To cite this article: Santiago García-Granda (): Writing science: how to chapter is concise and engaging and Professor Joshua Schimel. by. Joshua Schimel. · Rating details · ratings · 38 reviews. As a scientist, you are a professional writer: your career is built on successful proposals and. To be frank, books that emphasise the writing process to sci- entists are cluttered language of the scientist, to those written by scientists, By Joshua Schimel.

Author: Yorn Mezigor
Country: Bulgaria
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Video
Published (Last): 8 June 2012
Pages: 265
PDF File Size: 16.56 Mb
ePub File Size: 11.20 Mb
ISBN: 855-2-87474-972-8
Downloads: 22122
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kagalabar

Such problems plague communication and are hard to avoid because it is hard to know what others know and think. How to offer a specific recommendation? Managing a large technology enterprise, which is necessary to handle the manuscript flow, is expensive. Filed under AcademeLanguage use and abuse.

These can include societal benefits, education, outreach, and a variety of other activities. On the little things, one thing I’ve decided is that saying “not X” is less than ideal. It covers all aspects of writing, from designing story structure to the usage of specific words, and everything in between.

Therefore I would definitely recommend this book to read. It’s slightly biased towards life science. I typically sign those reviews because a I figure it will likely be obvious who wrote it, and b I am willing to open the discussion with the authors: My rating for this book would be higher if I was looking for something to assign for a graduate class, but I’m looking for a book to use in an upper-division class on writing in the sciences instead.

We settled on a compromise: Excellent guide for writing, not only for science. This book saves my papers. I recommend it for any level of writer.

Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. The PIs will see your review, but they are not its audience—the review panel and program officers are. UAF had many older returning students, notably a number of single mothers. Those would probably have rated so regardless of who was serving on the panel and are the true Excellent proposals. Review can be a painful process, but writing science is hard; no one ever gets it completely right on the first shot.


This is not a fiction book you read before you go to bed. Feb 15, Susannah rated it really liked it. But not too much. The implication is still, however, that the effect is dramatic: However, this book impressed me by its clear messages and very engaging writing style.

In that sentence, it was the opening of the investigation that had the impact, and that opening was a single event. Sep 09, Joel rated it it was amazing. But every paper needs at least two reviewers, and sometimes papers need several rounds of review and sometimes the original reviewers are unavailable.

Is the manuscript itself well enough written and argued that with a reasonable level of revision it will likely become publishable?

The ultimate questions are: A paper may have a dataset that is fundamentally publishable but acience analysis or story in such poor shape that it would be best to decline the paper and invest limited editorial resources elsewhere.

If you knew enough to describe exactly what you will do over three years, wruting knew enough to not need to do it! PIs show the novelty of the questions by demonstrating the knowledge gap. As a scientist, you are a professional writer: Exciting questions and no major flaws.

Mar 20, Gede Budi Suprayoga rated it it was amazing. Dec 06, Joe IV rated it it was amazing Shelves: Doing so will make us more effective with each other, with our professional translators science journalists like Kolbertwith policy makers, and with writng public. Nothing is said either about Engineering such as Computer Science or Control Theory where, generally, no hypothesis are formulated.


Be sensitive to those lingering implications, and use your words thoughtfully.

My concern remains the core bottom line for scholars: Jan 04, Willem rated it it was amazing Shelves: I analogized that to battlefield medicine, where the first step is triage: Very useful especially for early-stage scientists, but also seasoned ones would benefit from reading.

Simply great and helpful. When wounded soldiers are brought into a medical unit, busy doctors must separate scienfe is likely to die regardless of what surgeons might do from those who can be saved by appropriate medical care. Sometimes reviews get longer—I have written 6-page reviews, reviews where I wanted to say that I thought the paper was fundamentally interesting and important, but that I disagreed with some important parts of it and that I wcience to argue with the authors about those pieces.

I have already recommended this book to both my advisors and several fellow students, which is probably the best review I can give.

Writing Science – Paperback – Joshua Schimel – Oxford University Press

Trivia About Writing Science: People have a way of overlooking negation. No trivia or quizzes yet. It’s totally worth the work though; this is the kind of advice that develops an average paper into an inspiring paper assuming you’ve got good science in the first place. They have cancelled all evacuation orders for Santa Barbara County and it looks like writinng house should be intact.

The paper is wounded, but savable. This section of the review should focus on identifying places where you think the authors are unclear or wrong in their presentations and mosh, and on offering suggestions on how to solve the problems.

Author: admin