“I” versus “the author”: The power of first-person voice when writing about science

Authors: Brennan, Eric

Submitted to: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 5/3/2024
Publication Date: 5/22/2024
Citation: Brennan, E.B. 2024. “I” versus “the author”: The power of first-person voice when writing about science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). 121(22). Article e2316966121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2316966121.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2316966121

Interpretive Summary: Since the 1960s, authors of papers in biology and agronomy have gradually embraced the first-person voice (I, my, we, our). But the gatekeepers of some science journals resist the personal voice, thinking it is too subjective and informal. For example, recently, Agronomy Journal editors rejected a paper until the first-person singular voice was dropped. This is troubling because many guides to effective science writing encourage authors to use the first person voice because it is clear, concise and can improve reader understanding and confidence. Changes are suggested to the author guidelines of the Agronomy, Crop and Soil Science Societies of America, so that future authors can use first-person (singular or plural). This will improve science communication in 13 journals published by the Agronomy, Crop and Soil Science Societies of America.

Technical Abstract: Short, powerful words like ‘I’ and ‘we’ can improve science communication but can get authors into trouble if gatekeepers believe the first-person voice is inappropriate in science articles. This issue cropped up in Agronomy Journal during struggles to publish the paper ‘Quadrat misuse - confessions of a cover crop researcher's biomass sampling journey’ (Brennan, 2023). Here, I explain my reluctance to change ‘I’ to ‘the author’ in that paper, and why I eventually gave up. That change goes against effective science communication, and made my paper imprecise, less readable, and thus potentially less impactful. While agricultural scientists are increasingly embracing first-person plural, my cautionary tale shows editorial bias against first-person persists –and puts unnecessary, obstacles between authors and readers (scientists, farmers, extension agents, other agricultural professional). Therefore, I propose changes to the author guidelines used in 13 journals published by the Agronomy, Crop and Soil Science Societies of America. This will encourage more engaging writing that resonates with diverse audiences and improves the readability and impact of publications.