Guidelines for Writing in Science and Engineering

Introduction

This guide is intended primarily for papers, reports, and technical documentation in science and engineering. It provides guidance on improving clarity, accuracy, and consistency. Principles such as plain language, logical organization, consistent terminology, and clear support for claims also apply broadly to explanatory and argumentative writing in other fields.

Select relevant items when drafting and revising, taking into account the purpose and format of the document, its intended readers, and their prior knowledge. Apply advice specific to particular document types, such as research-paper structure and citation formats, where appropriate. Follow any requirements set by the target journal, conference, or receiving organization. Use judgment when applying recommendations on style and structure, keeping accurate and clear communication as the goal.

I. Sentence-Level Clarity & Accuracy

• Simple Language:
  • Apart from essential technical terms, is the language clear, modern, and straightforward?
  • Are potentially unfamiliar technical terms defined or explained upon first use where necessary?
  • Are abbreviations defined at first use and then used consistently?
  • Are symbols for quantities and any custom symbols defined at first use, with units where applicable, and then used with consistent meanings and notation?
• Verb-Oriented Phrasing: Have you avoided unnecessary nominalizations (turning verbs into nouns, e.g., "perform an investigation of" instead of "investigate," "make a decision" instead of "decide")?
• Precise and Objective Expression:
  • Are observed results and established facts clearly distinguished from the author's interpretations, opinions, and hypotheses (e.g., through wording such as "suggests" or "may")?
  • Do verbs accurately describe the action and match the strength of the evidence? Prefer plain, precise wording; do not replace words such as "show" or "get" merely to sound more formal.
  • When making comparisons, are the objects or conditions being compared explicitly identified? Is the basis of comparison clear (e.g., compared with what, and under what conditions)?
  • Have you limited subjective or vague intensifiers such as "very," "extremely," and "considerably," using specific quantities or concrete descriptions where possible?
• Redundancy Elimination:
  • Have you removed redundant words or phrases (e.g., "basic fundamentals," "absolutely essential," "completely finished," "future plans")?
  • Are phrases like "in order to" or "due to the fact that" used sparingly and replaced with simpler alternatives ("to," "because") where possible?

II. Consistency in Terminology & Expression

• Clear Pronoun Reference: Is the referent for each pronoun ("this," "that," "it," "they," etc.) clear and unambiguous? Could any pronoun refer to more than one thing, causing confusion?
• Consistent Terminology & Notation:
  • Are the same terms used consistently throughout the entire manuscript (Abstract, main text, figures, tables, captions) to refer to the same concepts, equipment, variables, or processes?
  • Are numbers and units formatted consistently throughout the manuscript, using the International System of Units (SI) as the default, subject to journal requirements? Are unit symbols set in upright (roman) type and quantity symbols generally in italic type?
  • Is a space used between the numerical value and the unit symbol (e.g., 10 mg, 25 °C), except before the symbols for degrees, minutes, and seconds of plane angle (°, ′, ″; e.g., 30°)?

III. Grammar & Syntax Accuracy

• Active vs. Passive Voice:
  • Is the active voice used primarily to ensure clarity and conciseness? Clearly state who did what.
  • Is the passive voice used appropriately and intentionally, such as in methods sections (e.g., "Samples were heated...") or when the object of the action is more important than the actor?
• Modifier Placement: Are adjectives, adverbs (including words like "only," "also"), and modifying phrases placed close to the words they are intended to modify, where grammatically natural? Is there any ambiguity in what is being modified (misplaced or dangling modifiers)?
• Sentence Conciseness:
  • Are subjects and their main verbs kept close enough that the sentence structure is easy to follow?
  • Are sentences excessively long or complex, making them difficult to read? An average of 15-25 words can be a rough check, but vary sentence length and prioritize clear meaning over a numerical target.
  • Are there unnecessary prepositional phrases or overly complicated subordinate clauses?
  • Could complex sentences be split into shorter, clearer ones?
• Parallel Structure:
  • When listing items or joining ideas with conjunctions ("and," "or," "but"), are the elements grammatically parallel (e.g., noun-noun, verb-ing - verb-ing, clause-clause)?
  • Are parallel items also at comparable levels of meaning and detail?
  • Is the order of parallel items consistent?
  • When the purpose is to classify items or give a complete set of options, are the items Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive (MECE)? Do not require exhaustive coverage from illustrative examples.

IV. Clarity of Explanation & Precise Referencing

• Clarifying Phrases & Logical Connectives:
  • Are phrases used for summary or rephrasing ("In other words...", "That is...") employed effectively to aid understanding without being redundant?
  • Do connectives accurately express the relationship between ideas? Use "However" for contrast or a departure from expectations, even when both statements can be true; use "In addition" or a similar connective for a simple addition.
• Avoiding Circular Definitions & Uninformative Restatements:
  • Does the explanation provide independently understandable characteristics, conditions, or examples? For example, “Quantum mechanics is the study of quantum systems” is insufficient for beginners if “quantum systems” has not been explained.
• Effective Use of Visuals & Captions: Do figures and tables effectively supplement the text and enhance reader understanding?
  • Does each figure and table have a clear, concise, and informative caption that includes a number, title, necessary descriptions, legend explanations, and source information if applicable?
  • Can the visual be understood relatively independently with its caption?
  • Is every figure and table referred to in the main text?
• Explanation of formulas: When using mathematical formulas, supplement them with words explaining the circumstances, meaning, and results of the formulas. Explain the derivation process of the formulas carefully. Unless rules are established, avoid ambiguous expressions. For example, when using expectation symbols (e.g., $E_{X~P}[X^2]$), always explicitly state what the expectation is taken with respect to.
• Precise Referencing: When referring to other parts of the manuscript (figures, tables, sections, equations, references), are specific identifiers used (e.g., "as shown in Fig. 3," "according to Table 2," "details in Section 2.1," "using Eq. (4)," "as reported by [5]" or "as reported by Smith et al. [5]") instead of vague terms ("above," "below," "previously mentioned")? Are all reference numbers correct?
  • If a short equation is needed several pages after its first appearance, would repeating it help the reader? If so, retain a reference to its original equation number.

V. Paragraph Structure & Logical Flow

• Topic Sentences: Does each paragraph make its main point clear, normally through a topic sentence at or near the beginning? Another position is acceptable when it better serves the logical flow.
• Paragraph Focus (Unity): Is each paragraph focused on a single main idea or topic? Are paragraphs overly long or too short (could they be combined or developed further)?
• Paragraph Role & Transitions:
  • Is the role of each paragraph clear within the overall argument (e.g., providing background, presenting methods, describing results, interpreting findings, linking ideas)?
  • Are transition words and phrases ("However," "Therefore," "In addition," "Furthermore," "Consequently," "Next," etc.) used effectively to signal logical connections between sentences and paragraphs, ensuring smooth flow?

VI. Overall Document Structure & Requirements

• Standard Structure (e.g., IMRaD):
  • Does the manuscript follow the standard structure for your field and the target journal (e.g., Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion - IMRaD)?
  • Does each section contain the expected information (e.g., Introduction: background, gap, purpose/hypothesis; Methods: sufficient detail for reproducibility; Results: objective findings; Discussion: interpretation, comparison, significance, limitations)?
  • Where helpful, does a section open with an overview and close with a summary or conclusion that clarifies its role in the manuscript?
  • To consider what readers want to know first.
  • To make a text that is "understood as you read it, rather than only being understood after reading the whole thing"
• Logical Argument Flow:
  • Is there a clear and logical progression of ideas from the introduction to the conclusion?
  • Is the relationship between claims and supporting evidence (data, citations) clear? Does the argument flow coherently?
• Clarity and Consistency of Key Points: Does each part of the manuscript, including the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion, clearly present the research objective, key findings, or conclusions appropriate to its role? Are these statements consistent with one another, without unnecessarily repeating every point in every part?

VII. References & Citations

• Consistent Citation Style: Does the citation style used in the text (in-text citations) and the reference list strictly and consistently adhere to the format required by the target journal (e.g., APA, MLA, Vancouver, Numbered)?
• Reference List Accuracy: Is every entry in the reference list complete and accurate according to the required style (check author names, year, titles, journal/book titles, volume/issue/pages, DOIs, etc.)? Are there any typos or missing information?
• Comprehensive and Accurate Citations: Is every source mentioned or relied upon in the text properly cited? Does every entry in the reference list correspond to a citation in the text?

VIII. Additional Considerations

• Final Check: Review every completed draft for typographical and grammatical errors, inappropriate wording, inconsistent notation, logical contradictions, and factual errors. Verify factual statements against the underlying data or sources where needed.
• Understand the Principles: Be mindful of why each point matters (for reader understanding, credibility, reproducibility, etc.).
• Maintain Objectivity: Step back from your writing. Read it aloud or after a break to gain a fresh perspective, simulating a reader's experience. When useful, inspect a printed copy and ask another reader for feedback.
• Balance Competing Goals: Sometimes guidelines might seem contradictory (e.g., being concise vs. being thorough). Use your judgment to find the best balance for clarity and impact in the specific context.

References

• Google developer documentation style guide  |  Google Developers
• BIPM: The International System of Units (SI Brochure)