Opinion · · · 1 min read

Science communication is not simplification

Explaining something well usually means adding structure, not removing detail.

Explaining something well usually means adding structure, not removing detail. Open with the single most interesting thing you have to say, in one or two sentences. A reader who stops here should still come away knowing what this piece is about.

Use the second paragraph for the context a non-specialist needs: what question is being asked, why anyone was asking it, and what was already known before. Keep technical vocabulary to the terms you are going to use again later.

What this section is for

Subheadings let a reader skim and still follow the argument. Three or four across a piece of this length is about right. Under each one, make a single point and support it.

  • Lists work well for methods, caveats, or a set of parallel findings.
  • Keep the items the same grammatical shape as each other.
  • Three to five items; beyond that a paragraph usually reads better.

A pull quote is useful when you want a sentence to land on its own – a striking phrase from an interview, or the claim the whole piece turns on.

Attribution, where there is one

Adding a figure

Insert images with the image block and write a caption for every one. A caption should say what the reader is looking at and why it matters, not repeat the title.

Closing

End with what is still unresolved rather than a summary. The reader has just read the summary.

Placeholder article – replace this text with your own writing, then delete this line.

More in Opinion

View section

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *