4 RGUHS J Pharm Sci | Vol 2 | Issue 4 | Oct–Dec, 2012 Why scientists must write…well Usha Raman Department of Communication, Sarojini Naidu School of Arts & Communication, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India Every year, the academies of the world produce millions of new science graduates. Some of them find jobs in the private sector, some go into institutions of higher learning to work on advanced degrees, and others switch fields altogether. A small percentage of those who continue to study science also begin to gradually produce work of different kinds—studies that confirm or add to existing knowledge by replicating work in different contexts, and those that raise challenges. Of course, none of this work is of any importance to the larger scientific world unless it enters that coliseum of peer review, where its meaning is weighed and its value judged by other experts in the field, before it is deemed acceptable. The difficult part of science, it would seem, is the actual doing of it; putting together the material and logical evidence to build an argument, to produce new knowledge, or to reconfirm the findings of another study. Having done this, writing it up for an audience should be child’s play. Or is it? Received Date : 08-10-2012 Revised Date : 17-11-2012 Accepted Date : 19-11-2012 DOI: 10.5530/rjps.2012.4.1.1 Address for correspondence Usha Raman, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Head, Department of Communication, Sarojini Naidu School of Arts & Communication, University of Hyderabad, Gachi Bowli, Hyderabad 500046, A.P., India Email: ursn@uohyd.ernet.in www.rjps.in Most scientists and students of science are quite happy to spend long hours in their laboratories or in front of their computers working on formulae, watching experiments progress, running complicated analyses, or even talking to their colleagues about their work. But ask them to sit down and write up their results for publication, then a wall seems to suddenly rise up and prevent them from taking that step. THE LABORATORY-TO-LITERATURE GAP Clearly, not all laboratory or theoretical work can be published. But there is much valuable work that does not become shared knowledge simply because we hesitate to take that final step toward dissemination. There is another issue here. A large amount of good work does not enter the literature because it is not written well enough, because there is a gap between the skill of doing science and the ability to communicate it. This is a gap that exists worldwide, and most researchers struggle Scienピfic Tools ABSTRACT Dissemination of scientific results is an integral part of the process of doing science. However, many scientists, particularly in emerging economies where English is not a first language, find scientific communication a challenge, resulting in low levels of contribution to the global scientific literature. This article discusses some of the stumbling blocks to scientific communication, and presents a structured approach to writing an article. This involves a systematic four-step process beginning with conception of a paper, collection of information, construction of the manuscript and finally, correction. Standard scientific style is presented along with examples of some of the common errors found in Indian writing in English. Keywords: Scientific writing, Style, Science communication.