Key takeaways: Scientific papers often fail to clearly convey their research purpose and findings—usually less due to weaknesses in content and more because of a lack of linguistic clarity. Yet, authors tend to focus almost exclusively on the content. In this article, we examine the five most common “clarity killers” in scientific writing and show how AI tools like ChatGPT can help overcome them. The goal is to strengthen the precision and comprehensibility of your scientific voice through AI-assisted clarity—not through AI-generated content.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Scientific writing improves through continuous practice (Murray, 2023), but it rarely fails because of grammatical errors; rather, it falters due to patterns of communication that distance readers from the central ideas. This is especially true in the educational and social sciences, where research is intended to reach policymakers, practitioners, and diverse stakeholders. In such contexts, lack of clarity is not merely an academic problem—it is an obstacle to real-world impact.
As a scholarly author, you face a particular challenge: your work must adhere to disciplinary conventions while remaining understandable to an educated audience. Too often, however, “academic rigor” is interpreted in a way that drives clarity, personality, and engagement out of the text. The result: formally correct but weakly communicative work.
There are many ways scientific writing can lose its readers. In this article, we focus on five patterns that we repeatedly encounter in our editorial and teaching experience: overqualification, passive constructions, unclear argumentation flow, citing without analysis, and weak synthesis in the conclusion. We call these our five clarity killers.
Defensive Overqualification vs. Healthy Hedging
The problem: Scientific authors often qualify their statements beyond what is factually necessary. While hedging is considered a healthy practice in science, used to accurately indicate uncertainty, defensive overqualification refers to excessive, often insecurity-driven caution that confuses rather than clarifies for readers. This phenomenon is particularly problematic in the educational and social sciences, where practitioners need clear guidance for practical application.
A typical example of defensive overqualification is: “The data suggest that there may be an indication of a possible relationship between variable X and outcome Y, which could potentially support the hypothesis that under certain conditions effects might be observable.”
A clearer alternative would be: “The data show a moderate relationship between X and Y (insert relevant metrics here). This supports Hypothesis 1 and indicates that additional variables could influence the effect.”
Why it matters: Excessive hedging is not a sign of scientific humility — it is a symptom of unclear thinking. Readers need authors who can take a reasoned intellectual position based on the evidence.
AI-assisted solution: Use targeted diagnostic prompts rather than vague commands like “Fix my hedging.” An effective prompt might be: “Analyze this paragraph for qualifying language. Show me which hedges serve legitimate scientific caution, and which unnecessarily weaken the argument. Consider my field to be [your discipline]: [insert text].”
When Passive Voice Takes Over
The problem: Scientific authors often nominalize verbs and overuse the passive voice—not for stylistic reasons, but because it feels “more academic.” This creates unnecessarily dense prose in which it is unclear who is acting and what is being done.
Dense example: “The implementation of the new methodology was carried out, and significant improvements in performance metrics were observed. Data collection took place over a period of six months, during which participants were regularly assessed.”
Clearer alternative: “The research team implemented the new methodology and observed significant performance improvements. Over six months, data were collected, and participants were regularly assessed throughout the study period.”
Why it matters: Excessive use of the passive voice does not increase precision; it increases cognitive load. Readers struggle to understand who did what, when, and why.
AI-assisted solution: “Analyze the following scientific paragraph. Identify all passive constructions and evaluate whether each serves a legitimate scientific purpose or unnecessarily impedes comprehension. Then revise the paragraph to reduce cognitive load while maintaining an academic tone and clearly showing agency and responsibility: [insert text].”
Missing Thread in the Argumentation
The problem: Scientific authors often assume that readers can follow their logical argumentation without explicit guidance. This may work in highly specialized contexts, but it fails when texts are intended for a broader, interdisciplinary audience.
Unclear structure: A paragraph introduces Concept A, followed by a paragraph citing three studies, then a paragraph raising methodological questions — without explicit connections between these steps.
Clearer structure: Each paragraph explicitly ties back to the overall argument, with clear topic sentences and transitions that clarify the logical relationships between ideas.
Why it matters: Diverse readers need a clear orientation through complex arguments. They may be knowledgeable in the field, but not necessarily familiar with the specific conventions of your discipline.
AI-assisted solution: “Map out the logical flow of these three paragraphs. Identify the main points of each paragraph and explain how they relate to advance the overall argument. Suggest where explicit transitions or topic sentences could improve clarity: [insert text].”
Citation without Analysis
The problem: Scientific authors sometimes use citations as a substitute for analysis — if merely citing authorities counts as argumentation. The result is literature reviews that present themselves as original thinking, but are not.
Citation-heavy example: “Topic Z influences outcomes (Author, Year; Author, Year). Factor A correlates with Factor B (Author, Year). The interventions, however, are promising (Author, Year; Author, Year).”
Analytical alternative: “Recent longitudinal studies reveal a complex relationship between Factors A and B. While correlational studies consistently show associations between these variables (Author, Year; Author, Year), experimental interventions suggest that contextual factors—not just frequency—determine the effect (Author, Year). This distinction has significant implications for …”
Why it matters: Citations should support analysis, not replace it. They serve to deepen insights and lead toward a clear argument. Readers need to understand how the cited sources relate to each other and to your own reasoning.
AI-assisted solution: “Examine how I am using these citations. Am I synthesizing the sources into an argument, or merely listing related research? Identify where and how I could develop deeper analytical synthesis: [insert text with citations].”
The Problem with Summary-Only Conclusions
The problem: Scientific authors often treat conclusions as administrative requirements rather than intellectual opportunities. Unfortunately, this misses the chance to connect research with practice.
Summary-only conclusion: “This paper examines three approaches to the problem. The literature was reviewed, the data analyzed, and the results discussed. The findings support the stated hypothesis.”
A better, synthesis-oriented conclusion: “The results support Hypothesis 1, which suggests that current theoretical models inadequately capture the contextual variation of the phenomenon. The identified three-factor interaction points to a more dynamic understanding of how systems adapt under stress. These findings have immediate implications for the design of interventions and raise fundamental questions about conceptualizing resilience in complex systems.”
Why it matters: Strong conclusions do more than summarize results—they translate research into actionable insights for practitioners and policymakers.
AI-assisted solution: “Evaluate whether this conclusion develops new insights or merely repeats what has already been said. What additional implications or future research directions could strengthen its intellectual contribution? [insert conclusion]”
Conclusion
Scientific writing serves the generation and communication of knowledge. AI tools can help you identify and overcome barriers between your ideas and your readers. The responsibility, however, remains with you: to write clearly, precisely, and with genuine engagement on the questions driving your research — and for the practitioners who will benefit from your findings.
Are you ready to take your scientific writing to the next level? Request a free consultation here.
If you know fellow students or colleagues struggling with their work, share this article with them.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Disclosure: This article was prepared by human contributors. Generative AI tools were used to support brainstorming, language refinement, and structural editing. All final decisions regarding content, recommendations, and academic insights reflect human judgment and expertise.
References
Charlesworth Author Services. (2021, October 12). Scientific writing in English as an additional language (EAL): Presenting your ideas more clearly. https://www.cwauthors.com/article/scientific-writing-in-English-as-an-additional-language-EAL-how-to-present-your-ideas-more-clearly
Murray, R. (2023). Success in academic writing (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
Sword, H. (2012). Stylish academic writing. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/file/feeds/PDF/9780674064485_sample.pdf
Dea Elmasllari
Share:
