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. by. Joshua Schimel. · Rating details · ratings · 38 reviews. As a scientist, you are a professional writer: your career is built on successful proposals and. In , Joshua Schimel (University of California) published a great book called Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get.

Author: Vurg Tule
Country: Liechtenstein
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Software
Published (Last): 26 March 2009
Pages: 245
PDF File Size: 7.35 Mb
ePub File Size: 17.47 Mb
ISBN: 204-5-60271-937-5
Downloads: 5993
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Faunris

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

In schimrl example in the book, Schimel left a revised sentence ending in “not conclusive” or something like that. Perhaps the editors feel that this approach is too subject to individual interpretation. For that, I would recommend any professor to use it as a guide.

Such problems plague communication and are hard to avoid because it is hard to know what others know and think.

Also, in my discipline computer science, artificial intelligence, joshuq learning, roboticsconferences matter a lot, and the paper is only one component of getting citations. Ebook This title is available as an ebook. The ultimate questions are: Email required Address never made public. I regret that all examples are from explanatory Science Biology, Physics, etc.

Writing Science : Joshua Schimel :

This is the premise which the author, an environmental scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, carries throughout the book. If I choose not to take that advice, it makes me the good guy and helps me push the authors to fix the problems: Whereas Eloquent Science provides guidance about how to write better science, Writing Science provides more specific information about how to employ that guidance, along with plenty of worked examples.

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. The best books transform not only the way we practice a subject, but also the way we think about it. The more difficult call is when a paper has improved, but not enough. Check out the top books of the year on our page Best Books of I have learned a great deal from this book.


I only regret that I did not read this book at the beginning of my Ph. Therefore I would definitely recommend this book to read. Writing Science is built upon the idea that successful science writing tells a story.

How to offer a specific recommendation? Thus, when you are writing a review, the first paragraph s should target the triage decision and frame your argument for whether the paper should be rejected or should move forward in the editorial process. It covers all aspects of writing, from designing story structure to the usage of specific words, and everything in between. Hence submissions have grown faster than published papers—and from the manuscript management and review side, it is submissions that take work and cost money.

This book is set to be used in a course.

I learned that the structure is the soul of a paper rather the language. No matter how good we are, review makes our work better. Jan 31, Rodolfo Souza rated it it was amazing. Mar 20, Gede Budi Suprayoga rated it it was amazing. Book ratings by Goodreads. Give your most honest and accurate assessment but remember that the editor must make the decision and must attach their name joxhua that decision.

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

Author does not just plainly said so, he eloquently “told” his “stor This is not a fiction book you read before you go to bed. Its insights and strategies will equip science students, scientists, and professionals across a wide range of scientific and technical fields with the tools needed to communicate effectively.

The explanation is sufficiently clear.

Relating research to societal challenges seems more challenging in Mathematics for instance, where theories are not directly applicable. The book takes an integrated approach, using the principles of story structure to discuss every aspect of successful science writing, from the overall structure of a paper or proposal to individual sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words. Doing so will make us more effective with each other, with our professional translators science journalists like Kolbertwith policy makers, and with the public.


Their primary focus is teaching and their job is thus much like a professor at a liberal arts college. In that, they are no different than Google, Apple, or Microsoft. Success isn’t defined by getting papers into print, but by getting them into the reader’s consciousness. Authors also increasingly want more services associated scihmel publishing e.

It may not be obvious to them what you mean—you must explain your thinking and educate them. As reviewers, though, just keep pushing—if you read a proposal that you really think deserves funding, say so. The focus is VERY natural sciences heavy which makes it hard to fully impliment if you are not in those fields. The paper might have gotten better, but not enough and the trajectory is looking relatively flat. The takeaways from the book are presented in a straight forward manner that makes it easy to start incorporating the advice directly into your writing, revisions, and editing.

And I’m even willing to believe that an advanced writer can get a great deal out of thinking about what types of plot structures their writing most resembles. The book targets the internal structure of a paper, explaining how to write clear and professional sections, paragraphs, and sentences in a way that is clear and compelling. It is amusing how for people who hope to publish, we are so severe on our audience. Papers often are accepted after a grant has expired and so this situation is not uncommon: Were there three strong proposals about desert soil biological crusts?

In my experience, reviewers are usually right when they identify problems, but are less reliably so in their suggestions for how to fix them.