Journal

Writing about science for a non-specialist web audience

Accuracy and clarity are not opposites. A few habits make technical web copy much easier to read.

27 August 2026 / 6 min read

Cambridge produces a great deal of world-class science, and a surprising amount of it is explained badly online. Not inaccurately, usually: the facts are right. But the writing is dense, the structure is a paper’s structure, and the reader who arrives from a search engine or a LinkedIn post gives up after the first paragraph.

Web readers behave differently from journal readers. They scan, they arrive on any page rather than the first one, and many of them are not specialists. Here are the habits we see work for research groups, institutes and science companies.

Start with the consequence, not the method

Scientific writing is trained to build up: background, method, results, conclusion. Web writing works better upside down. Lead with what the work means, then explain how.

Compare “Using single-cell RNA sequencing of tissue samples, we characterised...” with “We have found a type of cell that may explain why some patients do not respond to treatment. Here is how we found it.” Both are accurate. Only one keeps a general reader.

One idea per paragraph

Long paragraphs that carry three ideas are hard to read on a screen, especially on a phone. Split them. A paragraph of two to four sentences, each focused on one point, is easier to scan and easier to link to.

Define terms once, near where they are used

You do not need to avoid technical terms. You need to explain them the first time they appear on a page. Remember that each page may be the first one a reader sees, so define again on new pages rather than relying on a glossary nobody visits.

A short parenthetical often does the job: “CRISPR (a tool for editing DNA at precise locations)”. Where a concept is central, give it a sentence or two of its own.

Prefer concrete comparisons

Analogies help when they are accurate, and mislead when they are not. Scale comparisons are often the most useful: how small, how fast, how many. If you use an analogy, check it with a colleague who will tell you honestly where it breaks down.

Use headings that say something

Headings are how web readers navigate. “Introduction” and “Background” tell them nothing. “Why current treatments fall short” and “What our approach changes” tell them whether to keep reading. Good headings also help search engines understand the page.

Let diagrams do some of the work

A simple, well-labelled diagram can replace several paragraphs. On the web, diagrams should be:

• Readable on a phone, which usually means simpler than the figure in your paper.
• Accompanied by alt text that explains what the diagram shows, not just “diagram of mechanism”.
• Built as SVG or high-quality images, with text that remains legible when scaled down.

Separate the claim from the evidence

A good pattern for science web pages is a clear statement followed by its evidence: a link to the paper, the dataset or the preprint. This lets general readers take the statement at face value while specialists can check it. It also keeps you honest about what you can claim.

Be explicit about uncertainty. “Early results in mouse models suggest” is more credible than an unqualified claim, and readers who matter will respect it.

Write for the reader who arrives from search

Many readers will reach a research page by searching for a disease, a technique or a question. Think about the words they would use, which are often less technical than yours. A patient searches for “why does my medication stop working”, not “acquired drug resistance mechanisms”. Using both phrasings, naturally, helps the page reach both audiences.

Get it checked twice

Technical web copy needs two reviews: one by a scientist for accuracy, and one by a non-specialist for clarity. The second is the one most often skipped. A communications colleague, a friend in another field, or a designer working on the site will spot the places where a general reader gets lost.

Keep it current

Science moves. A page describing “our upcoming trial” three years after it finished damages credibility. Set a review date for each research page, even if it is just once a year, and give someone the job of checking it.

A worked rewrite

Here is a typical opening paragraph from a research group page, followed by a rewrite. Both are invented for illustration, but the pattern is very common.

The rewrite is longer, and that is fine. It names diseases readers recognise, explains the key idea in everyday words, says why it matters and only then mentions methods, each with a short explanation. A specialist loses nothing, because the precise terms can follow in the next paragraph.

Page structure that works for research content

Giving every research page the same skeleton also helps the people who maintain the site. Editors know what goes where, and readers learn where to look. If you are planning a site around this kind of content, our website design process starts with exactly this sort of content map, and the spin-out website checklist covers the commercial side.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Pasting the abstract. Abstracts are written for peers scanning a journal, not for web visitors.
• Acronyms on first use. Spell them out, every page.
• Hype words. “Revolutionary” and “breakthrough” make careful readers suspicious.
• Images without explanation. A microscopy image means nothing to most readers without a caption saying what they are looking at.
• Dead links to papers. Use DOIs, which stay stable when publishers change their sites.

Writing for different kinds of page

Not every page needs the same treatment. A news story about a new grant should lead with who, what and why it matters, in the way a good press release does, and can be short. A technology or platform page is a reference that people return to, so it benefits from subheadings, diagrams and links to evidence. A careers page is mostly about people and the working environment; scientific detail there should be enough to excite a candidate, not to satisfy a reviewer.

Patient-facing content is different again. If your organisation runs or supports clinical studies, information for patients and families needs particularly plain language, clear statements about what taking part involves, and no promises about outcomes. Ethics committees and sponsors usually have requirements here, so check before publishing.

Finally, think about who will maintain each type of page. News is easy to keep current; detailed technology pages tend to drift as the science moves on. Put a named reviewer and a review date against each technology page, even if that only means a five-minute check twice a year.

A short checklist

• Does the first paragraph say why this matters?
• Could a general reader explain the main point after one read?
• Is every technical term explained on this page?
• Do the headings tell the story on their own?
• Is every claim linked to its evidence?
• Has a non-specialist read it?

Most of this is habit rather than talent. Once a team writes a few pages this way, it becomes the normal way to write for the web.