Increase Your Impact: Writing Tips to Reach a Broader Audience

Abstract

The scope of ACS Nanoscience Au covers a wide range of scientific and engineering disciplines. 1 Readers of this journal will appreciate that the growing collection of published articles is topically diverse; the same is true for other journals that serve and integrate multiple research fields. The papers that stand out most are those that draw in and engage the largest number of readers across multiple disciplines. Having a paper appeal to this so-called “broad audience” 2 is an important consideration for publication in ACS Nanoscience Au, given the inherently interdisciplinary nature of the field. Certain topics naturally lend themselves to being of interest to a broad audience because they have relevance to society or are particularly timely, such as articles discussing COVID-19 mitigation, testing, and treatment in recent years. Beyond such topics, though, what can authors do to ensure that the widest possible audience notices, engages with, and understands the research described in their papers? Let us consider how readers get their first impressions of an article. Many will begin by looking at the Title and the Table of Contents graphic. If those look interesting, they will then read the Abstract. If the Abstract grabs their attention, they will begin to peruse the paper by skimming the Introduction, browsing the Figures, and perhaps reading the Conclusions. Most readers will only invest in reading the paper in depth if they remain engaged after these initial “triage” steps. Several factors can contribute to whether or not they choose to do so. Some will read it in-depth because they need to; this is typically the case for those in the same or allied research fields who have sought out or come across the paper because of how closely it relates to their own research—this is the so-called “specialized audience.” Others—the broader audience—will desire to read it because it looks interesting, catches their attention or intrigues them in some way, and/or is related to their research but is tangential to their expertise. The latter case is often true for nanoscience and nanoengineering papers, where researchers may be familiar with the various facets of a multidisciplinary field but are not experts in them. In general, specialists will already be hooked because of the topic, so let us consider strategies to help make a paper appeal to this broader audience, as this is what will maximize the impact and reach of the work. Note that many other helpful Editorials have been written on topics relevant to those mentioned below, including Titles and Table of Contents Graphics, 3−8 Abstracts, 9 Figures, 10−14 and Methods sections, 15,16 as well as writing manuscripts in general. 17 Table of Contents Graphic. We visually engage with large amounts of information very quickly, with content scrolling down our smartphones, tablets, and computers at breakneck speed. We make split-second decisions about what content to engage with based on what we see. This is where Table of Contents graphics come into play—it is the visual bait that grabs a reader’s attention and lures them in. For some readers that are part of the broader audience, this graphic is the primary means by which they will decide which articles outside of their specialization to engage with. This is also the key image that will accompany the Title of your work in any promotion from ACS via email or social media. The image should be visually appealing and easy to decipher, highlighting the story and/or key result in the paper. Try to avoid overly technical content, complex plots, large amounts of text, or gimmicky figures and cartoons that obscure the key findings of the work. Title. The Title is the first text-based description of a paper that readers see. Titles that are accurate and descriptive but concise are important; this can be achieved while also maximizing appeal to a broad audience. Consider the following three Titles for a (hypothetical) paper that describes the synthesis of cadmium sulfide quantum dots having different sizes, along with a study of their size-dependent photoluminescent properties: “Synthesis and Properties of Cadmium Sulfide Nanoparticles,” “Synthesis and Optical Properties of Cadmium Sulfide Nanoparticles Having Different Sizes,” and “Synthetic Control of Photoluminescence in Size-Tunable Cadmium Sulfide Quantum Dots.” The first Title is insufficiently descriptive, as “properties” is generic, and the size dependence is not mentioned. The second Title is better, as it mentions that the properties are optical and that different particle sizes are included. The third Title, however, incorporates all of these descriptors (with even greater specificity) while also being more intriguing. The third Title is most likely to appeal to a larger number of readers. Abstract. The Abstract provides a summary of the article and is often limited to 150–250 words. While this may seem like a lot of text, it is actually quite short when considering all aspects of an article that could be summarized! Authors sometimes focus almost exclusively on the technical content so that all of the results are adequately described. It is always important to include the key results in the Abstract, of course, but if one of the goals of a paper is also to appeal to a broader audience, it is important to draw in additional readers by providing context that specialists in the field may not need. Including a one-line summary of the context from the Introduction, along with a brief summary of the Discussion and forward-looking Conclusions, helps make an Abstract well-rounded and appealing to a broad audience. Introduction. The Introduction provides the relevant background information and context that frame the research that the paper is reporting, as well as insights into the significance and novelty of the work. Specialists in the field likely already know much of the literature and may immediately appreciate how this new research fits into the field, but other readers may not. Therefore, it is helpful to begin with the big picture of the work. It is probably not necessary to start at too high of a level, i.e., “Nanoparticles are pieces of matter that have dimensions on the order of 1–100 nm and are used in many applications...,” but rather with something that provides an accurate big-picture introduction to the specific research that will be described, i.e., “Semiconductor nanoparticles have revolutionized applications ranging from biological imaging to display technologies...” It is also helpful to explicitly state why the work is important and what its implications are. For research fields in which there is a dauntingly large number of publications, it is particularly useful to articulate what is unique about the research described in the paper, how it is different from what has been reported before, and why it is significant. This approach makes these key aspects of the research clear to readers, rather than making them guess or presuming they already know. Overall, an effective Introduction has all the information that specialists would want to see, while also having sufficient bigger-picture context and explicit statements defining significance, impact, and implications so that nonspecialists are brought up to speed before diving into the Results and Discussion section. Note that Letters do not have these formal subdivisions, but they should still have these components. Results and Discussion. The Results and Discussion section takes readers on a journey through the data. The Figures show the data, while the Results and Discussion section presents, analyzes, and contextualizes the data. In most cases, specialists in a field will already be very familiar with the type of data—how it was collected, how to interpret it, and what it means. Nonspecialists may have some familiarity with the type of data but generally benefit from some additional insight to fully appreciate its significance. It is often possible to include this extra information without having to write a large amount of additional text. For example, saying “The XRD pattern in Figure 1 indicates that the nanoparticles have an average diameter of 10 nm.” is useful for specialists who know how such information can be obtained from analysis of XRD peak widths. However, a slightly expanded version is more approachable to readers who are new and/or tangential to the field: “The XRD pattern in Figure 1 indicates that the nanoparticles have an average diameter of 10 nm, based on Scherrer analysis of the peak widths.” These minor additions can make a big difference to your readers on the peripheries of your field. It can be helpful to consider aspects of the Results and Discussion to be a form of teaching—clearly and concisely instructing readers in what they need to know (including rationale for experiments and analyses) to understand, appreciate, and learn from the research you are reporting. Figures. Figures should clearly and accurately show the data that is discussed in the paper. Beyond that requirement, the design and layout of the figures can help to draw in readers and make the data easier to follow, analyze, and interpret—or it can make it more difficult! Ensuring that figures are easy to follow, especially when coupled with the text in the Results and Discussion section, is helpful to all readers, but particularly to nonspecialists. Including labels, arrows, and other helpful navigation tools can make a reader’s (and reviewer’s!) job easier. Avoid using font sizes that are too small to easily read and choose colors that have high contrast and can be distinguished by those who have color blindness; this ensures that all readers can see and analyze the Figures. Including schematics and graphics to accompany data can help to show readers how the data fits into the bigger picture and relates to other data. Conclusions. A brief summary of the key results is always helpful in the Conclusions, but it is perhaps even more important to put the new results in context with the field and beyond. Readers, especially nonspecialists, appreciate having an idea of what is (or could be) next as a result of this new research being reported. Forward-looking conclusions set the stage for further work and get readers excited about the future; they can also provide nonspecialists with a greater appreciation and understanding of the field, which can pay long-term dividends in unexpected ways! Readers could be policymakers, grant officers, the media, and—especially for open access articles such as those published in ACS Nanoscience Au—the general public. Methods/Experimental Section. The Methods/Experimental section should always include all information necessary to reproduce the work described in the paper. To make this section more approachable to broader, interdisciplinary audiences, consider briefly mentioning the rationale for choosing certain key reagents, experimental parameters, computational codes, and analytical techniques. Also consider offering troubleshooting tips that would be especially helpful for researchers (including students!) who are new to a field but whose research may depend on reproducing and building upon your work. 16 These and other considerations for helping to make a paper appeal to a broad audience serve several goals, including drawing readers in, allowing them to engage effectively and efficiently with the work described in the paper, and helping them to learn and understand something new—all without making them work too hard to do so. Writing your paper with these goals in mind involves managing first impressions, including the Title and Table of Contents Graphic, and second impressions—the Abstract, Figures, and Conclusions—to encourage readers to read the paper in greater depth. It also involves managing how readers engage with the detailed technical content of the work. Efforts to make a paper more approachable to a broader audience will pay dividends even to researchers in related areas, because increasingly interdisciplinary research relies on the ability to understand, appreciate, and integrate knowledge developing beyond our own field(s). Different writers and readers may have different strategies for doing so, but conscious attention to how the various components of a paper can make it more appealing to a broad audience will expand its reach and impact. When coupled with open access and strategies for expanding a paper’s visibility, 18 authors play a very important and powerful role in shaping the future of their research fields!