Words/Phrases to Check in Technical Writing
Here is a list of tips I check whenever I write anything:
- check for any misspelled words using spellcheck
- replace contractions with complete words (eg, don’t –> do not)
- replace abbreviations with complete words (eg, “e.g.” –> for example)
- replace colloquialisms with more formal words (eg, nowadays –> recently)
- when referring to figures, be consistent, probably “Figure X” everywhere, although “Fig.~X” is also permissable, “figure x” is not really.
- punctuate every equation (e.g., it gets a comma or a period after)
- In latex, replace all double quotes with `` and ‘’.
For the following list of words, literally do a search of every instance of each of the below words, and modify the text as described below.
- i, we, our, us, you, your –> rewrite sentence (almost always)
- in order to/for –> to/for
- clearly, obviously –> remove, might not be so clear/obvious to everyone
- this, they, it –> be specific, which noun this/they/it is referring to is often vague
- very –> use a stronger adjective/adverb
- data is –> data are
- novel –> remove, novelty should be implied by context. If it is not clear by context, update context
- most/least/best/worst/better/worse/optimal/*est: requires a citation as it is an empirical claim, or evidence, and a dimension along which the comparison is made
- usually/typically –> same deal, either provide a citation/evidence, or don’t say it, replace with “frequently”
- no reason / essential/necessary / necessitate / no way / impossible –> remove, these are all too strong, just because you haven’t thought of a reason, or a counter example, or another way, does not mean that nobody else has/can.
- done –> completed.
- utilized –> used
- firstly –> first, and similarly for second, third, etc.
- & –> and
- arguably –> possibly, likely, perhaps (why argue with your reader?)
- as such –> ok sparsely, but often overused, check and revise sentences.
- numbers have space before unit, eg 1GB –> 1 GB.
- first –> somebody reading this will think they did it first, and they are at least partially correct. first-ness should be implied by context.
- in this manuscript –> nothing, it is implied.
- a priori –> should be italics
- is used –> rewrite sentence, avoid passive tense whenever possible
- can be seen / it has been shown –> typically just remove, sometimes replace with “shows”, or reword sentences
- we want to –> we (though should be reworded to avoid “we” entirely)
- Fig, Fig., fig –> Figure (or at least be consistent)
- we chose appropriate –> we chose (let them decide whether it was appropriate)
- “note that” or “we note that” or “we highlight” or “we highlight that” –> simply remove.
- can be / we think / could be / might be / etc. –> these are always true, and therefore the clause that follows could be anything, and is too weak. be stronger, but only quantitatively if there is evidence, and cite it.
- should –> who is the arbiter of what should and shouldn’t be, and how do you have privileged access to that information? (hint: you don’t) (ps - i realize i used should in this document)
- methodology –> method
- it appears –> usually just remove this and its better