scientific writing

Dry. Boring. Niche Vocabulary words.

These are legitimate complaints about scientific writing, but not legitimate criticisms. The issue at hand is that when scientists write these articles and papers they are writing for an audience of other scientists, and thus assuming that the reader is bringing with them a base level of knowledge on the subject and is in all likelihood another scientist in the same field.

Also, the gruesome process of peer review removes most all shreds of "personality" from publication papers.

What is Peer-Review:?

Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field.(linfo.org)

What this means in science is that once you submit your article or ideas for peer consumption you should be prepared to have every assertion, method, and idea criticized and analyzed to an extreme standard. Most professors and graduate students describe it as a "hellish" process. This is akin to having your dreams and goals deep fried and dunked in glitter.(thanks Patton Oswalt) The end result will be very sparkly and colorful, but your work won't resemble your original submission once the process is finished.

This is nothing personal or vindictive. Every assertion must be defended. Every statistic must be verified. Every test or procedure must be performable and the results able to be duplicated.

Important Concepts

1. Nothing is ever proven or dis-proven. A given hypothesis or proposition is either supported or contradicted by your observations.

Theory
The concept of supported or contradicted is illustrated by how scientists treat the idea of theory.

Theory: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another(Merriem Webster)
Notable Theories Include:

Germ Theory: We all accept that germs transmit disease. the body of observation and empirical evidence supports it. However, note that it is not referred to as germ law

Gravity: Referred to often as the Law of Gravity. A law is simply a theory that is given elevated after centuries of testing observation and analysis. Anyone who disputes the force of gravity has a lot to explain about how they get their Direct TV signal. Or how we did, or didn't get to the moon. (depending on how crazy you are). Muscles for Christs sake. Gravity is why we have them.

Atomic Theory: Again, not called Atomic Law. Yet our nuclear power plants function. And it's hard to argue against atomic theory in the face of an image like this:


Scientific Journal and Peer Review Writing

Contents of a Scientific Paper: (lifted from abacus.bates.edu)
| Title | Authors and Affiliation | Abstract| Introduction| Methods| Results| Discussion | Acknowledgments| Literature Cited

1. Abstract: An abstract summarizes, in one paragraph (usually), the major aspects of the entire paper. (5 pages)

2. Introduction: Establish the context of the work being reported. "What was I studying? Why was it an important question? What did we know about it before I did this study? How will this study advance our knowledge?" (5 pages)

3. Methods: explain clearly how you carried out your study. (5 pages)

4. Results: without interpretation, in an orderly and logical sequence using illustrative materials. (37 pages)

5. Discussion: Interpret your results in light of what was already known about the subject of the investigation, and to explain any new understanding. (2 pages)

I received an A for my paper and was told it was good work. Which means it would have been torn to pieces in the process of peer review.


A Morphological and Genetic Analysis of the Evolutionary Relationships between Select Species of Cetaceans

Abstract
Students in a Geology class at Georgia Southern University were instructed on basic mammalian skull anatomy and the concepts of cladistic analysis. A data matrix was constructed using morphological characters and combining them with base pair sequences of lactalbumin dna and 12s mitochondrial DNA. A tree is displayed hypothesizing the evolutionary relationships between 13 extinct and extant taxa of the aquatic mammal order cetacea. The examined evidence included 13 casted skulls.



What that means is I got to play with this bad boy who was hanging out in coastal Georgia waters about 45 million years ago. Yes, the data points toward, and it is accepted in the scientific community, that the above pictured Georgiacetus, is an ancestor of modern day whales. That's a cetacean.

I guess what I'm trying to impart is that the dry factual writing of a scientific publication can mislead a reader into thinking that the work is dull and tedious. Uncolorful.

This is what science is reads like:
The novel feature of the structure is the manner in which the two chains are held together by the purine and pyrimidine bases. The planes of the bases are perpendicular to the fibre axis. They are joined together in pairs, a single base from one chain being hydroden-bonded to a single base from the other chain, so that the two lie side by side with identical z-coordinates.
(Watson and Crick, 1953)

And this is what it looks like: