Introduction

Scientific and scholarly writing is the primary means through which research is evaluated, shared, and preserved. Its purpose is not self-expression, but the clear communication of evidence, reasoning, and conclusions. For this reason, journals place strong emphasis on language choices that support objectivity, precision, and transparency. Writing that appears personal, ambiguous, or structurally weak can undermine confidence in otherwise sound research.

This resource explains key language practices that strengthen scholarly communication. It focuses on how sentence structure, verb tense, and word choice affect the presentation of evidence-based arguments. The guidance provided here is intended for authors preparing manuscripts, editors assessing submissions, and reviewers evaluating clarity and rigour. The aim is not to enforce stylistic rigidity, but to promote writing that allows research to speak clearly and credibly.

Avoiding First-Person Language in Scholarly Writing

Scientific writing prioritises evidence over authorship. The use of first-person pronouns such as I and we draws attention to the writer rather than the research, subtly shifting claims from empirical grounding to personal assertion. This can weaken the perceived objectivity of an argument, particularly in empirical and theoretical work.

Weak:

Stronger:

The revised sentence foregrounds the claim itself rather than the authors making it. While some qualitative or reflective traditions permit limited first-person use, most journals expect restraint. Removing first-person language helps maintain a neutral tone and aligns the manuscript with disciplinary expectations of scholarly distance.

“-ing” Forms and Their Role in Academic English

In English grammar, “-ing” words serve two main functions. A gerund functions as a noun, as in “Examining the evidence is essential.” A present participle functions as an adjective or as part of a verb phrase, as in “The examining physician.” Both forms are grammatically correct and often useful.

However, problems arise when “-ing” constructions dominate sentence structure. Overuse can obscure agency, weaken verbs, or create logical ambiguities. For this reason, editors often scrutinise these forms closely in academic manuscripts.

Dangling Participles and Logical Clarity

A dangling participle occurs when an opening “-ing” phrase does not logically describe the subject that follows. This creates unintended meanings and interrupts comprehension.

Incorrect:

This sentence implies that the microscope performed the examination.

Correct:

Clear alignment between action and actor restores logical coherence. Avoiding dangling participles ensures that responsibility for actions is explicit, which is essential in scholarly explanation.

Impossible Simultaneous Actions

Sentences that begin with an “-ing” form often imply that two actions occur at the same time. When this implication is unrealistic, clarity suffers.

Poor:

Opening the door is typically completed before walking.

Clearer:

Sequential verbs reflect actual processes more accurately. In academic writing, this precision helps readers follow methodological steps and analytical reasoning without confusion.

Weak Progressive Tense and Verb Strength

Writers frequently rely on the progressive tense (was/were + -ing) where a simple verb would be more effective. This habit slows the pace of writing and reduces decisiveness.

Weak:

Stronger:

The simple past tense is more direct and better suited to reporting completed actions. Progressive tense should be reserved for situations where duration or interruption is analytically relevant.

Overuse of Gerunds and Abstract Language

Gerunds turn actions into concepts. When overused, they make writing abstract and impersonal, distancing readers from concrete processes.

Abstract:

Concrete:

Reducing abstraction strengthens clarity and makes causal relationships easier to identify. Editors often view excessive gerund use as a signal that revision is needed for precision.

Choosing the Correct Tense When Referring to Sources

Verb tense communicates how prior research is positioned in relation to the present argument. Consistency is essential.

The past tense describes what an author did in a specific study.

Sheila (1990) observed a decline in employee engagement.

The present tense is used when discussing an argument or finding that remains relevant.

Sheila (1990) argues that leadership culture influences engagement.

Switching tenses without purpose confuses readers about whether findings are historical observations or ongoing contributions to knowledge.

Sentence Length, Completeness, and Readability

Short, complete sentences improve clarity by presenting one idea at a time. Long sentences often combine multiple claims, weakening focus.

Overloaded:

Clearer:

However, overly short or incomplete sentences also undermine clarity.

Fragment:

Every sentence should express a complete thought. Balance, not brevity alone, is the goal.

Precise Word Choice and Contextual Accuracy

Academic credibility depends on careful word selection. Words with similar meanings often carry different analytical implications. Misuse signals imprecision.

For example, affect and effect are not interchangeable. Likewise, which introduces non-essential information, while that defines essential clauses. Incorrect usage alters meaning and disrupts logical structure.

Effective scholarly writing treats vocabulary as analytical instruments rather than stylistic embellishments.

Reducing Wordiness through Strong Vocabulary

Concise writing enhances authority. Many long phrases can be replaced with single, precise words.

Wordy:

Concise:

Wordy:

Concise:

Strong verbs reduce clutter and sharpen argumentation without reducing formality.

Maintaining an Objective Scholarly Tone

Scholarly tone is marked by restraint. Rhetorical questions, emotive language, and exaggerated claims weaken analytical credibility. Claims should align carefully with evidence.

For example, “This proves” often overstates findings. “This suggests” or “This indicates” reflects appropriate academic caution. Such phrasing signals methodological awareness and respect for scholarly debate.

Conclusion

Scientific and scholarly writing succeeds when language supports evidence rather than obscuring it. Avoiding first-person narration, controlling “-ing” constructions, selecting appropriate tense, and prioritising clarity all contribute to stronger argumentation. These practices do not limit expression; they refine it. Clear, precise writing allows research to be evaluated fairly, understood accurately, and trusted by the scholarly community.