Unclear, overly wordy scientific writing

[j666]

I found the OP’s example perfectly clear, too, although “the basis for greater efficacy” is a tad wordy.

There is nothing wrong with the passive voice when the agent is unknown or immaterial.

The real problem with a lot of writing is the use of nouns instead of verbs, i.e. “take into consideration”, “make a determination”, “have the intention”, instead of “consider”, “determine”, and “intend”.

And introductory qualifying phrases, but that might just be me.

@Peremensoe

I think clarity and concision are very important, secondary only to technical accuracy. Do not mistake clarity and concision for simplicity and brevity.

Or comprehensible for accurate.

[GargoyleWB]

@Machine_Elf

This. I thought it was pretty good, actually. Technical writing, like contract writing, often requires a precision that can only be achieved through verbosity. That said, I’d make a few minor changes:

"This work should lead to greater taxonomical clarity by highlighting any known research gaps and by ensuring that each species designation is justified by robust and defensible taxonomic protocols. Such clarity should facilitate greater efficacy in management and conservation.”

Even more succinctly:

“A horse is a horse, of course, of course.”

[Sampsiceramos]

@Crafter_Man

“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” - Albert Einstein

“Don’t believe uncorroborated quotes you see on the internet.” - Pliny the Elder

[stillownedbysetters]

Would 500 lawyers and 500 scientific researchers with 1000 typewriters, given an infinite amount of time, actually write anything comprehensible to the ordinary human being?

[Riemann]

Spam incoming… reported.