Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

You have to read this

Reading scientific papers is a necessary part of the research enterprise, but poor writing impedes the flow of information from authors to their audiences. We argue that a return to narrative in scientific writing is not incompatible with rigour and objectivity; it can mitigate information overload and achieve the core purpose of publication: to communicate.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Borges, J. L. Jorge Luis Borges Collected Fictions, p. 183–195 (Penguin Books, 1998) [transl.].

  2. 2.

    Banks, S. A. Lit. Med. 1, 24–28 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Boyd, B. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 9, e1444 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    McDonald, D. G. Rev. Commun. Res. 2, 115–132 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Downs, J. S. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111(Suppl. 4), 13627–13633 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Busselle, R. & Bilandzic, H. Media Psychol. 12, 321–347 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Lehne, M. & Koelsch, S. Front. Psychol. 6, 79 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Gerrig, R. J. Experiencing Narrative Worlds (Yale Univ. Press, 1993).

  9. 9.

    Braddock, K. & Dillard, J. P. Commun. Monogr. 83, 446–467 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Wilson, S. R. et al. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 595–602 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Dahlstrom, M. F. Communic. Res. 42, 779–795 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Lieder, I. et al. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 256–264 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Harding, S. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women’s Lives (Cornell Univ. Press, 2016).

  14. 14.

    Reijers, W. & Coeckelbergh, M. Narrative and Technology Ethics, p. 113–149 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020).

  15. 15.

    Mattar, M. G. & Daw, N. D. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 1609–1617 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. M. Zarate for insightful guidance that helped us to select the well-written scientific work cited here.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Paula L. Croxson or Daniela Schiller.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Croxson, P.L., Neeley, L. & Schiller, D. You have to read this. Nat Hum Behav 5, 1466–1468 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01221-6

Download citation

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing