Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

60%
+1 −0
Q&A How to improve a "dry" scientific review article?

I am seeking suggestions to improve my "dry" writing style. I recently submitted a manuscript that was intended to be a review article on a particular scientific topic in the field of biomedical s...

3 answers  ·  posted 6y ago by B Chen‭  ·  last activity 5y ago by System‭

#3: Attribution notice added by user avatar System‭ · 2019-12-08T08:33:57Z (about 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/35211
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision by user avatar B Chen‭ · 2019-12-08T08:33:57Z (about 5 years ago)
I am seeking suggestions to improve my "dry" writing style.

I recently submitted a manuscript that was intended to be a review article on a particular scientific topic in the field of biomedical science. One of the comments from the manuscript reviewers was that

> the paper is rather "dry" ...

My question is:  
What makes a scientific article _dry_ and what makes it _non-dry_?

#1: Imported from external source by user avatar System‭ · 2018-04-18T14:24:02Z (over 6 years ago)
Original score: 3