Journal Article•
The Science of Scientific Writing
TL;DR: The authors argue that complexity of thought need not lead to impenetrability of expression, and demonstrate a number of rhetorical principles that can produce clarity in communication without oversimplifying scientific issues.
Abstract: Science is often hard to read Most people assume that its difficulties are born out of necessity, out of the extreme complexity of scientific concepts, data and analysis We argue here that complexity of thought need not lead to impenetrability of expression; we demonstrate a number of rhetorical principles that can produce clarity in communication without oversimplifying scientific issues The results are substantive, not merely cosmetic: Improving the quality of writing actually improves the quality of thought
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Is the ambiguous use of the term resistance justified and appropriate, although it might be misleading biomedical researchers, the media, policy makers and possibly attending physicians?
11 citations
TL;DR: WriteSim TCExam is the first Web-based, open-source textual simulation environment designed to complement traditional scientific writing instruction and has been used to train 25 novice researchers in scientific writing to date.
Abstract: Background: The ability to write clearly and effectively is of central importance to the scientific enterprise. Encouraged by the success of simulation environments in other biomedical sciences, we developed WriteSim TCExam, an opensource, Web-based, textual simulation environment for teaching effective writing techniques to novice researchers. We shortlisted and modified an existing open source application - TCExam to serve as a textual simulation environment. After testing usability internally in our team, we conducted formal field usability studies with novice researchers. These were followed by formal surveys with researchers fitting the role of administrators and users (novice researchers) Results: The development process was guided by feedback from usability tests within our research team. Online surveys and formal studies, involving members of the Research on Research group and selected novice researchers, show that the application is user-friendly. Additionally it has been used to train 25 novice researchers in scientific writing to date and has generated encouraging results. Conclusion: WriteSim TCExam is the first Web-based, open-source textual simulation environment designed to complement traditional scientific writing instruction. While initial reviews by students and educators have been positive, a formal study is needed to measure its benefits in comparison to standard instructional methods.
11 citations
30 Aug 2019
TL;DR: The authors explored two forms of intersentential relations in a paragraph: one is a human-created linguistical relation that forms a structure (e.g., discourse tree) and the other is a relation from latent representation learned from the sentences themselves.
Abstract: Generating a long, coherent text such as a paragraph requires a high-level control of different levels of relations between sentences (e.g., tense, coreference). We call such a logical connection between sentences as a (paragraph) flow. In order to produce a coherent flow of text, we explore two forms of intersentential relations in a paragraph: one is a human-created linguistical relation that forms a structure (e.g., discourse tree) and the other is a relation from latent representation learned from the sentences themselves. Our two proposed models incorporate each form of relations into document-level language models: the former is a supervised model that jointly learns a language model as well as discourse relation prediction, and the latter is an unsupervised model that is hierarchically conditioned by a recurrent neural network (RNN) over the latent information. Our proposed models with both forms of relations outperform the baselines in partially conditioned paragraph generation task. Our codes and data are publicly available.
11 citations
TL;DR: The study showed although there were strong aspects, the contribution to the literature and limitations of studies were only included in some of the Turkish PhD dissertations; however, they were included in the majority of American PhD Dissertations.
Abstract: In academic studies, the discussion section is important in which the effect of the results of the study on the existing literature is highlighted and interpreted. The aim of the current paper is to compare the discussion sections of Turkish and American PhD dissertations in the field of Educational Technologies, taking into consideration the basic features that should be found in an effective discussion section. For this purpose, a content analysis was carried out using a checklist developed to examine the basic components, the presentation of the results, the interpretation of the results, and the overall language of 120 PhD dissertations published in this field. The study showed although there were strong aspects, the contribution to the literature and limitations of studies were only included in some of the Turkish PhD dissertations; however, they were included in the majority of American PhD dissertations. Almost all of the dissertations explained the findings and their significance; however, there was no emphasis on the significant and interesting findings in Turkish PhD dissertations. The number of pages of the discussion section in Turkish and American PhD dissertations was almost the same, and the relationship between the number of pages of the discussion section and the quality of the discussion section was rather weak in the dissertations from both countries. The results obtained from the study were evaluated in general and suggestions to consider when writing the discussion section are given.
10 citations
Cites background or result from "The Science of Scientific Writing"
...In addition to the criteria listed in Table 1, there are some other principles to be taken into consideration in terms of the language of the discussion section (Borja 2015; Day 1996; Ekmekçi and Konaç 2009; Gopen and Swan 1990; Hyland 2002; Turbek et al....
[...]
...It is also emphasized in the literature that the results of unpublished studies have to be presented in past tense, whereas those of the previously published work should be given in present tense (Day 1996; Gopen and Swan 1990)....
[...]
...According to Gopen and Swan (1990), in reporting scientific research, authors should adopt a concise approach avoiding overlong sentences....
[...]
...Authors should use present tense when referring to the results of previous studies since the results of published studies are considered as scientific knowledge (Day 1996; Gopen and Swan 1990)....
[...]
...Indeed, it is very important in academic writing to explain items clearly, not to write a long story, since the focus is on transferring scientific knowledge (Jenicek 2006; Kallestinova 2011; Gopen and Swan 1990)....
[...]
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: Some useful guidelines on technical writing are summarized, including current references on each topic that is discussed, for authors who seek to improve the clarity and readability of their papers in the Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference.
Abstract: As an aid to authors who seek to improve the clarity and readability of their papers in the Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, this paper summarizes some useful guidelines on technical writing, including current references on each topic that is discussed. 1 OUTLINE OF KEY CONSIDERATIONS Writing a clear, readable exposition of complex technical work is at least as difficult as doing the work in the first place. Given below is an outline of key considerations to bear in mind during all stages of writing a paper that will be reviewed for possible presentation at the Winter Simulation Conference (WSC) as well as publication in the Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference. For questions about these guidelines, please send e-mail to jwilson@ncsu.edu or contact the Proceedings Editors. I. Organizing the paper (what to do before beginning to write) A. Analyze the situation—that is, the problem, the solution, and the target audience. 1. Formulate the objectives of the paper. 2. Specify the scope of the paper’s coverage of the subject and the results to be discussed. Orient the paper toward the theme of your session as indicated either by the title of your session or by the instructions of your session chair. Also take into account the type of track—tutorial, methodology, or application. 3. Identify the target audience and determine the background knowledge that you can assume for this particular group of people. Introductory tutorials are generally attended by newcomers who are interested in the basics of simulation. Advanced tutorials are designed to provide more experienced professionals with a thorough discussion of special topics of much current interest; and some special-focus sessions in this track are designed to provide experts with an overview of recent fundamental advances in simulation theory. Methodology sessions are attended by professionals who have at least an undergraduatelevel background in computer simulation techniques. In the application tracks, session attendees are generally familiar with the application area covered by their session.
10 citations
References
More filters
Book•
07 Aug 2002TL;DR: The Style: Ten Lessons in clarity and grace as mentioned in this paperocusing on the single most serious problem that mature writers face: a wordy, tangled, too-complex prose style, is a useful resource for any mature writer.
Abstract: In his preface, Joseph M. Williams says that Style: ten lessons in clarity and grace focuses on “the single most serious problem that mature writers face: a wordy, tangled, too-complex prose style.” His book deals with that problem admirably. Indeed, the advice and examples furnished by Williams are varied and sophisticated enough to make it a useful resource for any mature writer — even the mature writer whose prose is clear and concise.
381 citations