don’t judge a thesis by its title

I hate the academic colon. I think it is a specious piece of punctuation that, when applied to the title of a work, cries out for abuse via the lame pun.

I am the first to admit gratuitous cringe-worthy use of the colon and its licensing of the pop-culture reference/foreign phrase/alliterative list, but I want to stand up and be counted among those who wish to use a strong, active statement as the title for a work.

It’s just the colon is so tempting. So easy. A temptress of multiple keywords and simple specificity.

Yes, I have to finalise my thesis title today. WOEZ.

I used logistic regression vs logistic regression was used

Today I am pondering the use of the passive and active in scientific writing. I’ve seen the first person being used more frequently in journals–mainly in method sections–and the collegial “we” has become much less passive and directly related to hypotheses.

Personally I approve. I see the need for the science to stand separate from the author(s)’ editorial voice. But I think it is beneficial to the comprehension of (a) the prose, and (b) the scientific process, if the author(s)’ procedural voice is immediate and active.

Found a link to these three letters on the topic which appeared in Nature about ten years ago. The first and third articulate pretty much what I think. The second is so bafflingly offended I have to laugh. I’m also confused by the thought that we scientists are so easily swayed by a few pronouns that we mistakenly over-invest ourselves into the work. Um, what?

A more technical and high-level examination of writing scientifically: tailoring what you say and how you say it to the readers’ expectations.