A Short Course on Scientific Writing - Swinburne University of ...

A <strong>Short</strong> <strong>Course</strong> on Scientific Writing
Assoc. Prof. Clem Kuek
Research & Consultancy Office
This is a short course for the benefit staff and students who:
i. are required to write up experimental reports.
ii. on the verge of writing for journals.
iii. seek a refresher in scientific writing.
iv. teach scientific writing.
Coverage
• Science, scientists & the scientific method
What is science and what are the
behavioural characteristics of scientists?
Scientific writing is within the framework of
objective experimental investigation. The
proper recording of data (results) is the key
to good science. Subsequently, making
sense of the recorded data (discussion) is
insighting which allows science to progress.
• Systematic observation and the nature of
hypotheses.
Understanding the nature of the hypothesis
improves the quality of the Results and the
Discussion sections in scientific writing. It
gives appreciation of the constitutionally
provisional nature of science, and writing
tone should reflect that.
• Karl Popper and falsifiability.
This is a fundamental concept in the
conduct of experimental investigations. It
colors the way that scientific papers are
written.
• The structure of the scientific paper.
The standard format for writing in the
sciences and the purpose of each section.
Most new writers have problems with the
difference between the Results and the
Discussion sections, and what goes into
each.
• Aspects of English in technical writing.
Common convolutions of English, rules in
organising writing, paragraphing are
highlighted. A light-hearted look at
punctuation and newspeak reveal the
danger of loose writing.
• Authorship and Publishing.
The process from who qualifies to be an
author, preparation of manuscript, peer
review, to galley proofs is covered.
Format
1-day course at Swinburne University of
Technology Sarawak Campus.
The following are screen captures of sample slides from the course:
1

a short course on
Scientific Writing
Assoc. Prof. Clem kuek
BSc(Agric)(Hons); PhD; U W Aust
Coverage
• Science/scientists
• The Scientific Method
• The Scientific Paper
• Some aspects of English in technical writing
• Authorship and publishing
Scientists
The Merton-Ziman norms (Anderberg, 1998)
Shared by members of the scientific community.
Communalism
Universalism
Disinterestedness
Originality
Organized Skepticism
1
2
Critical Thinking
(ScrivenScriven & Paul, 1996)
The intellectually disciplined process of
actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying,
analyzing, synthesizing,
and/or
The Scientific Method
(based on material from Wilkinson, 1991 and others)
Observation, hypothesis, and experimentation
• Observations are fundamental to the Scientific Method.
• Formulation of hypotheses is fundamental to making
sense of observations.
evaluating information gathered from, or generated
by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning,
or communication,
as a guide to belief and action.
3
4

Observation
Observation 3
• Science begins and ends with observation.
• Experimentation may follow upon observation,
and it results in further observations i.e. the
results of experimentation.
• Research can be said to consist of systematic
observation.
Jean Louis Théodore Géricault (1821) “The Epsom Derby”
5
6
Observation 4
Observation >>> hypothesis
Something in the water
John Snow
(1813-1858)
The Father of Epidemiology*
*The science that deals with the
incidence, distribution, and control of
disease in a population
J. Cameron (1890) “Great Horses in a Great race”
7
8

Hypotheses and scientific enquiry
hypo = under; thesis = an arranging
Critical to the development of science.
They bridge • the known and unknown,
• and past and future expected observations.
• Hypotheses are tentative, explanatory, interpretative
generalizations about natural phenomena.
• They arise out of past or present observations,
experimentation, and scientific thinking.
• They are subject to confirmation or verification, which is done
by testing.
9
Hypotheses 5
The nature of hypotheses
• Hypotheses set up expectations for subsequent
observations.
• They join given conditions to predicted
consequences and are inherently conditional and
predictive.
• Therefore, when accurately stated, they are
predictive if-then statements.
10
Hypothesis 7
Karl Popper and Falsifiability
The less possible it is to disprove a
proposition the more it is capable of
being believed.
A scientific theory or hypothesis has
the important characteristic that it is capable of
being subject to experimentation that could show it
to be untrue i.e. it is falsifiable.
Consider . . .
“There are little green men on the moon,
but when as soon as soon as they are
observed, they turn invisible.”
Is this proposition falsifiable?
11
12

The Scientific Method
Observe some aspect of nature
(a tentative description consistent with the
observations)
Observation
Characteristics of the Method
• Unprejudiced.
Use hypothesis to make predictions
Test predictions (experimentation)
Form hypothesis
Test hypothesis
• Repeatability.
• Conclusions are not subject to influence by state of mind,
religious belief, and/or subject of the investigation.
Return repeatedly to testing
until there are no
discrepancies between theory
and experiment
Accept
New hypotheses
Reject
Other observations
13
14
The Scientific Paper 2
The sections
• Introduction
• Materials and Methods
• Results
• Discussion of Results
• Summary or abstract
The Introduction 2
Structuring the introduction
• Problem >> Background >> Question >> Objective
• Background >> Problem >> Question >> Objective
• Question >> Objective >> Problem >> Background
IMRaD
15
16

Remember falsifiability?
A scientific theory or hypothesis has
the important characteristic that it is capable of being
subject to experimentation that could show it to be
untrue i.e. it is falsifiable.
What does this imply for the reporting in
Materials & Methods?
Discussion
Whilst the results are the substance of science, the
discussion allows for the play of ideas that
advance science.
The nature of discussion
1. The objective is to give the research, especially
the results, meaning.
2. Integration of the results, the method, the
related literature, and theoretical context.
17
18
Occam’s s Razor
Oc·cam's razor
Variant(s): also Ock·ham's razor \ä-kəmz-\
Function: noun
Etymology: William of Occam
Date: circa 1837
“A scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be
multiplied unnecessarily.
Interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing
theories be preferred to the more complex or that
explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms
of known quantities.”
Summary/Abstract 2
Elements of an effective summary
Broad outline of:
• Why the experiment was done.
• How the experiment was done.
• The main results.
• Main conclusions.
Should be written as a self-supporting section.
Merriam-Webster dictionary
19
20

Citations
Citations serve to:
• acknowledge conflicts with other works
• acknowledge the work of others
• direct the reader to sources of other information
• provide support for views made or positions taken
by one’s own results,
those of others or,
an authoritative statement based on the results of
others.
21
Citations 4
Word choices (after Monash, 2010)
When you agree with an author's conclusions:
Acknowledge; demonstrate; prove; identify.
e.g. Bloggs acknowledges that there may be other factors ...
Bloggs demonstrates this as an additional factor ...
When you disagree:
Confuses; disregards; ignores.
e.g. Bloggs confuses this factor with ...
Bloggs disregards this factor ...
When you feel the author is unsure/unclear; not being explicit:
Suggests; implies; intimates.
e.g. Bloggs implies that this factor is ….
Referring to the information without expressing an opinion:
Notes; proposes; believes.
e.g. Bloggs believes that this factor is ...
Bloggs proposes that this factor is ...
Citations 5
Using evaluative expressions to indicate
your own views of a citation (after Monash, 2010)
The Lab Record Book
The work/study/paper . . .
. . . disregarded . . .
. . . neglected to consider . . .
. . . overlooked . . .
. . . took no account of . . .
. . . was limited to . . .
. . . overestimated . . .
. . . suffered from . . .
• Is a legal document recording your work
• Proof that you conducted the research
Disputes; plagiarism
Some evaluative adjectives
incomplete too general
efficient
reliable
questionable cumbersome
useful
over-simplified
simple
complex
robust
inconclusive
unsatisfactory
comprehensive
• Required to proof right to own a related patent
“First to invent invent”; “first to file file”
24

Common Convolutions of English in Technical Writing 2
Adjectival clusters
• “The The maximum net returns above feed cost ration”.
• “The non-nitrogen nitrogen supplemented group”.
Sentences beginning with subordinate clauses
“Thus, although there were too few plots to show all
of the interactions which we sought [subordinate[
clause],
under the conditions of the experiment [subordinate[
phrase],
copper and zinc acted additively”.
cf. “Thus, copper and zinc acted additively under the
conditions of our experiment although there were ....”.
25
Helpful Rules in Organizing Your Writing
The Power of Position (after Lindsay, 1995)
“Fleming, in 1929, discovered penicillin after a
bacterial plate he was culturing became
contaminated with a spore of the fungus Penicillium.”
Facts conveyed
• The discoverer of penicillin
• The date of the discovery
• The way it came to notice
• The name of the organism involved
• What it contaminated
26
Readability 3
Paragraphing 2
The Fog Index (Gunning, 1952)
Procedure
Take an approx. 100-word sample (including a sentence end).
Count the number of sentences
Count the number of long words.
Fog Index =
Readability
No. of words No. of long words
( No. of sentences ) + ( Total no. of words ) X 0.4
5 Easy
10 More difficult
15 Difficult
20 Very difficult
Paragraphs are used
• to break a large work so that it is easier to absorb.
• to group ideas in a work i.e. a paragraph should contain
sentences expounding the same topic.
• to present a logical progression of ideas (paragraphs).
28

Tone in writing
Effect on citing
Remembering that:
• hypotheses are forever open to disconfirmation.
• science is constitutionally provisional and
uncertain.
We can understand the use of “hedging”.
Hedging is central to effective argument in scientific
writing (Hyland, 1996).
Care must be taken that hedges used in original
writings are not changed when they are cited or
paraphrased.
This has the potential of changing the uncertainty of
past results.
Punctuation: An example
The comma
“A most difficult punctuation mark to use well.
… essential for clear writing …
The person who has learned how to use commas has
learned now to write.”
(Seeley, 1998)
32

Doctors too …
Barriers to starting
(Rememyi
and Money, 2006)
• Not understanding what is required;
• Fear of failure;
• Lack of commitment to the need to publish;
• Lack of support from the institution or the supervisor;
• Poor personal motivation.
http://www.learnenglish.de/mistakes/medicalmistakes.htm
Authorship
Who qualifies?
Australian Code on the Responsible Conduct of Research
Says “… must be based on substantial intellectual contribution
and responsibility for at least part of the work contributed in
any combination of:
• Conception and design of the project;
• Analysis and interpretation of research data;
• Drafting significant parts of the work or critically revising it
so as to contribute to its interpretation.
35
Publishing
The Process
a. Choose journal.
• Scope / coverage
• Indexed?
– Science Citation Index; Social Sciences Index.
• ERA (Excellence in Research for Australia)
ranking?
b. Write.
Follow the instructions to authors
– Format / style
– Length
– Illustrations
– Referencing
– Submission
36

The Process 2
d. Journals receive more manuscripts than they can/will
publish.
Two-step vetting process:
Journal editor decides on suitability
Peer Review 5
Referees are asked to comment on:
• Validity
Are results credible?
Is the methodology appropriate?
• Significance
Is it an important finding?
Reject
Pass on to peer review
(refereeing)
• Originality
Are the results new?
Does the paper give proper credit to the work of others?
• Whether the paper should be:
Published, improved or rejected.
37
38
Galley proofing
Good news
Receive galley proof
Check and return
Await publication
Still good news
Receive manuscript back
with suggested
amendments and
corrections
Fix
40

• March 1937
Krebs made the initial findings which led to the
discovery of the Citric Acid Cycle
• Findings submitted to Nature but his short paper
(a letter) was not published.
• The journal had a letters backlog of 2 months
(Krebs’ letter was not important enough)
• Krebs: “This was the first time in my career, after
having published more than fifty papers, that I
experienced a rejection or semi-rejection.”