Interlude: Competition vs Complement, Writing "Rules," and Lab Websites

Lately, I've heard a lot of comments about the mindset of other people in our field being our "competition." I've heard researchers share that they are rushing to publish something quickly in fear of being "scooped." I've also heard freelancers describe other freelancers as their rivals.

Although the mindset of competition may make sense in team sports, I think this mindset is flawed in "team science." We all have something unique to offer, whether it's a different approach, perspective, experience, or foundation of knowledge.

So rather than thinking of others in your field as your competition, I encourage you to think of them as your complement. You each bring unique qualities that can collectively make something better to advance science.

Not convinced? Many Nobel Prizes are shared awards. Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun share a 2024 Nobel Prize for discovering microRNA and its role in post-transcriptional gene regulation. Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna share a 2020 Nobel Prize for discovering CRISPR. And Shinya Yamanaka and Sir John B. Gurdon share a 2012 Nobel Prize for discovering that mature cells can be reprogrammed into immature cells that can develop into other tissues of the body.

These scientists complemented each other's work to advance their field. And like scientists with unique expertise and experience, freelance writers and editors also complement each other—and researchers—with unique expertise and experience.

So as you navigate your careers, I encourage you to think of others in your field as your complement, not your competition.

Now onto this week's round-up...

💌 Round-up

👓 Reading

Is scientific writing getting better or worse?​
In this article, Stephen Heard shares his thoughts on changes in scientific writing over the past 30 years and how they are improving or degrading our writing. He believes that the return to active voice and publishing online are improving our writing, and that an obsession with reproducibility and the use of acronyms are degrading our writing. He also shares that online supplements and artificial intelligence are both degrading and improving our writing.

​Why is academic writing so hard to read?​
"When ideas and research results are difficult to understand, it hurts all of humanity. It creates barriers rather than breaking them down. It prevents us from working together efficiently to tackle the hard problems of our age. . .I think that academic writing is so hard to do well partly because young [and seasoned] academics erroneously think they have to conform to countless random "rules"--many of which only serve to make their writing harder to understand."

​Why a good lab website matters​
This article describes great recommendations for building a lab website that maximizes the impact of your work, profiles your lab members and their accomplishments, describes your lab culture and values, shares available opportunities, and so much more.

​WriteCME Roadmap​
I was fortunate to receive a preview copy of this book written by Alex Howson, PhD. She has crafted a book full of insightful and practical guidance for medical writers who aspire to (or already) work in continuing medical education. And her caring, encouraging words will make you feel like you have a mentor every step of the way. The book was released yesterday, and you can order a copy and RSVP for the launch party.

🖥️ Watching

Beware of nominalizations (AKA zombie nouns) - Helen Sword​
Yesterday was Halloween, so I thought I'd share my favorite video about nominalizations (or abstract nouns). I really like the creativity of the story and design.

Thank you so much for reading.

Warmly,

Crystal