

How to be popular - pm90
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n11/full/nphys2147.html

======
agilo
Increasingly, scientists are expected to go beyond the traditional scientific
paper to explain their research to a non-specialist readership. We offer some
tips on writing popular science for a general audience.

As the budgets of governments worldwide become ever tighter, it is more
important than ever for scientists to be able to explain — and in some sense
justify — their research to a wider audience. Yet few have received formal
training in writing at all, let alone in popular writing. There are many forms
such writing can take: press releases, perspective pieces for magazines, or
even blogs. In Nature Physics, although we strive to ensure that everything we
publish is as accessible as possible, this is of utmost importance in our News
and Views section, for which we commission practising scientists to write
about research that is published in Nature Physics or elsewhere in the
scientific literature. On the whole, physicists do a pretty good job of
explaining these advances to colleagues in other fields. Yet there are a
number of aspects of popular writing that our writers find challenging. We'll
describe the most common pitfalls.

For a writer, the most important person in the Universe is the reader. And the
most important thing to know about the reader is that you are subject to his
or her whim. Every sentence you write must maintain the reader's interest,
grip them and keep them reading to the end. As veteran reporter Tim Radford
points out in his widely circulated journalists' manifesto
(<http://go.nature.com/JGVCyi>), “This is because, although you — an employee,
an apostle or an apologist — may feel compelled to write, nobody has ever felt
obliged to read.” And given half a chance, they will stop reading what you
have written and turn the page in an instant.

The most engaging writing tells a story. A good story is a journey, and most
people won't follow you on this journey unless you give them some idea of
where it's headed. So before you even start, you need to decide where you want
it to end. Ask yourself, what is the most surprising or significant aspect of
the work you're writing about? When you first heard (or read) about the
research, what about it made you think, “Wow, I didn't expect that!” It
needn't be what the scientists who conducted the work think is the most
important aspect: indeed, for a Nature Physics News and Views, a blog entry or
similar, it is your unique perspective that readers (and editors) are
interested in.

“Remember, the piece needs a beginning, a middle and an end — and, unless
you're Quentin Tarantino, it needs to be presented in this order.” The
structure of the piece should reflect the journey that you've set out to
describe. Remember, it needs a beginning, a middle and an end — and, unless
you're Quentin Tarantino, it needs to be presented in this order. The first
paragraph is the most important of the piece. It sets the stage, addressing
the cardinal questions: what, why, who and how. It introduces, briefly, the
wider context and motivation for the research and identifies the key
challenges it is to address. It doesn't need details — that's what the middle
of the piece is for.

On any journey, it's tempting to stop at other attractions on the way. For
long journeys this can break the monotony, but for short journeys it's usually
a distraction. Pick one key idea, one destination, and stick to it. Sometimes
in writing you can set out for one place and on the way discover yourself
heading towards another — that's fine, and if you discover that the new
destination is more exciting than the original, don't be afraid to change your
plans. But don't try to include both destinations, unless they're closely
neighbouring towns, like Buda and Pest. You only have the time to reach one.

Hype doesn't help, neither do hyperbolic adjectives such as 'very',
'extremely' and 'remarkably'. It's not enough to simply assert that something
is exciting, notable, novel or useful — explain why. Don't begin any sentence
with 'interestingly': it is for the reader to decide whether something is
interesting, it's your job to persuade them that it is. And before you
describe anything as ubiquitous, pause and consider: if everyone knows it's
ubiquitous — as is usually the case for ubiquitous things — there's probably
no point. Cement is ubiquitous; silicon is ubiquitous; organic molecules are
ubiquitous; vector calculus is ubiquitous; so what? Analogies, on the other
hand, are great. But anthropomorphisms are usually terrible. Silicon doesn't
have a few tricks up its sleeve: semiconductors don't perform tricks, neither
do they have sleeves.

At the opening of A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking notes that his
editor warned him that for every equation in the book its readership would be
halved, and so he included only a single equation — E = mc2. Writing for
physicists is less constrained, but not by much. Few physicists are afraid of
equations. But most equations — apart from those presented in any
undergraduate physics course — represent a short-hand that only specialists
appreciate. Consequently, formulae are usually a waste of space, unless the
implications of every index and every coefficient is explained in long form.
Equations in popular writing are not efficient, they're lazy. It's usually
much better to describe in words the key relations that they embody.

And finally, when you've crafted some beautiful prose, be ready for the edit.
Unless you're writing for your own personal blog, it's unlikely that every
word in your initial draft will make the final cut. In the world of
professional journalism, most submissions are edited substantially; even
seasoned writers regularly see their copy transformed into something quite
different from their original draft. The reason is that an editor is closer to
the reader than a writer. Editors set the tone and the scope, and it's the
editors' vision that ultimately determines the success of a journal. So if an
editor has made a change that you're not happy with, don't just change it back
— it's been edited for a reason. Explain why you're not happy with the change,
and try to rephrase in way that still chimes with the editor's version.

~~~
rcfox
Having to register to read the article sucks, but that's no reason to violate
their copyright.

~~~
veidr
Well, it is _a_ reason. You might not think it's a good reason.

------
jaredsohn
Site requires registration. To work around it, click "Register now" and then
back on your browser. (Edit: This was on Chrome.)

~~~
makeramen
I needed to refresh after pressing back too (Safari). Maybe something to do
with the page caching.

------
tnuc
One way to be popular is to link to an article where you don't have to log
in/register. :)

~~~
draggnar
another is to give everyone a super easy way around the paywall

------
tansey
I suppose I expected more from a Nature post. All of these suggestions are
things I learned in fourth grade; it's just basic human communication.

Most successful scientists I've met are actually quite good at explaining
their research to a non-expert audience. They may not all be as eloquent or
accessible as Malcolm Gladwell, but they certainly get the point across well
enough.

------
pm90
I'm sorry for the "registration requirement"...I don't know what is going on,
but sometimes the link shows the article, and sometimes the registration
page...I was able to read the article when i first opened it, hence i posted
it here

------
hammock
Full text: <http://pastebin.com/AAB0fkzm>

------
wtvanhest
This article is very interesting.

