Being able to explain the scientific work you’re doing is an essential skill for a scientist. As a medical writer, I write for expert scientific audiences, healthcare professionals and patients. But as a former research scientist, I also wrote for scientists in my field.
Aside from medical writing, most pharma professionals, from those working in medical affairs, regulatory affairs, and R&D to those in commercial and manufacturing teams, need clear scientific writing skills to effectively communicate with internal and external stakeholders for their work.
Bottom line is that effective scientific writing is an essential skill needed for many pharma careers.
But what allows scientists to provide evidence for their claims and accurately acknowledge previous work in their writing?
The answer: Scientific referencing.
Accurate referencing plays a critical role in scientific writing. It is crucial to cite valid sources that accurately underpin the integrity of your work, provide traceability of information, give credit to previous research, avoid plagiarism, and enable presentation of balanced scientific views.
In this article, I’m going to deep-dive into the pitfalls of scientific writing based on 25+ years of scientific writing experience, from initially working as a research scientist and more recently as a medical writer.
There are eight important DO NOTs when it comes to accurate scientific referencing:
1. DO NOT overly rely on secondary references
Primary sources of research studies written by those who conducted the research themselves, offer the most accurate and reliable information. Citing these not only provides credit to the research authors themselves, but also allows readers to directly access the original data and draw their own conclusions.
Secondary sources are works that summarize, interpret, or analyse primary sources (review articles). Due to potential biases, misinterpretations, or inaccuracies introduced during the summarization process, secondary sources may not always provide the most reliable information. In fact, I’ve seen my own primary scientific publications wrongly cited in review articles before, where the findings were misinterpreted.
The same risk goes for using citations listed in other primary sources (particularly in the discussion section). Sometimes these are not interpreted correctly either. Therefore, it’s essential to critically evaluate the interpretation of information used in secondary sources before relying on them too heavily in your writing.
My advice is to reserve secondary referencing for when it’s most relevant – for instance, when discussing general scientific concepts or providing a balanced view of different opinions. They can also be helpful when presenting treatment consensuses or consensus statements from authoritative bodies. In medicine, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are widely regarded as the most reliable sources of information for providing treatment consensuses. The Cochrane Library is the best resource for finding systematic reviews.
2. DO NOT cite references without reading them
It’s dangerous to reference a source based on abstract interpretation alone without reading the full article. Whilst abstracts provide a concise summary of an article, they may not capture the full context, findings, or details of the research. Relying solely on abstract interpretations leads to a shallow understanding of the study at best and can potentially lead to misrepresentation of the information at worst. It is crucial to read the entire article to gain a comprehensive understanding before referencing it in your work.
A second problem is when you inherit a document to work on. Never assume that the cited references are accurate. Mistakes happen and incorrect citations can easily occur. Take the time to verify the references independently by cross-referencing them with the original sources, ensuring their accuracy and reliability.
3. DO NOT refer to invalid sources
This should sound fairly obvious, but it’s amazing how much referencing of invalid sources occurs in the published scientific literature. Check you’re not inadvertently citing retracted papers. Retracted papers are those that have been officially withdrawn due to errors or scientific misconduct. Referencing such work perpetuates inaccurate or flawed information and can mislead readers. You can verify the article status as not being retracted through reputable databases or journal websites.
Predatory journals are characterized by substandard peer-review or missing processes, and do not meet the rigorous standards expected in scientific research. Therefore, work published in predatory journals should be avoided as sources. Ensure you’re citing work from reputable journals with robust peer review practices.
Finally, citing outdated data that has been superseded by new scientific knowledge can misrepresent the current state of the field. Keep your references up-to-date with the latest research that reflects current consensus and understanding.
4. DO NOT under or over cite
Failure to provide credit to scientific contribution deprives researchers of the recognition they deserve for their work. By neglecting to properly attribute work to other’s discoveries, you not only undermine the principles of academic integrity, but also diminish the impact of your own writing by failing to validate it within the broader scientific context.
You should not be making statements in scientific writing without providing a reference to back it up. Insufficient citation can inadvertently lead to unintentional plagiarism. By not adequately citing the original sources, you risk representing someone else’s work as your own, leading to severe consequences for the credibility and professional reputation of your work.
However, there’s a balance to be struck. Whilst it’s important to support your arguments with evidence, using more references than necessary can lead to information overload and dilute the impact of your writing. Over-citation can make it challenging for readers to identify the most pertinent sources or key takeaways from your work. Instead, focus on selecting a concise and relevant set of references that effectively support your points without overwhelming the reader.
5. DO NOT over self-cite
Over self-citing can occur to increase an author’s citation index and self-promote. Whilst it’s natural to cite your own work when it is directly relevant and contributes to the discussion, excessive self-citation can be perceived as being self-serving. It is essential to strike a balance by prioritizing the citation of other relevant research and maintaining a fair representation of broader scientific opinions. Over self-citation risks providing only one viewpoint (your own) at the expense of presenting a balanced view of the topic.
Over-reliance on self-citation can also inadvertently lead to self-plagiarism, where authors may reuse their own previously published work without proper attribution. Avoid self-plagiarism, by citing your own previously published data, methodologies, or findings accurately and appropriately.
6. DO NOT fail to keep references up-to-date
Failure to keep references up-to-date can result in discrepancies between the citations in the text and the corresponding references. This occurs when previous edits or revisions have removed or altered references, leaving citations that no longer correspond to the intended sources. This is a particular problem if you are not using a citation management software such as Zotero. These discrepancies undermine the accuracy of your work and make it difficult for readers to access and verify the information you have cited.
Checking the bibliography for spelling mistakes in author’s names, affiliation changes, page number updates (e.g. publication following ‘ahead of print’) and other such mistakes in the references is essential for providing a polished and professional piece of scientific writing.
7. DO NOT forget to keep a record of the citations used
Good scientific writing practice involves keeping a record of where you retrieved the data; commonly referred to as a reference or ref pack). This preserves the transparency and traceability of your research.
Include complete bibliographic details along with highlights of the relevant information in a pdf version of the article. This can include key findings, data points, or quotes that support your arguments or contribute to your research. This record enables you and others to easily access the original sources, verify the information, and trace the data back to its origin when getting your writing reviewed.
8. DO NOT be inconsistent with your referencing style
Be consistent throughout your bibliography and in-text citations. Carefully review your references to ensure uniformity in elements such as author names, titles, dates, and capitalization. By diligently cross-checking and editing your bibliography, you create a cohesive and professional presentation of your sources.
You will need to use the style guide or publication guidelines where relevant for your scientific writing, so adhere to these when formatting your references. Again, citation management software can help with this or use an AI large language model (e.g. ChatGPT, by OpenAI).
Here’s a prompt I use formatting bibliographies with ChatGPT:
Can you help me format the references in my bibliography [INSERT REFERENCE LIST] in the [INSERT STYLE/JOURNAL STYLE]?
You’ll get back a bibliography list that looks good, but consult the journal’s official guidelines to check accuracy of the formatting.
If not provided with a specific set of formatting guidelines, just ensure consistency. Choose a recognized style, such as AMA (American Medical Association), APA (American Psychological Association), or Harvard referencing, and consistently apply it throughout your document. Consistency helps readers navigate and understand your references easily, facilitating comprehension and enabling them to verify your sources effectively.
Scientific referencing is a crucial aspect of rigorous academic writing, providing the foundation for claims and acknowledging the contributions of past research. Here, we delved into the intricacies of accurate referencing by providing eight essential “DO NOTs” that will empower you to navigate the pitfalls of referencing, ensuring integrity, traceability, and balanced perspectives in your scientific writing.