Correcting to improve clarity: Fixing haphazard sentence structure

As science writing often includes complex information, arranging this information in a logical order can sometimes be difficult.

Ensuring your information is presented in a logical order is not something you should necessarily try to do in a first draft. It’s often best just to get the information down first, see if it makes sense, then try to rewrite it in later drafts.

The following are 5 examples that I have improved, including my explanations and comments. In these examples, there may be other aspects that can be improved, but for this blog post, I am (mostly) only concentrating on the order of information.

I have purposely left the source of these examples uncited. I have also kept the sources anonymous, either by choosing examples that cover a broad topic or by changing the nouns to preserve author and project anonymity. By changing the nouns, I am essentially creating hypothetical projects or topics, while keeping the original sentence issues that need correcting.

As these sentences are often excerpts from a paragraph, the entire story or specific meaning may not be clear. However, it is a good practice to look at sentences in isolation. Disclaimer: Due to these sentences being excerpts, the original sentence issues or my lack of understanding, I may sometimes interpret some meanings incorrectly.

I have also added changes made by ChatGPT (free version). The prompt I used: “Could you improve the order of information in this sentence? Avoid using different words.” CHatGPT produced the same rewrite as I did in only one example (example no. 5).

Example 1. Original version

However, in all cases, the symptoms, i.e. what the patient will describe to the clinician, and signs, i.e. what the clinician can detect upon examining the patient, are central.

My changes

However, in all cases, the symptoms and signs are central. The symptoms are what the patient will describe to the clinician and the signs are what the clinician can detect when examining the patient.

My comments

This sentence has seven separate clauses or phrases. This alone can make it difficult to read. The subject (‘the symptoms and signs’) is separated from the verb (‘are central’) by the two definitions. While, it is tempting to define or explain a word as soon as it is written, separating the subject from the verb in this way can often make the reader struggle. If the sentence is short, separating the subject from the verb with detail is less of an issue.

I removed ‘i.e.’ as I didn’t think the phrases needed to be presented with a ‘for instance’ as they are definitions.

As the definitions are moved to a new sentence, my changes make the total word length slightly longer but it is ok to sacrifice brevity for clarity.

ChatGPT changes

However, in all cases, the symptoms and signs are central, i.e. what the patient will describe to the clinician and what the clinician can detect upon examining the patient.

Example 2. Original version

By being able to distinguish changes in animal movement patterns for example, it is possible to recognise the onset of environmental stress before the impact on survival and reproductive output can be quantified.

My changes

It is possible to recognise the onset of environmental stress, before the impact on survival and reproductive output can be quantified. For example, being able to distinguish changes in animal movement patterns.

My comments

The sentence is made clunky by including ‘for example’ into the introductory dependent clause (plus there is a comma missing before ‘for example’). The main point (the independent clause) is hard to read as it is lengthy and follows this unwieldy introductory dependent clause. While I don’t believe the main point of the sentence always needs to be at the beginning, it can easily get lost in long sentences that are structured in this way. So, I have broken the sentence into two, with the example discussed in the second sentence. In case you were wondering, tt is ok to start a sentence with ‘For example’.

ChatGPT changes

By being able to distinguish changes in animal movement patterns, for example, it is possible to recognise the onset of environmental stress before the impact on survival and reproductive output can be quantified.

Example 3. Original version

This handbook cannot encompass all situations and should not replace sound clinical judgement. It does not replace Australian approved product information.

My changes

This handbook does not replace Australian-approved product information, cannot encompass all situations and should not replace sound clinical judgement.

My comments

The sentences are fine as they are. However, combining them can make the information more concise by including all the things the handbook doesn’t do in the one sentence. The flow of information can also be improved by starting with specific information and finishing with general advice.

ChatGPT changes

This handbook cannot encompass all situations and does not replace Australian approved product information. It should not replace sound clinical judgement.

Example 4. Original version

The line transect method for estimating densities involves determining the change in detectability with lateral distance from a driven transect for each of four species out to a detection threshold distance (DTD).

My changes

The line transect method for estimating densities of ~~each of~~ the four species ~~involves~~ ~~determining~~ determines the change in their detectability with lateral distance from a driven transect, out to a detection threshold distance (DTD).

My comments

This is a convoluted, complex sentence structure that is common in science writing. I can break this into 6 sections or steps: [1] The line transect method [2] estimates densities [3] involves determining the change in detectability [4] with lateral distance from a driven transect [5] for each of four species [6] out to a detection threshold distance (DTD). While breaking sentences into steps can be a drawn-out process, it is useful exercise for restructuring complex sentences.

In the original example, 'for each of four species' is breaking up the flow of the sentence. Because of where it is placed, it is not immediately clear if 'for each of four species' are the densities that are being estimated or if the author is referring to driven transects 'for each of four species' (or both). I assumed the former and therefore decided that it is more direct and helpful for the reader to state what is being measured ('four species') earlier in the sentence.

I removed ‘each of’ as unnecessary detail, considered ‘determines’ as more concise than ‘involves determining’ and added ‘their’ to clarify what is being detected.

ChatGPT changes

The line transect method for estimating densities involves determining, for each of four species, the change in detectability with lateral distance from a driven transect out to a detection threshold distance (DTD).

Example 5. Original version

This will prevent issues, such as incomplete lineage sorting, long-branch attraction and heterotachy, that can complicate phylogenetic analysis.

My changes

This will prevent issues that can complicate phylogenetic analysis, such as incomplete lineage sorting, long-branch attraction and heterotachy.

My comments

As this sentence is an excerpt, we do not know what ‘this’ is referring to, but the sentence can still be improved. This type of sentence structure is another example of disrupting the flow of information by inserting examples into the middle of the sentence and, in doing so, leaving the main point until the end of the sentence.

ChatGPT changes

This will prevent issues that can complicate phylogenetic analysis, such as incomplete lineage sorting, long-branch attraction and heterotachy.

In conclusion:

I always find it important to acknowledge that there can be many different ways to rewrite a sentence. I encourage you to add your example rewrite(s) and comments at the bottom of this blog post. If you would like feedback on reworking a sentence, email it to admin@writingclearscience.com.au and I will see what I can do.

Any suggestions or comments please email admin@writingclearscience.com.au