarity of Grey Matters, as well as how and when to cite.