Why language conventions matter
Language conventions are arbitrary, but they are gatekeeping mechanisms. Using the expected phrasing signals that you are “one of us”—a member of the disciplinary community—rather than an outsider.
- Reviewer friction: Reviewers expect specific syntactic patterns (e.g. some fields require passive voice in Methods). Deviate, and they focus on your style instead of your science.
- Cognitive load: Familiar structures reduce reading effort. When you mirror the syntax of papers in Target Journal X, you allow expert readers to process your argument faster.
Readability & flow
Some conventions reduce the readability or flow of your text. That’s unfortunate, but unless you are an established author who’s credential signal trust upfront, breaking the your field’s language conventions to improve readability can works against you.
How fields diverge
Here are a few common differences between fields (and sometimes it’s just reviewer preferences):
Active vs. passive voice Some fields (e.g., molecular biology, ecology) tolerate or prefer active voice and first-person pronouns (“We hypothesized that…”). Others (e.g., analytical chemistry, mathematics) suppress agency almost entirely, relying on passive constructions (“It was hypothesized that…”) or nominalizations (“The hypothesis was tested…”).
Hedging (see also Supporting your arguments) The expected density of uncertainty markers varies. Clinical trial reports hedge heavily around patient outcomes (“may indicate,” “potentially suggests”). Theoretical computer science, by contrast, often states theorems baldly (“We prove that…”), hedging only in the implications section. What counts as appropriately cautious in one field reads as hedging overload in another.
Explicit vs. implicit reasoning
Fields differ in how much logic they leave unsaid. Neuroscience and bioengineering often require explicit signposting (“Therefore,” “In contrast”). Pure mathematics or certain physics subfields assume the reader follows inferential chains without transitional handholding; excessive signposting there suggests the author doubts the reader’s competence.