【英語論文の書き方】第72回 「研究倫理 パート2: 読者の時間を無駄にしない」について

2020年4月16日 10時00分

第71回では「研究倫理 パート1: 研究デザインとデータ報告」を取り上げました。

第72(今回)のテーマは「研究倫理 パート2: 読者の時間を無駄にしない」についてです。
 
研究倫理パート1では、研究者が他の研究者仲間に対して担う
倫理的な責任についてお話しました。
 
今回はパート2として、論文を読む人の時間を無駄にしてしまうと、
結果としてどのようなネガティブなことが起きるかという点に注目します。
 
時間は大切なリソースですから、読者の時間を無駄にするのは、
非倫理的なことです。
 
読者が余計な時間を費やさなくて済むよう、
執筆の際に避けるべき点、注意すべき点をご紹介します。
 
Geoffさんの解説をお読みいただき、ぜひご参考になさってください。

 

Ethics, part 2: Don’t waste the reader’s time By Geoffrey Hart

In part 1 of this article, I defined ethics as the branch of philosophy that studies right and wrong actions. I also discussed two important ethical requirements for research: designing reliable research and rigorously checking your data and calculations. In both cases, the ethical component arises from the consequences for readers of your papers. In the present article, I will focus on the negative consequences that result from wasting a reader’s time. Nobody has as much time as we want to meet our responsibilities to our profession, family, friends, and colleagues. Since time is a precious resource, it’s unethical to waste a reader’s time.
Several categories of time-wasting problems should be eliminated from your writing:
 

Unnecessarily long text

Most researchers enjoy reading, but we rarely have time to read work-related articles only for enjoyment. Most reading is to obtain information that answers a question, and we need to accomplish that goal quickly and efficiently. Unnecessarily long papers interfere with that goal. Thus, every researcher should write as concisely as possible. Reducing the length of a paper by 10% reduces the time required to read it by 10%. There are several ways to accomplish this.
First, describe only the most important results—key results that answer the research questions or test the research hypotheses you described in the Introduction. For example, if you describe a figure or table, describe averages or medians if the central tendency is most important or ranges if the variation is most important. If both are equally important, provide the mean plus or minus the standard deviation or standard error. Focus on statistically significant results that also have practical significance.
Second, minimize repetition of information. It’s necessary to describe key results in the Abstract, Results, and Discussion, but try to minimize the length of the repeated text.
Third, avoid multi-word phrases when simpler and shorter alternatives exist. For example, if you refer to your “laboratory trial of a 3 by 2 factorial design”, you can subsequently replace this nine-word phrase by two words: “our study”. It may be helpful to repeat the full description occasionally, such as at the start of the Discussion, but after readers understand the nature of your study, it’s rarely necessary to repeat that information unless you are comparing specific details of your study with the corresponding details for another study.
Abbreviations seem like a good way to shorten a paper, but may cost more time than they save. Familiar abbreviations such as DNA or ANOVA aren’t a problem; readers don’t have to stop and determine their meaning. As a result, using them efficiently reduces a manuscript’s length. However, unfamiliar abbreviations force readers to stop and remember their meaning; they may even have to search through the manuscript to find the definition. Even if you helpfully provide definitions of abbreviations at the start of your paper, consulting those definitions still wastes time.
 

Unclear writing

Clarifying your writing is a valuable investment of time. Each time a reader stops and reads a sentence again, you have doubled the time they spent trying to understand its meaning. Any misunderstanding creates further delays when that misunderstanding prevents them from understanding something later in the manuscript and forces them to find and read the original description to solve that problem. One effective way to improve clarity is by letting several days pass between writing and revising a manuscript. A more effective approach is to send your manuscript to someone else for review; a professional editor is particularly helpful. Most journals formally require that all authors review their paper before submission, and you should not avoid this step, even though it takes time; the greater clarity and reduced number of errors will be repaid by faster, more positive peer reviews.
 

Poor organization

Writing that is arranged illogically forces readers to create the organization themselves. The standard structure of a journal article provides a useful overall structure, but within each section, you must choose a logical structure for the contents of that section. For example, use chronological order to describe procedures, since anyone who must repeat your procedure will follow that order. Chronological order also works well for literature reviews that describe how a field’s body of knowledge has evolved. For information that describes a chain of thought, causal order is most effective. If phenomenon A causes phenomenon B, which in turn causes phenomenon C, the order should be A, followed by B and then C. This is true even if you performed the research in the order C, B, and A.
 

Omitted calculations

When you present only raw data, you force readers to calculate important values such as the mean and standard deviation. Understanding how readers will use your results tells you what calculations you should report. For example, if your research will help readers determine the appropriate sample size and replication for future studies, ensure that you provide key parameters such as the mean, median, range, standard deviation, standard error, coefficient of variation, and least-significant difference.
 

Literature citations

Incorrect literature citations are frustrating, since readers naturally want to find and read the key papers that you cited. Your paper’s References section is important; when you write a literature review, it can be the most important part of the manuscript. Thus, provide complete and correct details for each reference. Adding a DOI or Web address for each reference saves much time, particularly in papers that will be published by journals that are only available in electronic format, since readers can click an address or copy it into their Web browser and immediately find the article. Thus, ensure that your references are correct. Don’t assume that a journal’s editorial staff will do this for you.
 

Cumulative effects

Each problem that I have described in this article costs the reader time to solve. It’s unethical to take shortcuts that force your readers to do work that you should have done while you were writing and revising your paper. Investing your time to solve a problem for all readers eliminates the need for those readers to waste time solving the problem. It may take a reader only 1 minute to find the correct reference when your citation contains an error. However, if 1000 people read your paper and must each repeat the same search, you’ve wasted 1000 minutes of their time—more than 16 hours. If you don’t describe your methods thoroughly, those same 1000 readers may each spend 1 minute finding a paper that describes those methods in sufficient detail (another 16 hours). Reducing the length and improving the clarity of your manuscripts is equally essential. If long, unclear writing costs those same 1000 readers 5 minutes re-reading the text until they understand it, you have wasted more than 80 hours of their time.
Worst of all, you may lead other researchers to make errors that compromise their own experiments, requiring repetition of the experiments or introducing errors into the research literature if they don’t detect the flaw in their experimental design and mistakenly believe that their data is reliable. In such cases, your efforts may prevent wasted money, ineffective research, or harm to living beings that could have been avoided.
 

無料メルマガ登録

メールアドレス
お名前

これからも約2週間に一度のペースで、英語で論文を書く方向けに役立つコンテンツをお届けしていきますので、お見逃しのないよう、上記のフォームよりご登録ください。
 
もちろん無料です。

バックナンバー

第1回 if、in case、when の正しい使い分け:確実性の程度を英語で正しく表現する

第2回 「装置」に対する英語表現

第3回 助動詞のニュアンスを正しく理解する:「~することが出来た」「~することが出来なかった」の表現

第4回 「~を用いて」の表現:by と with の違い

第5回 技術英文で使われる代名詞のitおよび指示代名詞thisとthatの違いとそれらの使用法

第6回 原因・結果を表す動詞の正しい使い方:その1 原因→結果

第7回 原因・結果を表す動詞の使い方:その2 結果→原因

第8回 受動態の多用と誤用に注意

第9回 top-heavyな英文を避ける

第10回 名詞の修飾語を前から修飾する場合の表現法

第11回 受動態による効果的表現

第12回 同格を表す接続詞thatの使い方

第13回 「技術」を表す英語表現

第14回 「特別に」を表す英語表現

第15回 所有を示すアポストロフィー + s ( ’s) の使い方

第16回 「つまり」「言い換えれば」を表す表現

第17回 寸法や重量を表す表現

第18回 前置詞 of の使い方: Part 1

第19回 前置詞 of の使い方: Part 2

第20回 物体や物質を表す英語表現

第21回 句動詞表現より1語動詞での表現へ

第22回 不定詞と動名詞: Part 1

第23回 不定詞と動名詞の使い分け: Part 2

第24回 理由を表す表現

第25回 総称表現 (a, theの使い方を含む)

第26回研究開発」を表す英語表現

第27回 「0~1の数値は単数か複数か?」

第28回 「時制-現在形の動詞の使い方」

第29回  then, however, therefore, for example など接続副詞の使い方​

第30回  まちがえやすいusing, based onの使い方-分詞構文​

第31回  比率や割合の表現(ratio, rate, proportion, percent, percentage)

第32回 英語論文の書き方 総集編

第33回 Quality Review Issue No. 23 report, show の時制について​

第34回 Quality Review Issue No. 24 参考文献で日本語論文をどう記載すべきか​

第35回 Quality Review Issue No. 25 略語を書き出すときによくある間違いとは?​

第36回 Quality Review Issue No. 26 %と℃の前にスペースを入れるかどうか

第37回 Quality Review Issue No. 27 同じ種類の名詞が続くとき冠詞は付けるべき?!​

第38回 Quality Review Issue No. 22  日本人が特に間違えやすい副詞の使い方​

第39回 Quality Review Issue No. 21  previous, preceding, earlierなどの表現のちがい

第40回 Quality Review Issue No. 20 using XX, by XXの表現の違い

第41回 Quality Review Issue No. 19 increase, rise, surgeなど動詞の選び方

第42回 Quality Review Issue No. 18 論文での受動態の使い方​

第43回 Quality Review Issue No. 17  Compared with とCompared toの違いは?​

第44回 Reported about, Approach toの前置詞は必要か?​

第45回 Think, propose, suggest, consider, believeの使い分け​

第46回 Quality Review Issue No. 14  Problematic prepositions scientific writing: by, through, and with -3つの前置詞について​

第47回 Quality Review Issue No. 13 名詞を前から修飾する場合と後ろから修飾する場合​

第48回 Quality Review Issue No. 13 単数用法のThey​

第49回 Quality Review Issue No. 12  study, investigation, research の微妙なニュアンスのちがい

第50回 SinceとBecause 用法に違いはあるのか?

第51回 Figure 1とFig.1の使い分け

第52回 数式を含む場合は現在形か?過去形か?

第53回 Quality Review Issue No. 8  By 2020とup to 2020の違い

第54回 Quality Review Issue No. 7  high-accuracy data? それとも High accurate data? 複合形容詞でのハイフンの使用

第55回 実験計画について

第56回 参考文献について

第57回 データの分析について

第58回 強調表現について

第59回 共同研究の論文執筆について

第60回 論文の略語について

第61回 冠詞の使い分けについて

第62回 大文字表記について

第63回 ダッシュの使い分け

第64回 英語の言葉選びの難しさについて

第65回 過去形と能動態について

第66回 「知識の呪い」について

第67回 「文献の引用パート1」について

第68回 「文献の引用パート2」について

第69回 「ジャーナル用の図表の準備」について

第70回 「結論を出す ~AbstractとConclusionsの違い~」について

第70回 第71回 「研究倫理 パート1: 研究デザインとデータ報告」について


〒300-1206
茨城県牛久市ひたち野西3-12-2
オリオンピアA-5

TEL 029-870-3307
FAX 029-870-3308
ワールド翻訳サービス スタッフブログ ワールド翻訳サービス Facebook ワールド翻訳サービスの動画紹介