Clarity, conciseness, and cohesion: readability principles and metrics applied to information science graduate students’ text
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/atoz.v10i2.77975Keywords:
Graduate studies in information science, Readability metrics, Scholarly communication, Peer review, Scholarly writing.Abstract
Introduction: The language barrier makes it difficult to publish in English, even when there is scientific merit, as the problem starts in Portuguese, in the difficulty of following scientific writing principles. What is the impact of applying principles of clarity, conciseness, and cohesion in the extension and readability of scientific texts? This research aimed to verify this impact when comparing extension and readability indicators before and after applying those principles. Method: Twenty-five Information Science graduate students annotated their own scientific text and that of three colleagues, in a double-blind review, indicating writing style problems of four types: unnecessary word, excessive subject-verb distance, excessive nominalization, and late contextualization. Each author then reworked their own text to solve the problems. The original and reworked texts were compared in length and Flesch Reading Ease score. Original and reworked texts from the literature were also compared, as a reference. Results: All texts were shortened after rework, although annotations were directed most to grammatical problems than to the four style problems. There were 13 increases, 2 maintenance, and 10 decreases in the readability scores. This result is compatible with the benchmark study with texts from the literature. Conclusions: Applying readability principles improves conciseness but, in accordance with the literature, has a dubious impact on the readability score. Compared translatability remains an open research topic, to verify the assumption that applying the principles equates to "write in English in Portuguese".
References
Albán Defilippi, M. T., Miller, K. L., & Ramirez-Avila, M. R. (2020). Collaboration to improve descriptive writing facilitated by Padlet: an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) action research study. AtoZ, 9(1), 54-60. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5380/atoz.v9i1.73517.
Barnett, A., & Doubleday, Z. (2020). Science is becoming less readable as the number of new acronyms boom. SocArXiv preprint, v. 01. https://osf.io/y7zqb/
Cuenca, A. M. B., Paula, D. D., & França Junior, I. (2017). Desenvolvimento da habilidade na escrita e a produção científica: cursos são necessários? Revista Eletrônica de Comunicação, Informação e Inovação em Saúde, 11(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.29397/reciis.v11i3.1166.
Fages, D. M. (2020). Write better, publish better. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1671-1681. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03332-4.
Ferreira, O. C. A. (2015). Atributos de qualidade da informação. Revista Ibero-Americana de Ciência da Informação, 8(2), 276-277.
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221-233. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532.
Guimarães, J. A. (2004). A pesquisa médica e biomédica no Brasil: comparações com o desempenho científico brasileiro e mundial. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 9(2), 303-327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232004000200009.
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne Jr, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command, Research Branch Report 8-75. Millington, TN: Naval Air Station, 40 p. Recuperado de http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA006655
McClure, G. M. (1987). Readability formulas: Useful or useless? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 33(1), 12-15. doi: http://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.1987.6449109.
Meadows, A. J. (1999). A comunicação científica. Brasília-DF: Briquet de Lemos. 268 p.
Morato, J., Sánchez-Cuadrado, S., & Gimmelli, P. (2018). Estimación de la comprensibilidad en paneles de museos. El profesional de la información, 27(3), 570-581. doi: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.may.10.
Mubin, O., Tejlavwala, D., Arsalan, M., Ahmad, M., & Simoff, S. (2018). An assessment into the characteristics of award winning papers at CHI. Scientometrics, 116(2), 1181-1201. doi:
Rabinowitz, H., & Vogel, S. (Eds.). (2009). The manual of scientific style: a guide for authors, editors, and researchers. Burlington-MA, San Diego-CA, London: Academic Press.
Sheehan, K. M. (2013). Measuring cohesion: An approach that accounts for differences in the degree of integration challenge presented by different types of sentences. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32(4), 28-37. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/emip.12017.
Sheffield, N. (2011). Scientific writing: clarity, conciseness, and cohesion. Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, Duke University, in collaboration with Duke Writing Studio. Updated September 8, 2011. Recuperado de https://cgi.duke.edu/web/sciwriting/resources/201108_DukeScientificWritingWorkshop.pdf
Sordi, J. O. (2009). Análise da coesão entre seções de textos de documentos extensos a partir da aplicação conjunta das técnicas de análise de redes sociais e referências internas. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação, 14(1), 152-169. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-99362009000100011.
Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (1999). The elements of style, 4th ed. New York: Longman.
Unesco (Organização das Nações Unidas para a Educação, a Ciência e a Cultura). (2015). Relatório de ciência da Unesco: Rumo a 2030 – visão geral e cenário brasileiro. Paris: Unesco, 60 p. Recuperado de http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235407por.pdf
Volpato, G. L. (2007). Bases teóricas para redação científica... por que seu artigo foi negado? São Paulo: Cultura Acadêmica.
Volpato, G. L. (2011). Método lógico para redação científica. Botucatu-SP: Best Writing.
Wikipedia contributors (2021, January 31). Flesch–Kincaid readability tests. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Recuperado de https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flesch%E2%80%93Kincaid_readability_tests&oldid=1004021607.
Wikipedia contributors. (2018, January 21). Readability. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Recuperado de https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Readability&oldid=821584226.
Wu, J. (2011). Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond. Landscape Ecology, 26(10), 1345–1349. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9674-3.
Zinsser, W. (2001). On writing well: The classic guide to writing nonfiction, 25th anniv. ed. New York: Harper Resource.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Atoz is a open access journal and the authors have permission and are encouraged to deposit their papers in personal web pages, institutional repositories or portals before (pre-print) or after (post-print) the publication at AtoZ. It is just asked, when and where possible, the mention, as a bibliographic reference (including the atributted URL), to the AtoZ Journal.
The authors license the AtoZ for the solely purpose of disseminate the published work (peer reviewed version/post-print) in aggregation, curation and indexing systems.
The AtoZ is a Diadorim/IBICT green academic journal.
All the journal content (including instructions, editorial policies and templates) - except where otherwise indicated - is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, since October 2020.
When published by this journal, articles are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any support or format for any purpose, even commercial) and adapt (remix, transform, and create from the material for any purpose , even if commercial). You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made
AtoZ does not apply any charges regarding manuscripts submission/processing and papers publication.
























