Just so you know, I spent years trying to come up with a name for my business. This was a big thing holding me back from making my website and starting this freelance writing gig.
So why did I choose to name my business with a word that’s not in the dictionary? Yikes, Jen, you’re a professional proofreader!
One of my missions in life is to help the general public make good sense of science. Time and time again, I’ve seen study findings twisted out of their original context to make a good headline. The “exciting” stories that make it to the surface of lay journals and news outlets often contain overstated conclusions or, at the very least, are a little over-hyped; everyone thinks “this is the way” now. Or worse, when contradictory findings are published, utter confusion erupts. The public response can be scary.
Whose fault is that? Not important. But what I can do now is teach people who are interested in learning how to read it right here in my blog. Not everyone understands reproducibility, that we need to see findings repeated quite a few times to know that they’re real. Not everyone understands experimental design, but the strength of evidence depends heavily on the design. Not everyone understands the terminology; when we learned about the scientific method in school, we learned “independent variable” and “dependent variable,” but unfortunately those aren’t the words scientists really use to talk about their work. We use “predictor” and “response variable” and “outcome” and “intervention” and whatever other options we feel adequate. How are lay people supposed to make sense of all that?!
Here are my fun ideas:
- I envision a scientific community that standardizes its reporting terms to make it easier for nonscientists to read. Response variable or dependent variable: pick one. It’s not that out-of-reach, what with PRISMA and STROBE and all these other guidelines and checklists we already follow.
- I also think we could add a statement specifically for laypeople, maybe an “evidence quality” section that shows where the study lands on the pyramid and whether the findings are ready to put into action. Will they need to be followed up by studies of different/better quality? I don’t think our “future studies” sentences at the end of the conclusions are usually clear enough for laypeople.
- I think we can do a better job at correctly and definitively naming our study designs and explaining the inherent limitations in the discussion section. What exactly did this sampling bias do to your results? I know it will add to the word count, but when you write your discussion, try to imagine a decently smart layperson reading your paper. How would you write it up to make sure they understand it the way you do?
While scientific articles are rightfully filled with jargon, I think we scientists can do a better job of making our manuscripts accessible to non-scientists.
Science should make sense to everyone.
What one word is there to describe something that makes sense? I find it unfair that “nonsensical” is a word but sensical is not. If you can get over it not being a real word, “sensical” aptly describes my initiative to make sense of science to all interested parties.
Whether you agree with me or not about the status of “sensical” in the dictionary, you can bet that I put a lot of thought into the words I use and the way I construct sentences. I am passionate about writing, and I love learning new things. Let me help you get your work published.