Every now and again, you see a critique of a manuscript that brings you up short and makes you go “Huh”.
A student of mine defended her thesis a while ago, and one of her examiners commented on one of her chapters that “the Results section is too short”*. Huh, I said. Huh.
I’m quite used to seeing manuscripts that are too long. Occasionally, I see a manuscript that’s too short. But this complaint was more specific: that the Results section in particular was too short. I’d never heard that one, and I just couldn’t make sense of it. Or at least, not until I realized that it fits in with another phenomenon that I see and hear a lot: the suggestion that nobody should ever, ever do their statistics in Excel. Continue reading
Image: The PhD monomyth. Compare with the monomyth narrative structure, the Hero’s Journey (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero’s_journey). Adaptation by J. Drake.
This is Part II of a guest post by Joe Drake, a PhD student in the Department of Environmental Conservation at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Part I is here. Joe’s own blog is The Secret Life of a Field Biologist, and you can email him at email@example.com.
Part II: In which our hero returns…. “enlightened”?
Our story up to now: I am a student learning how to write (and to do science, which involves a batch of writing). I haven’t been very good at it, and I’m still not that great, but through valiantly misguided (misguidedly valiant?) efforts, I’m here telling you how I’ve started to get better. Perhaps this will help you too (for more details see part 1). Continue reading
Image: The monomyth narrative structure – the Hero’s Journey. Public domain, by David Richfield, via en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero’s_journey
This is a guest post by Joe Drake, a PhD student in the Department of Environmental Conservation at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Joe’s own blog is The Secret Life of a Field Biologist, and you can email him at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Part I: In Which Our Hero Enters the Wilderness
Do you know what was one of the most stupid things I ever said I could do? Start and then finish an NSF proposal over the course of a winter break. My advisor and I sat down the day before leaving and hammered out a wonderful conceptual model for our project and eventual proposal. We created Google docs to work from. We were excited. We had a great idea. I said that I’d have a draft in two weeks. I was an idiot. Continue reading
Image: Western Australia, © TUBS via commons.wikimedia.org CC BY-SA 3.0
Because no point of writing pedantry is too trivial to catch my eye – and my friends know it – I was asked for advice last week about when to capitalize directional modifiers of place names. Should one write “western Australia” or “Western Australia”; “northern Ireland” or “Northern Ireland”; or “the northwestern Atlantic” or “the Northwestern Atlantic”? I know, the Progress of Science and Civilization doesn’t rest on our getting this right, but it’s a question that comes up from time to time, and if you’ve ever been unsure, read on.
I turned to my trusty shelf of writing books to back up my intuition. Continue reading
Image: something I wrote recently. If you’re a sharp-eyed reader of the blog and think you know what it is, make a guess in the Replies. Although the only prize is my admiration.
Nearly every source of writing advice agrees on one thing: brevity is good. My own book, The Scientist’s Guide to Writing, is no exception; I devote an entire chapter to brevity. There are good reasons for this. Longer papers ask more of their readers’ limited time budgets and seem, likely as a direct result, to have less citation impact. Journals have limited space and would rather publish more papers than longer ones*. In general, shorter texts and simpler sentences are easier to understand. And most writers need to shorten their first drafts – and most find this a challenge (as Blaise Pascal noted in his famous letter, “I’ve made this letter longer than usual; I haven’t had time to make it shorter**”).
But just in the last year or two, I’ve backed off my fanaticism about brevity just a bit. Continue reading
How should you handle a useless review? I don’t mean one that’s actively idiotic, but a review that’s superficial, misunderstands the manuscript, is positive but lukewarm, or otherwise just doesn’t seem to point to any avenues for improvement. Perhaps it’s this gem:
This study seems competently executed, and most of the writing is pretty good. A few analyses could benefit from more modern approaches. However, in the end I’m unconvinced of its importance.*
Let’s start with how not to handle a useless review. Continue reading
Photo: The Dark Half, and Heard and Kitts 2012 Evolutionary Ecology 26:879
Do Stephen King and I have the same job, or different jobs?
This is, in one sense, a silly question with an obvious answer. Stephen King is a popular-fiction writer, and I’m a scientist. Stephen King’s job is to generate novels about the world as it isn’t, while my job is to generate understanding of the natural world as it is. Clearly, Stephen King and I have different jobs.
At least, that’s how I would have answered my silly question early in my career. Continue reading