Clarity, conciseness, and cohesion: readability principles and metrics applied to information science graduate students’ text

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5380/atoz.v10i2.77975

Keywords:

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".

Author Biographies

Vinícius Medina Kern, PGCIN/UFSC

Professor da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, bolsista de produtividade em pesquisa do CNPq

Eliane Pellegrini, PGCIN/UFSC

doutoranda no PGCIN/UFSC

Thais Carrier Mendonça, Ministério Público do Estado de Santa Catarina

Ministério Público do Estado de Santa Catarina, mestre pelo PGCIN/UFSC

Priscila Basto Fagundes, PGCIN/UFSC

doutoranda no PGCIN/UFSC com bolsa FAPESC

Leonardo Lima Günther, PGCIN/UFSC

mestre pelo PGCIN/UFSC

Josiane Mello, PGCIN/UFSC

mestre em Engenharia de Produção (Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná UTFPR), doutoranda em Ciência da Informação (PGCIN/UFSC)

Márcio José Sembay, PGCIN/UFSC

doutorando no PGCIN/UFSC

Bianca Ferreira Hernandez, PGCIN/UFSC

mestra no PGCIN/UFSC

Rebeca Silva Fernandes de Moura Andrade, PGCIN/UFSC

mestranda no PGCIN/UFSC

Amabile Costa, PGCIN/UFSC

mestre e doutoranda no PGCIN/UFSC com bolsa CAPES

Carolina Martins Cechinel, PGCIN/UFSC

mestranda no PGCIN/UFSC com bolsa CAPES.

Mariane Sperber, PGCIN/UFSC

mestranda no PGCIN/UFSC com bolsa CAPES.

Rosane Oribka, PGCIN/UFSC

  • mestre pelo PGCIN/UFSC

Gislaine Parra Freund, PGCIN/UFSC

doutoranda no PGCIN/UFSC

Edson Mário Gavron, BU/UFSC

mestre pelo PPGInfo/UDESC

José María Vitaliti, Universidad del Aconcagua, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes

doutorando em Ciencias Sociales y Humanas na Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, professor da Universidad del Aconcagua e bolsista do Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (CONICET), Argentina

Luiz Felipe Correa Chiaradia, PGCIN/UFSC

mestrando no PGCIN/UFSC

Graciela Sardo Menezes, PGCIN/UFSC

doutoranda no PGCIN/UFSC com bolsa CAPES

Everton Rodrigues Barbosa, PGCIN/UFSC

doutorando no PGCIN/UFSC

Marcela Gaspar Custódio, PGCIN/UFSC

mestranda no PGCIN/UFSC com bolsa FAPESC

Dirnele Carneiro Garcez, PGCIN/UFSC

doutoranda no PGCIN/UFSC com bolsa CAPES

Marcela Reinhardt de Souza, UDESC

mestra pelo PGCIN/UFSC, bibliotecária na Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC)

Letícia Silvana dos Santos Estácio, PGCIN/UFSC

doutoranda no PGCIN/UFSC com bolsa CAPES

Eliane Rodrigues Mota Orelo, PGCIN/UFSC

doutoranda no PGCIN/UFSC

Andreia dos Santos, PGCIN/UFSC

mestranda no PGCIN/UFSC

Raffaela Dayane Afonso, PGCIN/UFSC

doutoranda no PGCIN/UFSC com bolsa UNIEDU-FUMDES

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.

Published

2021-04-22

How to Cite

Kern, V. M., Pellegrini, E., Mendonça, T. C., Fagundes, P. B., Günther, L. L., Mello, J., … Afonso, R. D. (2021). Clarity, conciseness, and cohesion: readability principles and metrics applied to information science graduate students’ text. AtoZ: Novas práticas Em informação E Conhecimento, 10(2), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.5380/atoz.v10i2.77975