How to Write for Interdisciplinary Journals: Tone, Terminology and Argument

How to Write for Interdisciplinary Journals: Tone, Terminology and Argument

Interdisciplinary journals occupy a unique and sometimes uncomfortable space in the academic ecosystem. They invite contributions that sit between, or across, established fields: psychology and computer science; history and environmental science; philosophy and medicine; sociology and engineering. In theory, this is where some of the most interesting work happens—where methods and concepts travel, collide and recombine. In practice, however, writing for such outlets often feels harder than writing for a disciplinary journal. Instead of addressing an audience that shares your training and your background assumptions, you are writing for people who may not recognise your favourite theorists, may not trust your habitual methods and may not find it obvious why your question matters.

Many authors discover this gap only when their interdisciplinary submissions are rejected with comments such as “unclear significance for our readership” or “methodological details insufficient for non-specialists”. What looked like a strong manuscript at home suddenly appears dense, insular or underexplained in a new venue. Success in this context is not just a matter of “simplifying” your work, nor is it a matter of adding a few extra definitions. It involves careful adaptation of tone, terminology and argumentation so that your ideas remain rigorous while becoming legible to readers whose intellectual habits differ from your own. This article explores how to make that adaptation in a deliberate way.

1. What Makes Interdisciplinary Journals Different?

Most disciplinary journals assume a shared baseline. They assume that readers recognise major names and canonical debates, that they understand why a certain research design is considered strong evidence and that they can fill in gaps quickly because they know the usual moves in the literature. An article in such a context can therefore be relatively compressed. It might refer to “standard assumptions in the X literature” without naming them, or it might skip detailed justification of a familiar statistical model.

Interdisciplinary journals cannot make those assumptions. A researcher in public health may not be familiar with the latest developments in human–computer interaction, and an engineer may not have encountered recent debates in anthropology about ethics and reflexivity. As an author, you are therefore writing for an audience that is genuinely mixed, not just in terms of topic but in terms of expectations about how knowledge should be built and presented.

1.1. Readers may not share your theoretical background

Your favourite theory may be well known in your discipline and completely unknown elsewhere. A brief citation is sufficient in one venue, but in an interdisciplinary journal, you may need to explain its core idea in a sentence or two and justify why it matters for other fields. For example, if you rely on a concept such as “affordances” from design theory, you cannot assume that all readers will associate this with Gibson or Norman. A short explanation that ties the concept to something readers already recognise—such as “possibilities for action that users perceive in an interface”—can make a dramatic difference to comprehension.

1.2. Standards of evidence can differ

What counts as “convincing” evidence varies sharply between disciplines. An effect size that impresses a psychologist may look trivial to a clinician dealing with life-and-death outcomes. A qualitative sample that seems rich and detailed to an anthropologist may appear too limited to someone in public policy who is used to large surveys. When you write for an interdisciplinary journal, you cannot assume that all readers share your home discipline’s benchmarks. This does not mean you must redesign your study, but it does mean you should explain clearly what kind of claim you are making and why the methods you used are appropriate for that claim.

1.3. The “so what?” question is multi-layered

In a disciplinary outlet, answering “What does this mean for our field?” may be enough. In an interdisciplinary journal, you are implicitly asked additional questions: What does this mean for adjacent disciplines? What does it mean for real-world practice or policy? How does it help people who do not work with your particular methods? The paper needs to signal relevance beyond its original home. That might involve sketching implications for practitioners in another area, or for researchers who might adapt your method to different data.

All of this places extra weight on how you handle tone, terminology and argument. These are the levers that allow your work to travel effectively between communities that normally do not share a reading list.

2. Adapting Tone for Mixed Audiences

Tone is often invisible when you write within your own discipline because you absorb its conventions almost unconsciously. When you move to an interdisciplinary space, tone becomes more visible and more consequential. A style that feels appropriately formal and assertive at home may sound arrogant or dismissive to readers elsewhere; a style that feels suitably cautious in one field may strike readers in another as vague or indecisive.

2.1. Aim for clarity over display

In some disciplines, demonstrating mastery of complex jargon or dense theoretical language is part of how one signals belonging. In interdisciplinary venues, this strategy can backfire. If your tone suggests that only insiders are welcome, you will lose many of the readers you are trying to reach. Instead of using obscurity to display expertise, try to show expertise by making difficult ideas easier to understand. A concept that you can explain clearly to a non-specialist is a concept you truly understand.

Clarity does not mean dumbing down. You can still introduce advanced ideas, but you do so in stages, anchoring them in concrete examples and stating explicitly why they are important. For instance, rather than opening with a dense block of theory, you might describe a real-world problem that all your readers can recognise and then explain how a specific theoretical lens helps to make sense of that problem.

2.2. Balance hedging and commitment

Some disciplines hedge heavily, filling sentences with “may”, “might” and “could indicate”. Others allow more direct statements of results. In an interdisciplinary setting, both extremes can cause problems. If your writing never makes a clear claim, readers may feel that there is nothing solid to take away. If your writing makes very strong claims while using modest data, readers from more cautious fields may feel that you are overreaching.

A practical approach is to be explicit about the scope of your claims. You can signal that your conclusions are grounded but bounded. Phrases such as “Within this sample…”, “Under the conditions examined here…” or “Our findings provide evidence that…” allow you to take responsibility for what you have actually shown without suggesting that your results automatically generalise everywhere.

2.3. Respect diverse perspectives in your tone

Interdisciplinary work often engages with topics that are also socially or politically sensitive. Your journal may attract readers from disciplines that have developed careful ethical vocabularies for discussing such topics. Avoid caricaturing other fields or presenting your approach as definitively superior. Instead, frame your work as a contribution to an ongoing conversation in which multiple perspectives are necessary. Simple choices such as acknowledging contributions from other methods and citing work outside your own discipline can convey respect without adding long digressions.

3. Handling Terminology: Jargon, Definitions and Shared Language

Terminology is a common source of friction in interdisciplinary publishing. The same term can have different meanings in different fields, and different terms can be used for what is essentially the same concept. Without careful attention, this can lead to confusion and misinterpretation.

3.1. Identify discipline-specific language

As you revise your manuscript for an interdisciplinary journal, read through it with an eye for words and phrases that might not travel well. Theoretical labels, method names, abbreviations and statistical jargon often fall into this category. If a concept is central to your argument, err on the side of briefly explaining it rather than assuming everyone will understand it in the same way you do.

3.2. Provide concise definitions and signposting

A brief definition when a term first appears can prevent confusion later. It also signals that you recognise the diversity of your readership. The definition does not need to be long; one or two clear sentences are often enough. You can then use the term freely, knowing that readers have been given the necessary orientation.

3.3. Avoid unnecessary acronyms

Acronyms are tempting because they save space, but they also demand additional effort from the reader, who must remember what each one stands for. In interdisciplinary articles, where readers are already processing unfamiliar concepts, acronyms can become especially burdensome. Reserve acronyms for cases where they genuinely improve readability, and avoid creating new short forms for concepts that appear only occasionally.

3.4. Be explicit about contested terms

Some terms are contested even within a single field, and their meanings can shift as they move across disciplines. If you know that a term carries different connotations in different literatures, acknowledge this openly and state how you are using it. For example, you might note that policy documents use a term differently from academic research and explain which usage your article adopts. This kind of self-awareness builds trust and helps prevent misunderstandings.

4. Structuring Argumentation for Interdisciplinary Readers

Argumentation is the way you guide readers from your research problem to your conclusions. In an interdisciplinary journal, your argument must be accessible to people whose training leads them to expect different structures. Some will look for a clear hypothesis-testing framework; others will expect a narrative that develops ideas through qualitative evidence; others still will be comfortable with design-oriented or theoretical arguments.

4.1. Start from a shared problem, not a disciplinary niche

One effective strategy is to begin with a problem that any informed reader can recognise, such as the difficulty of implementing guidelines in busy clinical settings, the challenge of communicating risk to diverse publics or the complexity of coordinating actors in a sustainability initiative. Framing your work in terms of such a shared problem invites readers in before you introduce the specialised concepts that your particular discipline brings to the issue.

4.2. Make the logic of your design explicit

Regardless of method, readers need to understand why your approach is appropriate to your question. Instead of assuming familiarity with your research tradition, explain in plain language what your design allows you to know, and what it does not. If you use qualitative interviews, clarify whether you aim to explore meanings, generate hypotheses or evaluate experiences, rather than estimate prevalence. If you run a simulation, explain what aspects of reality it abstracts away from and why those simplifications are acceptable for your purposes.

4.3. Layer your argument

Because your audience is mixed, consider building your argument in layers. The main thread of the paper—typically the introduction and conclusion—should be understandable to any reader who has a general interest in the topic. Within that frame, you can add methodological and theoretical depth in dedicated sections for specialists. This way, readers who are mostly interested in implications can still follow the gist, while those who care about methodological detail can find what they need without becoming lost in technicalities that are never explained.

4.4. Connect back to multiple literatures

When you discuss your findings, avoid treating your home discipline as the only audience that matters. Instead, signpost explicitly how your work speaks to at least two communities. You might note how your results confirm or complicate assumptions in one field while offering new questions or tools for another. These explicit connections show editors and reviewers that you understand the journal’s interdisciplinary remit and that your article genuinely belongs there.

5. Practical Steps When Drafting for an Interdisciplinary Journal

Conceptual advice is useful, but you also need concrete strategies you can apply when you sit down to write or revise. One helpful practice is to identify, early on, the communities you are writing for. Imagine an ideal reader from each of these groups—a sociologist, a clinician, a computer scientist—and periodically ask yourself whether each of them would understand the paragraph you have just written.

5.1. Identify primary and secondary audiences

It can be helpful to distinguish between a primary audience (the group you most want to reach) and one or more secondary audiences (groups that might benefit but are not the core target). You can then ensure that the primary audience’s needs are fully met while still offering enough explanation and context for the others. Keeping these audiences in mind prevents you from writing only for people like yourself.

5.2. Choose an appropriate journal and read recent articles

Each interdisciplinary journal has its own culture. Some lean toward methods and theory, others toward application and policy. Before submitting, read several recent articles, paying attention not just to their topics but to how they are written. Notice where authors explain terms, how much background they provide and how they structure their arguments. Use these observations to guide the level of detail and the tone of your own writing.

5.3. Draft naturally, then revise for accessibility

For your first draft, it can be helpful to write in the way that feels most natural for your own discipline. This allows you to get your ideas onto the page without self-censoring. During revision, you can then deliberately reshape the text for a mixed audience: adding definitions, clarifying transitions, expanding explanations of methods and trimming highly specialised digressions that may not serve the wider readership. Revision is where you transform a disciplinary manuscript into an interdisciplinary one.

5.4. Seek feedback from outside your field

Feedback from colleagues in other disciplines is invaluable. Ask them to read at least your introduction and conclusion and to mark any areas that feel confusing, unconvincing or overly dense. Their questions will reveal assumptions you did not realise you were making. Professional editing can also help refine tone and terminology for mixed audiences. Services like manuscript editing and journal article editing can provide an external perspective that is sensitive to both disciplinary nuance and interdisciplinary clarity.

6. Responding to Reviewers from Multiple Disciplines

Interdisciplinary journals often use reviewers from different fields. One may focus heavily on methodological detail, another on theoretical framing and another on practical relevance. Their concerns may differ sharply and sometimes even appear to conflict. This can feel disorienting, but it is also an opportunity to improve your article for a broader audience.

When you receive the reviews, read them once without reacting, then return later to identify themes. If both reviewers, despite disciplinary differences, ask for clearer definitions or stronger justification of methods, that is a signal that the manuscript needs more foundational explanation. When comments differ, use your response letter to explain how you balanced them. You might note, for example, that you strengthened the theoretical section as requested by one reviewer while keeping the structure concise enough to remain accessible, as emphasised by another. Editors appreciate authors who treat interdisciplinary reviews as a chance to refine the paper rather than as a set of competing demands.

7. Common Pitfalls to Avoid

7.1. Assuming everyone shares your reference points

One common pitfall is writing as though names, debates and methods from your discipline are obviously familiar and important to everyone. Dropping specialised references without context forces readers either to search for explanations elsewhere or to disengage. When in doubt, add a short phrase explaining why a reference matters or how it relates to your argument.

7.2. Overloading the paper with every possible literature

Another trap is trying to cover too many fields at once, in the hope of satisfying all potential reviewers. This can lead to a literature review that is long but shallow, and to a paper that feels unfocused. It is more effective to choose a limited set of literatures that are central to your question and to engage with them carefully, while being honest about what you have left aside.

7.3. Neglecting structure in favour of novelty

Interdisciplinary work often arises from creative combinations of ideas, but novelty alone is not enough. Readers still rely on structure to guide them. If your manuscript jumps between disciplines without clear signposting, or if it presents theoretical insights without grounding them in methods and results, readers may struggle to see the value. A clear, well-marked structure is not a constraint on creativity; it is the framework that allows creativity to be understood.

7.4. Treating one discipline as “serving” another

Finally, be careful about language that positions one discipline as subordinate or secondary. Suggesting that one field merely provides tools for “real” science in another can alienate readers and reviewers. Instead, emphasise how different disciplines contribute complementary strengths: one may bring rich contextual understanding, another rigorous statistical techniques, another design expertise. Interdisciplinary journals exist precisely to make these combinations visible.

Conclusion: Writing Across Boundaries Without Losing Yourself

Writing for interdisciplinary journals requires intentional adaptation—adjusting tone, terminology and argument so that your work becomes legible, persuasive and useful to more than one intellectual community. This adaptation is not about diluting your expertise or hiding your disciplinary identity. It is about making your expertise available to others who might think differently but care about the same broad problems.

When you take the time to explain key concepts, justify methods for non-specialists, frame your question in terms that resonate across fields and address implications for more than one audience, you position your work to travel. That travel can open doors: to new collaborations, to broader impact and to a more integrated understanding of complex issues that no single discipline can solve alone.

If you want support refining an interdisciplinary manuscript for a mixed audience, our journal article editing, scientific editing and academic proofreading services ensure clarity, accuracy and coherence across disciplinary boundaries, helping your work reach the widest and most appropriate readership.