A critical role for author voice in scientific writing

The intriguing title of Kate’s talk caught my attention: why is an author’s voice critical in scientific writing, especially in the fields (biomedicine, microbiology and computer science) that encompass Kate’s expertise? These are areas where texts are usually shaped by multiple authors, rounds of critique, and peer review – leaving little room, it seemed, for an individual voice. How could a junior scientist, especially writing in English as a second language, ever cultivate one?

I quickly realized that my understanding of voice in scientific writing was too narrow. I had assumed it related mainly to word choice or phrasing. However, Kate broadened the concept, describing voice as the expression of an author’s self – their approach to both content and language. Beyond vocabulary or syntax, voice also involves conveying attitude, using qualifiers, emphasizing certain points, and making intentional stylistic choices.

Yet I still questioned whether a personal voice really mattered in scientific writing. Scientific texts are, after all, a central part of a researcher’s work, taking up a substantial part of their time. Wouldn’t a more formulaic approach, with standardized structures, actually ease the burden on both writers and readers? Kate argued otherwise, explaining that having a personal voice grants writers a sense of identity, agency and ownership over their work. For scientists, a distinctive voice boosts confidence and helps clarify their ideas.

What, then, stifles this individual voice? One key factor is the highly collaborative nature of scientific writing. Papers often pass through many hands, and the author voice becomes diluted by input from co-authors, supervisors, editors and reviewers, a process in which markers of personal style and attitude may be filtered out in favor of a neutral “field voice”. The pressure to conform can be especially restricting for early-career scientists, leading them to write in overly cautious, formulaic styles that can obscure their messages.

Having identified these challenges, Kate discussed ways language professionals can support authors in finding their voice. Some practical approaches included:

• Recognizing voice in texts: junior scientists are often trained to report rather than argue or engage. Language professionals can help by guiding them to identify examples of voice in existing literature and encouraging low-stakes writing exercises in educational settings.
• Balancing structure and flow: the IMRaD format (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) is a staple in scientific writing, but authors may struggle to combine this structure with their own narrative flow. Training in transitions, paraphrasing, summarizing and self-editing can bridge this gap and help authors write more naturally.
• Building authorial identity: junior authors may feel they don’t have enough expertise to express a strong voice. However, tasks like writing a manuscript’s cover letter can reveal an authentic voice, which they can then incorporate into their scientific text production.

Finally, Kate addressed a timely concern: can AI tools like chatbots replace the need for a personal voice in writing? While chatbots can improve phrasing, correct grammar and assist with structure, they lack the capacity to convey a unique authorial voice. Chatbots often produce text with inconsistent tone, sometimes even introducing factual errors, and their style can feel disjointed. Experienced authors may be able to infuse a chatbot’s text with their own voice, but less seasoned writers may struggle to adjust machine-generated text into something genuinely reflective of their perspective.

With this superbly structured presentation, Kate left no doubt that author voice is indeed critical as an expression of individual thought and clarity, even within fields where language is tightly controlled. I came away better equipped to help my own clients cultivate their unique voice and present their research with authenticity and confidence.

This METM24 presentation was chronicled by Marije de Jager.

Featured photo courtesy of MET. Slide reproduced with presenter’s permission.