The Scientist's Guide to Writing: How to Write More Easily and Effectively throughout Your Scientific Career by Stephen B. Heard (review)

'How to write' books are a common feature of the academic literature, but are they truly valued? Having read many of them, I find they are generally well written and contain more than enough help and information to provide nascent academic authors with adequate insight to construct their early research papers with some confidence. Yet, as an editor and reviewer, I recognize that not all authors who should read such a book ever do so or, at least, ever take the take-home messages to heart. Too often the most basic features of a paper let it down, such as the reference list not being in agreement with the references in the paper, to give one example. What should be the bread and butter of the academic author falls to the floor, butter side down.

How to make the bad authors read and be informed by a book that might just help them develop into better authors is problematic. Yet books like Stephen Heard's The Scientist's Guide to Writing contain so much of help and interest to academic authors that it should be widely read—maybe even given to errant colleagues as birthday presents. Heard's book is both a delight to read and highly informative. Leafing through my copy, I see no shortage of highlighted passages and the occasional dog-eared page to help me find those parts that were most relevant to my own writing and particularly engaged my interest. I shall highlight many of these facets in my review without the unnecessary expedient of providing a condensate of each and every chapter. Better by far that you buy the book and read it than that I spoon-feed it to you.

Heard's book is divided into a preface and twenty-eight chapters grouped into seven parts of differing lengths. Part 1 ('What writing is'; two chapters) is an easy submersion into writing with no pain and no need to pick up a pen … yet. Heard goes straight to the heart of the matter: 'many scientists pay little attention to writing as a process' (1). It is no coincidence that all of my regular co-authors can write well, whereas those who cannot rarely stick around. Our business is communication, and there is no benefit to any scientist if his/her co-authors fail to communicate. Collaboration is not just about what I can bring to the table.

Heard is quick to separate product and process in writing (11). As he emphasizes, practice is the way to proficiency in the process of writing, which in turn leads to a superior product. This practice is not without pain, but we should all practice, practice, practice. My first paper was published in 1982, and I am still endeavouring to improve my writing—making it clear 'like a window pane,'¹ whether it is a monograph, a peer-reviewed research paper, or a conference abstract. Heard has it right—writing is a process that should improve as the writer persists, develops, and matures.

Chapter 2 ('Genius, craft, and what this book is all about') is short, sharp, and painfully direct. Readers are halfway through the chapter before Heard slaps them back. After reminding us of the mechanical approach taken by some books on writing, Heard jumps in with both feet: 'This is not That Sort of Book' (13)—excellent use of capitals! Heard has a twofold aim: to engender clarity of communication; to show both what and how to write. And he is successful.

Part 2 ('Behavior'; four chapters) continues to examine writing as a process. We share the product, but the process is private. Heard starts his analysis of process by using the product, that is, reading. My own life is happily biased toward my reading. I...