What it says on the tin – should the titles of papers tell you what the paper is about?

I have recently discovered a new bugbear; titles of papers that give you no clue as to what the paper is about, even to the extent that reading the abstract still leaves you wondering if the paper is about an animal or a plant or whatever!  I may be exaggerating slightly, but perhaps not. My impression is, however, that in ecology, the higher the Impact Factor of the journal, the more likely you are to find papers with titles that are opaque to say the least.  Take a look at these for example, all taken from current issues of the journals and not involving a lot of searching or filtering.

Towards a unified framework for connectivity that disentangles movement and mortality in space and time

This one from Ecology Letters, it takes until line 9 of the abstract before you find out that it is about an insect herbivore, but you have to wait until the introduction to actually find out which species the authors are using as their exemplar.

Faster movement in nonhabitat matrix promotes range shifts in heterogeneous landscapes

Here from Ecology, it isn’t until line 8 of the abstract that you know what the subject organism of the paper is; on the plus side you do get the species name, a butterfly.

Seasonal host life‐history processes fuel disease dynamics at different spatial scales

Not an entomological example this time 🙂 This one from the Journal of Animal Ecology,  takes until line 7 of the abstract to reveal that the paper is about wild boar, not that you would have guessed from the title.

Non‐resource effects of foundation species on meta‐ecosystem stability and function

Another non-entomological example, this time from Oikos; you only have to read to line 6 of the abstract to find out that the paper is about mussel beds.

Contrast this with the next two journals, both lower impact than the previous examples, but still leaders in their fields with impact factors over the magic 2;

Ecology and conservation of the British Swallowtail butterfly, Papilio machaon britannicus: old questions, new challenges and potential opportunities

from Insect Conservation & Diversity, you know exactly what this paper is all about

The responses of wild jacamars (Galbula ruficauda, Galbulidae) to aposematic, aposematic and cryptic, and cryptic butterflies in central Brazil

and the same here for Ecological Entomology.

So what is it with these “guess what the hell this paper is about” titles?  There is a very obvious answer, but isn’t there always? It’s all about marketing. As authors we live in a crowded marketplace, as academics we are ducking and diving for tenure, grants, promotion and kudos in general; our currency is publications and the value of our currency is judged by citations, clicks and chutzpah. Back in the day, titles that began with the words “The effect of, the influence of …”, were, especially in the applied world, de rigueur. Nowadays, scientific writing courses and books about how to write paper, will all tell you that titles like that are the kiss of death, and won’t even get you past the Editor-in-Chief’s triage, let alone in the reviewers in-box. You need to sell your story, and ironically, it appears that selling your story means obfuscating it!

I’m as guilty of this as the next author.  My first papers stuck rigidly to the time-honoured applied format of titles such as “The effect of cereal growth stage and feeding site on the reproductive activity of the bird‐cherry aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi and “The effect of previous defoliation of pole-stage lodgepole pine on plant chemistry, and on the growth and survival of pine beauty moth (Panolis flammea) larvae”, even, when, as in the case of the latter, it was in a very ecological journal. Now, yes, I still do produce papers with similar titles, if I am aiming at a general ecology journal I succumb to the obfuscatory and hyperbolic, with the obligatory colon and question mark. I too have sold out. For many years I ran a paper writing course for postgraduates and final year undergraduates, part of which dealt with titles, and of course, I dealt harshly with the old fashioned, tell it as it is title, giving a personal example. Here is a paper I published with the informative title unlikely to grab the attention of a general audience:

“The effect of two lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Douglas ex Loudon) seed origins (South coastal and Alaskan) on the growth, survival and development of larvae of the pine beauty moth, Panolis flammea (Denis & Schiffermuller) in the presence and absence of predators in a Scottish field site.”

Here, however, is the snappy title that it was published under in Oecologia.  It used every trick in the trade, including hooking it on to, what was at the time, the latest ecological fad;

Sub-lethal plant defences: the paradox remains

In my defence line 1 of the abstract told you the plant species and by line 3 you knew it was pine beauty moth 🙂

The question that I would like you,  as fellow authors, to answer, is, have we gone a step too far, is it time to return to the honest, tell it as it is title, or are we doomed to an endless treadmill of devising ever more bizarre and over the top titles in that attempt to get ourselves noticed from the rest of the crowd?


Post script

I have, according to the Web of Science, published 207 papers, twenty of which include the words The Effect of and six, The influence of, in their titles, the most recent of which was in 2012.


If you are interested in title structure and choice, albeit from a social science point of view, then I thoroughly recommend this post by Patrick Dunleavy.



Filed under Bugbears, Science writing

11 responses to “What it says on the tin – should the titles of papers tell you what the paper is about?

  1. I did a whole series of cold tolerance papers starting ‘The effects of temperature..’ ‘The effects of contrasting humidities..’ all with the same ending! I knew it sounded a bit old fashioned, but I liked that, and they were all published unchanged!🤣

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Those are some pretty frustrating title examples. I certainly agree with that. But why your preference/nostalgia/something for titles starting with “The influence of …” or “The effects of …” In my opinion, those words are implied. The majority of scientific papers are concerned with effects or influences, so surely there’s no need for that to be the first few words of the title?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I always try to word the title so that the content is more or less clear, but in some cases it may not be all that easy. It depends on the audience to some extent, so it is in my interest to try to word the title so it reaches my intended audience. Either of the two approaches can backfire, IMO. If your study organisms is of limited interest you need some other selling point – in my case a paper on mountain pine beetle is likely to have a much broader audience than one on Warren root collar weevil, regardless of how similar the papers are otherwise. With MPB, it may pay off to be clear about the study organism up front, whereas with the weevil it may be wise to hide it. I have never deliberately chosen either strategy as far as I can recall. Furthermore, using buzzwords, e.g., ‘climate change’, is likely to get attention regardless of the actual topic. Nevertheless, good food for thought for sure!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Totally agree that papers should be what it says on the tin, but also need to generalise enough that you will reach broad audiences without overselling the work (overselling the work has more repercussions). And I think there are many reasons why the process of ‘choosing a title’ has shifted – media hooks, as you say; increased desire for ecologists/biologists to publish predictions, instead of patterns; some journals have unrealistic word/character limits; some journals have such specific rules about dos/do nots for titles, it’s often impossible to come up with a title that doesn’t do this.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Pingback: Should a paper title tell you what the paper is about? Yes, but not the way Simon/Steve thinks | Scientist Sees Squirrel

  6. Pingback: Should a paper title tell you what the paper is about? Yes, but not the way Simon/Steve thinks | Don't Forget the Roundabouts

  7. Rob Fletcher

    This is a quite interesting and helpful discussion. As the lead author for the first paper mentioned that was published in Ecology Letters, I would just add that the focus of the paper was not about an insect. The paper provides a new mathematical framework–the insect system is only one (of 2) ways in which the framework is evaluated in the manuscript. Most of the manuscript is about detailing the mathematics behind the framework. That is the rationale for the chosen title.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks – always good to hear from the author – helps one understand the approach/rationale much better. I have always felt that if I know the author of a paper personally, I get more of an insight into the paper.


  8. Pingback: Is it time to abolish Vancouver? | Don't Forget the Roundabouts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.