How can you use active voice in scientific writing without sacrificing objectivity?

In scientific writing, maintaining objectivity is crucial, but you can still use the active voice in scientific writing by clearly defining agents, focusing on actions, using neutral language, avoiding ambiguity, being concise, and maintaining a professional tone to enhance clarity without sacrificing objectivity.

The active voice is essential in scientific writing because it makes the content clearer, more direct, and interesting. The active voice highlights the agents and players in the research, which might assist readers grasp the researchers' involvement and contribution. It also produces shorter and more concise sentences, making the content easier to understand.

La voz activa en artículos científicos enfatiza el sujeto que realiza la acción, mejorando claridad y concisión. No compromete la objetividad, sino que aumenta la transparencia al atribuir responsabilidad a los autores, evitando ambigüedades en la comunicación de los datos y resultados. Además, su estructura gramatical directa facilita la comprensión, y facilita la lectura del texto. En este sentido, la adopción de la voz activa no solo no sacrifica la objetividad, sino que fortalece la comunicación efectiva de los hallazgos científicos, en línea con lo que yo llamo los "3 pilares de la redacción científica" que debe ser clara, concisa y atrapante, promoviendo así las buenas prácticas de redacción académica.

To understand why the active voice is preferable requires a little grammatical knowledge. Brace yourself, here it comes! Sentences contain subjects and objects. In the active voice, the subject does to the object whatever the verb describes. For example, "I walked the dog" is in the active voice. ("I" is the subject, "walked" is the verb, and "the dog" is the object.) "The dog was walked by me" is passive. It's clear from this example that the active voice is not only more direct, but it is also more concise and much clearer. Brevity and clarity should be enduring goals in your writing, whether scientific or simply fanciful.

I don't agree with the notion that voice sacrifices objectivity. We have to remember that there are scientists behind these studies and discoveries. People relate to things more effectively when they read that other people are doing these things. Exclusively using passive voice takes the human element out of it, and bogs the reader down in data and process. Not good for reader retention.

I agree that defining the level of certainty is important when using active voice in scientific writing. In my experience, specificity pays off as it helps the writing be more objective. The boundaries of what is known and not known can be conveyed clearly by using qualifiers and modifiers with intent.

I disagree with the statement that "active voice is generally preferred" in scientific writing as a whole. I think this depends heavily on the type and purpose of the scientific writing. In almost all peer-reviewed articles (in microscopy, materials science, and engineering) I have read or published, passive voice is either preferred or required for the reasons stated (focus on process, avoiding repetition, and avoiding implication of bias). However, when talking about the work of others in third person (he/she/they/it 'verbed'), active voice is often (though not always) employed. This can help to emphasize that the work of those authors was theirs alone and isn't necessarily indicative of broader agreement or proof on a topic.

Passive voice is best used when the subject of the sentence isn't as important as the action taken or the process being discussed. It should, however, be mixed in with active voice to keep the reader engaged and to remind them that, yes, there are actual people behind these actions, performing these processes.

It is often assumed that scientific writing requires passive voice. However, one can achieve reader attention and coherence to a greater degree with active voice, citing researcher names to make the content more interesting. However, if there is a specification on the use of passive voice, or when certain thoughts can be communicated in passive voice better than active voice, then this is the preferred form of writing.

Given the audience of a science article or a paper, you want to cater your writing such that the information is upfront, but still keeps readers engaged. Generally, one can use active voice when introducing and concluding a topic and sharing results (e.g. researchers found...), and passive voice when discussing actions, processes or results (e.g. the mass of a black hole was calculated by...).

Using active voice has several benefits: Clarity - It clearly identifies who is performing the action, which helps readers follow the flow of your ideas. Conciseness - Allows you to express your thoughts in a more concise manner. It eliminates unnecessary words and reduces the need for passive constructions. Engagement- It creates a sense of immediacy and makes your sentences more dynamic. Responsibility - By clearly stating who is performing the action, you avoid ambiguity and take ownership of your ideas. When using active voice, remember to use strong, active verbs that convey the action clearly. This will make your writing more engaging and impactful

One of the most important aspects here is consistency. Because it is a bit nebulous when science should be reported in passive or active voice, a lot of writing I have reviewed tends to switch between the two voices at random. In general (excluding sentences like the example above combining voices), pick one voice and stick with it. Do a quick final review specifically checking for consistency of voice.