Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

You have to read this

  • Comment
  • Published:

From Nature Human Behaviour

View current issue Submit your manuscript

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, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

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

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

    Article  CAS  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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Paula L. Croxson

  2. The Story Collider, New York, NY, USA

    Paula L. Croxson

  3. Department of Neuroscience, Friedman Brain Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Paula L. Croxson & Daniela Schiller

  4. Liminal Creations, Washington, DC, USA

    Liz Neeley

  5. Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Daniela Schiller

Authors
  1. Paula L. Croxson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liz Neeley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniela Schiller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Check for updates. 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

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01221-6

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation