What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
Shakespeare, W. Romeo and Juliet (Juliet; Act II, Scene II)
Unlike in the famous lines from Romeo and Juliet, in scientific papers the name, the title, carries the essence of the text. In the title we encode, in a few words, the most salient features of our research. Lebrun (2007) reports that we spend an average of two seconds (yes, you read correctly, 2”) skimming titles on a list. Guided only by the brevity of its wording, we decide to read an article or definitely reject it.
Unfortunately, there are no recipes to write efficient titles. There are, though, elements that seem to be commendable: they should be brief, catchy; they should include non-finite verb forms (gerunds and infinitives); they should ideally contain as many keywords as possible so our title is frequently retrieved by databases. And, obviously, there are traits that we should avoid: acronyms, unless they are well-known; words like new, novel, recent, modern, as they render our research outdated in a matter or months; far reaching promises, dull explanations. What is unequivocal is that there is no right or wrong path to take.
Something that might have struck you is that the structure of titles sways according to fashion. Now it seems to be in to use nominal phrases followed by a colon and a brief explanatory non-finite clause. Questions are trendy again, but single propositions are definitely out. There is no need for you to go with the vogue; however, it is curious how readers must be favoring a certain kind of structure and how that is reflected in the grammatical choices authors make.
I find it hard to make recommendations when titles are at stake. Nonetheless, I will propose a few that I hope can help. You might want to pack as much information in your title as it is reasonable. In much the same way, it seems sensible that you include references to your objectives and methodology. Only in a few cases is it possible to include hints that report some sort of result. If that were your case, do not hesitate and provide your readers with these clues. Obviously, there is no room to bundle everything in the title, so be cautious and avoid excess information and obscurity.
One of the questions that I am asked day in and day out is if the title should be written before or after the paper. Again, there is no right answer to this question. There are authors who use titles as a sort of thesis statement. Having their titles printed in big bold letters on top of the page helps some writers not to lose track of their path. Conversely, there are others who prefer to deal with titles once their paper is done, basically because only then can they really know what instances are the most relevant in the text.
In the end, what is crucial is that you aim at putting together a collection of words that are appealing, that operate as a sort of extreme summary of the text, as an adrenaline rush, as a timeless hint. That will do.
Unfortunately, there are no recipes to write efficient titles. There are, though, elements that seem to be commendable: they should be brief, catchy; they should include non-finite verb forms (gerunds and infinitives); they should ideally contain as many keywords as possible so our title is frequently retrieved by databases. And, obviously, there are traits that we should avoid: acronyms, unless they are well-known; words like new, novel, recent, modern, as they render our research outdated in a matter or months; far reaching promises, dull explanations. What is unequivocal is that there is no right or wrong path to take.
Something that might have struck you is that the structure of titles sways according to fashion. Now it seems to be in to use nominal phrases followed by a colon and a brief explanatory non-finite clause. Questions are trendy again, but single propositions are definitely out. There is no need for you to go with the vogue; however, it is curious how readers must be favoring a certain kind of structure and how that is reflected in the grammatical choices authors make.
I find it hard to make recommendations when titles are at stake. Nonetheless, I will propose a few that I hope can help. You might want to pack as much information in your title as it is reasonable. In much the same way, it seems sensible that you include references to your objectives and methodology. Only in a few cases is it possible to include hints that report some sort of result. If that were your case, do not hesitate and provide your readers with these clues. Obviously, there is no room to bundle everything in the title, so be cautious and avoid excess information and obscurity.
One of the questions that I am asked day in and day out is if the title should be written before or after the paper. Again, there is no right answer to this question. There are authors who use titles as a sort of thesis statement. Having their titles printed in big bold letters on top of the page helps some writers not to lose track of their path. Conversely, there are others who prefer to deal with titles once their paper is done, basically because only then can they really know what instances are the most relevant in the text.
In the end, what is crucial is that you aim at putting together a collection of words that are appealing, that operate as a sort of extreme summary of the text, as an adrenaline rush, as a timeless hint. That will do.
Image © killerwig
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment