Wired.com recently posted a list of the top 5 annoying clichés overused in science writing. These gems appear in all kinds of science writing, including business plans. The comments section is particularly funny as readers weigh in with their predictions of other offending clichés.

I’m on the fence regarding the use of clichés in business plans. They easily convey the market paradigm shift that a silver bullet product delivers. This is especially pertinent when concisely shedding light on key concepts. By using all of the Rosetta stones available, potential partners and financiers will be engaged in a perfect storm that will advance the business case to the next level and allow the company to deliver their holy grail to market in 5 to 10 years.

Clichés add little concrete value and take up valuable space in a manuscript. However, sparing use of clichés can be useful in select circumstances. Author awareness of any predilection for certain turns of phrase helps ensure rational use in writing.

Want to see more clichés: http://www.westegg.com/cliche/

NSERC posted an analysis of the 2009 Discovery grant competition (including comparisons to the 2008 competition) on their Program News page.

This is the most detailed analysis I have ever seen from NSERC. The change in grant level scatter plots are particularly fascinating.

FYI – I had a bit of trouble getting the file because the release links directly to the pdf. Here is the URL directly to the pdf.

Last month, I attended an Editors’ Association of Canada meeting in Saskatoon for a training session on the ‘Fundamentals of Communicating Numerical Information”.

Melissa Spore, an instructional designer at the University of Saskatchewan and co-author of Presenting Numbers, Tables and Charts (Oxford University Press, 2003), was a delightful presenter and gave me a lot to think about.

The presentation covered the core concepts within her book and generated several “Well, duh, why didn’t I think of that before?” moments for me. Many of the rules proposed by Bigwood and Spore are glaringly obvious when you stop and think about them, but unfortunately it is all too easy to ignore the obvious. Isn’t it funny how frequently we discount KISS (that’s Keep It Simple Silly!) principles especially in our writing?

Looking back at project I have authored and edited over the years, I am ashamed to say that I too have broken some rules. But I’ll do better now, I promise.

If you have a chance, I would highly recommend adding Bigwood and Spore’s book to your reference bookshelf or requesting it for your library! (ISBN 0-19-860722-9) I’ve added some links to more information and places to purchase the book below:

Bigwood and Spore’s website: Plain Figures
Presenting Numbers, Tables and Charts at Amazon.ca

I heard about this interesting web application that prompts a person to write a specific number of words in a discrete amount of time. If you don’t achieve your goal or you stop writing, the program provides ‘tangible consequences’.

If you find it challenging to get words on the page or even start the writing process, it might be useful. I might use it so that blog posts are drafted consistently.

Check it out for yourself: Dr. Wicked’s Write or Die

It is usually my preference to draft the lay summary at the end of the writing process. In a previous post I talked about the challenges of writing for various audiences, particularly the general public.

A lay summary writing exercise: think about how to explain the research to a next door neighbor (or a neighbor’s 12 year old child). Given their attention span, how would you explain the research so that they “get it” and maybe even “get excited about it”? Recording your “presentation” to this virtual audience can allow free-association and brainstorming on the fly. You might be surprised with what you come up with when you aren’t scrambling to make notes.

How would you encapsulate what you do? Dare I say it – market your research? Entrepreneurs are often told to generate an elevator pitch: a short, to-the-point description of what they are doing, why it is important and what they need to make it better. The WHAT, the WHY, and the HOW MUCH. Lay summaries are somewhat equivalent – an opportunity to describe your research topic, how it is relevant (and important) to your field and why it should be funded. Keep it clear, exciting and easy to read.

Many reviewers use the lay summaries as refreshers prior to presenting your case to the GSC committee. With that in mind – your lay summary is often the first and last impression you leave with reviewers.