There is an interesting blog entry in physicsworld.com titled “Should scientific papers be written in a first-person narrative?” by James Dacey, http://physicsworld.com/blog/2011/10/should_scientific_papers_be_wr.html. It’s really a teaser for people to cast their vote on physicsworld’s Facebook page but it raises an interesting aspect of science communication.

Sci-commers have regularly posed the value of having a more narrative tone for papers only to be told that the science journals won’t accept papers written in that style.

Is there a need for journals to change their editorial formats? If there is change I imagine it would be at a glacially slow rate unless there is some worldwide paradigm shift in science report writing.

The question is also related to the communication skills of scientists. Some are superb communicators but many lack the skills to weave a compelling story which supports their thesis. Many ASC members make their livelihoods partly because of the preponderance of the latter. We also recognise that scientists need time to do science, and crafting a cracking communiqué is usually time-consuming.

Yet I wonder whether more readable papers would become more popular among scientists and get increasingly cited? That may not make for better science but could lead to academic promotion.

What are the reasons for scientific journals to welcome relevant narrative in papers?

How many science communicators does it take to change a scientist’s narrative light bulb?

Can you suggest other interesting opinions about personalising scientific papers?

Is this worthy of a session at the national conference?

Jesse Shore
National president