“Let the Project Speak for Itself” — on the Impersonal Voice in Academic Writing

In the world of research you might impressed with a brilliant app prototype, a machine-learning algorithm, or a sociological experiment, yet the written word still makes the first impression. The grammatical forms you choose determine whether a reviewer sees a factual research report or a suggestive, subjective account of personal achievements. Sooner or later every author encounters the request: “Please rewrite the text in the impersonal voice.”

What Is the Impersonal Voice and Why Does It Matter?

The impersonal construction—sentences beginning with verbs like was developed, was analysed, was confirmed—deliberately removes the actor from center stage and focuses the reader on procedure and result. Most respected style guides for academic writing, both Polish and international (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style, the Publication Manual of the APA, and numerous practical handbooks for early-career scholars) treat this device not as a stylistic whim but as a tool that guarantees clarity and objectivity.

In practice the goal is for the reviewer to focus on what was done and what the findings mean, rather than who did it. Empirical disciplines (natural, physical, and technical sciences) emphasize that impersonal phrasing reduces the risk of attributing authority to the researcher instead of judging the method.

In academic evaluation system there is also a pragmatic motive: the impersonal voice aligns naturally with the IMRaD structure [1], which reviewers expect by default. A manuscript written this way instantly “fits” editorial and referee expectations, regardless of the field. 

Benefits (Almost) Everyone Will Notice

• Consistent, neutral tone — supervisors and reviewers read the same clear sentence pattern.

• Easier article classification — a manuscript on VR or algorithm analysis written impersonally is readily categorized as a “research article” rather than popular science.

• Better indexing — abstract-extraction algorithms more readily capture sentences whose subject is the action or result, not the author.

When First-Person Language Can Hurt You

• Risk of journal rejection — frequent “I believe” or “I designed” sounds like an op-ed (opinion editorial), not a research report.

• Problems with double-blind review — references to “my lab” reveal the author’s identity.

• Popular-science impression — the text starts to read like a social-media post instead of a peer-reviewed article.

Some international styles (e.g., APA 7) allow first-person pronouns to enhance clarity, but even their advocates admit that the traditional avoidance of I/we arose from the pursuit of research impartiality [2].

Popular ≠ Scholarly — Differences at a Glance

Criterion	Research Article	Popular-Science Piece
Goal	Tests a hypothesis and must be reproducible [3]	Inspires and disseminates knowledge
Structure	IMRaD	Free narrative with anecdotes
Grammatical person	Impersonal or third person	First person (storytelling)
Evidence	Charts and statistics	Real-life examples

Correct Uses of the Impersonal Voice

• The aim of the study is to determine the effect of background contrast on user reaction time in a mobile app.

• The algorithm was classified as a recurrent neural network and was tested on the IMDB dataset.

• A 12 % increase in CTR was observed after switching to a high-contrast colour palette.

Common Mistakes — and How to Fix Them

First-Person Error	Proper Impersonal Form	What Changed?
“I redesigned the interface …”	“The interface was redesigned …”	verb in -ed / was …-edform
“I believe the animation is smooth.”	“The animation’s smoothness was deemed satisfactory.”	removed “I believe”
“I found a drop in user satisfaction.”	“A drop in user satisfaction was found.”	undefined actor
“Our study showed that …”	“The study showed that …”	trimmed “our”
“In my opinion the pictograms are legible.”	“Pictogram legibility was rated high.”	noun + predicate

How to Perform a Quick Edit

1. Search the document for endings like -ed, we, or phrases such as “I believe”, “I think”.

2. Replace them with passive or impersonal constructions (“the analysis showed”).

3. Read aloud; if the sentence sounds too passive, move the verb closer to the start.

Conclusion

Whether you’re describing an AR poster, a new compression algorithm, or a comparative literature review, the impersonal voice puts the evidence—not the author—at center stage. This lets reviewers judge method and results fairly, while your text moves smoothly from design to computer science to digital humanities.

Finally, reread the Introduction (whether it’s an article or another academic work, such as a bachelor’s, master’s, or engineering thesis). If it reads like an objective action plan, the goal has been achieved. At that point you can confidently say … “Mission accomplished.”

Author Grzegorz Grodner, PhD

---

Notes: [1] IMRaD — acronym for Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion; a four-part standard layout for research articles.

[2] “First-person pronouns in scientific articles,” A Brilliant Mind blog, https://abrilliantmind.blog/first-person-pronouns-in-scientific-articles/.

[3] Reproducibility means any competent researcher, using the same materials and procedures, can (a) repeat every step of the study, (b) obtain results consistent within acceptable error, and (c) verify the author’s conclusions.