Is scientific writing a fraud?

Brain, Lord. "Structure of the Scientific Paper." British Medical Journal 2 (1965): 868-869. pubmed. Web. 12 Oct. 2010.

While this journal article has been around for a while, it brings to light a very important question that is still applicable to today’s scientific writing. The question that needs to be answered is: why are scientific journal articles so rigidly structured? Dr. Brain tackles the question in the first few sentences, of the article, by asking “Is the scientific paper a fraud?” due to its inability to follow a logic process.  

As it was discussed in my last blog entry Dr. Brain touches on the main structure that is essential to a published journal.  He explains that this tradition was originally sought out by the journal editors as a way to present ideas in a uniform fashion and make publications easier to produce.  The philosophy behind this kind of composition, within the field, is to try to induce a naivety within the scientist's work to allow for unbiased observations and therefore greater truths.  However, this philosophy developed some time after the editor mandates entered the scene.

Today (and in 1965), it is highly apparent that the structure is simply a tradition that allows for convenient peer review. If all journal articles are forced to conform to a boiler plate format, there is no room for negotiation or misinterpretation. It is what it is. Without stylistic embellishment a paper is able to present the hypothetic-deductive principles that are used to logically manifest a single idea.

When looking at more specific papers, the simplicity of published articles also allows for a broader audience. Dr. Brain discusses the great importance of structure in the pharmaceutical industry. By including all observations innocently and postponing conclusions it allows for a less informed audience to follow the deductive logic as well as familiarize themselves with the risks of a particular drug. The clearest of these examples is the original discovery of penicillin. Publication of the observations made by Fleming allowed for the public and other scientists to develop and understand antibiotics. All that Fleming noted was a tendency for staphylococcal colonies to undergo dissolution in close proximity to well established mold colonies. Today we could snicker in the fact that this was probably an observation made while attempting to remove contamination (mold).

In the end, the audience this journal is intended for is minimal. Dr. Brain composed this document in association with the 29^th annual General Assembly of the World Medical Association for a special session devoted to medical journal editors. His overall point is that it is essential to have a”clear (line of) thinking” on a point. By reporting all findings in a simple and coherent fashion, it allows for an equal ability to asses significance of findings. Further, someone within the field should not forget the true nature and much greater complexity that goes into creating the ideas that are presented within the medical journals.  Simply put, it is crucial to have a balance between simplicity/structure and deductive logic to make progress. The scientific journal is the only means of doing so in an efficient way that many people can learn from.