3 Phrases That Can Damage Your Credibility in Research
Good credibility goes hand in hand with good science. And researchers establish the credibility of their work by being concrete in their writing. They base their ideas on previous findings and publications, clearly describe their methods and results, and discuss how those results support their conclusions. In other words, they show their data and logic to strengthen their credibility.
But sometimes researchers use vague language to describe their logic. This vague language undermines their content and can damage their credibility.
To reinforce your credibility in research, avoid these three vague phrases in your writing.
“Little is known”
“Little is known” is not a very convincing argument for three reasons. First, most topics have had many papers published on them, so you likely know a lot about that particular topic. But in your research, you are aiming to answer an important question that is bounded by the existing knowledge of that topic. Second, if this statement is either preceded or followed by descriptions of what is known, then you just contradicted your case. Third, “little is known” is not concrete. How little is little?
By using “little is known,” your reader may think that you do not know the literature well enough or that you are overstating the case for your research. This argument also does a poor job of defining the problem. Instead of using “little is known,” explicitly define the problem.
Example
Avoid: Little is known about how the gene regulates cell proliferation in breast cancer.
Preferred: Although we know that activation of the gene in MCF-7 cells increases their proliferation, we do not know the mechanism by which the gene regulates this process.
“To our knowledge”
“To our knowledge” is also not a convincing statement. This argument implies that others may know that information, but you may not be aware of it. What’s more is that this phrase suggests that you do want to be held responsible if that information becomes known. “To our knowledge” also casts doubt in your readers mind about how well you know the literature or if you are truly an expert in the field.
To give your readers confidence in your credibility, omit “to our knowledge.” Only share information that you know.
Example
Avoid: To our knowledge, researchers have not uncovered how the gene regulates cell proliferation of breast cancer cells.
Preferred: Although we do not fully understand how the gene regulates cell proliferation in breast cancer, researchers have linked the gene to cell division in other cancer cells.
“First to show”
“First to show” may seem like a convincing statement. In fact, some researchers use this phrase because they think it infers that their results are novel or significant. But “first to show” suggests that you know everything in the field—published or unpublished. This conviction is difficult to guarantee. Thus, a reader may perceive this statement as overconfidence.
Unless you are 100 percent sure you are the first to show something, cut “first to show” from your writing.
Example
Avoid: We are the first to show that activation of the gene increases proliferation of MCF-7 cells.
Preferred: We showed that activation of the gene increases proliferation of MCF-7 cells.
Three strikes against credibility
When used alone, these phrases can damage credibility. Yet, I often see all three of these phrases in the same document. Authors will try to build the case for their work with “little is known,” claim the novelty or significance of their work with “first to show,” and protect their reputation with “to our knowledge.” This combined usage can have a catastrophic effect on credibility.
In your writing, you want to do everything you can to show your credibility. By avoiding all three phrases, you can show the credibility of your work without overstating your case, passing responsibility, or appearing overconfident.
Example
Avoid: Little is known about how the drug affects plaque formation that can lead to myocardial infarction…. To our knowledge, this study is the first to show that the drug slows plaque formation, reducing the risk of myocardial infarction.
Preferred: Although the drug reduces serum cholesterol, we do not know if the drug slows plaque formation that can lead to myocardial infarction…. In this study, we showed that the drug slows plaque formation, reducing the risk of myocardial infarction.
Want free tools and templates to help you enhance your scientific and medical writing? Get access to our free writing toolkit!
