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.
|Published (Last):||7 June 2005|
|PDF File Size:||12.99 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.1 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Joshya saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Writing Science by Joshua Schimel. As a scientist, you are a professional writer: Success isn’t defined by writinf papers into print, but by getting them into the reader’s consciousness.
Writing Science is built upon the idea that successful science writing tells a story.
Book Review: Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded
It uses that insight to discuss how to write more effectively. Integrating lesso As a scientist, you are joshuaa professional writer: Integrating lessons from other genres of writing with those from the author’s years of experience as author, reviewer, and editor, the book shows scientists and students how to present their research in a way that is clear and that will maximize reader comprehension.
The jishua 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. It begins by building core arguments, analyzing why some stories are engaging and memorable while others are quickly forgotten, and proceeds to the elements of story structure, showing how the structures scientists and researchers use in papers and proposals fit into classical models.
The book targets the internal structure of a paper, explaining how to write cshimel and professional sections, paragraphs, and sentences in a way that is clear and compelling. The ideas within a paper should flow seamlessly, drawing readers along. The final section of the book deals with special challenges, such svience how to discuss research limitations and how to write for the public. Writing Science is a much-needed guide to succeeding in modern science.
Its insights and strategies will equip science students, scientists, and professionals across a wide range sciehce scientific and technical fields with the tools needed to communicate effectively. Paperbackpages.
To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Writing Scienceplease sign up.
Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded
Lists with This Book. Feb 14, Pham rated it it was amazing. To be precise, this book does contain a lot of advices on how to write, but these advices secondarily come from a foundation which is much deeper and far greater: The best books transform not only the way we practice a subject, but also the way we think about it.
With the sciencce philosophy, even an ordinary person can do extraordinary works. Jan 04, Willem rated it it was amazing Shelves: As a scientist, you are a professional writer. Applying the tools of the writer will improve both your writing and your science.
Feb 11, Tom joshia it really liked it. Overall a great book and also in line mostly with my advisor’s thinking on the matter. I learned a lot and clarified a lot in my thinking. I’ll focus here on some concerns, but overall just make sure to read this book if you need to write science. Also, sometimes my lack of familiarity with particular fields did get in the way.
But not too much. Leaving out the issue of the dynamics of the abstract is a bit odd, I think, sinc Overall a great book and also in line mostly with my advisor’s thinking on the matter. Leaving sceince the issue of the dynamics of the abstract is a bit odd, I think, since that’s really how people get into a paper.
On the little things, one thing I’ve decided is that saying “not X” is less than ideal. People have a way of overlooking negation. In one example in the book, Schimel left a revised sentence wgiting in “not conclusive” or something like that. At the end, “not” might scihmel more noticeable, but I’d recommend “inconclusive” even as a longer word.
Also, in my discipline computer science, artificial intelligence, machine learning, roboticsconferences matter a lot, and the paper is only one component of getting citations. Citations might matter a lot more on the presentation although I don’t know statisticsso schimwl small audience of the sciene is what matters.
In this sense, papers become perhaps more like proposals. Seeing an experienced analysis of the dynamics in this world would be nice. Also, how to maximize overall effectiveness where writing is one still important component. Finally, this review like all my others is a hack first draft not trying to be formal at all. So don’t judge the book by any flaws in my writing here.
I definitely expect to review the recommendations of this book in my future writing and editing. Dec 06, Anarmaa rated it it was amazing. This is not a fiction book you read before you go to bed.
It is one of the “boring” science related books; probably more aimed towards people who just started their career in science as PhD students. However, this book impressed me by its clear messages and very engaging writing style. This main message clearly stuck in my head. 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.
Author does not just plainly said so, he eloquently “told” his “story” about “story telling” with well chosen examples from published articles and enriched it with his extensive experience in reviewing numerous grant proposal and papers.
He didn’t stopped with only “story telling”; he represented techniques how to do in the second part of his book. Overall this was probably the best written book on this subject by not only its schimdl, but also its writing style.
Therefore I would definitely recommend this book to read. May 10, Amanda Nelson rated it it was amazing. I appreciated this book much more than I thought I would. It not only made me feel better about my more common writing mistakes by noting that I am not alone, it gave me methods to fix them.
Writting knew I had issues with “the big picture” and “telling the story. I have already recommended this book to both my advisors and several fellow students, which is probably I appreciated this book much more than I thought I would.
I have already recommended this book to both my advisors and several fellow students, which is probably the best review I can give. Oct 20, Andrew Childers rated it really liked it. I suggest this book to anyone who sciencce in the sciences. The principles of writing in this book could apply more widely, but the content is geared to science writing. Though Schimel has clear and interesting style, I found it a wrkting of a chore to read through to the end.
There’s just a lot to consider when writing. It’s totally worth the work though; schiimel is the kind of advice that develops an average paper into an inspiring paper assuming you’ve got good science in the first place.
Nov 28, Jiwoonglee rated it it was amazing. Simply great and helpful. Dec 03, Sisi Di rated it it was amazing Shelves: Every time when I submit my papers, reviewers suggest me to have a native check my paper. But it’s not easy to find a professional native who is both good at English writing and familiar with my topic.
The comments just make me confused and anxious since none of them can tell me how to correct a paper by myself. This book saves my papers. I learned that the structure is the soul of a paper rather the language. The OCAR structure clarifies my data, information, knowledge, and understanding. It al Every time when I submit my papers, reviewers suggest me to have a native check my paper. It also works when I read a cited paper. I focus more on the knowledge gap, other than aimless study the data and information.
Dec 24, Colleen rated it liked it. Schimel has some great tips for the scientific writer, but sometimes seems to contradict himself.
He also seems to have very concrete ideas for how a paper should be written, and disapproves of all other styles. If we all wrote like Schimel, papers would be 3 pages long and sciencs nothing but short, powerful sentences.
I found a lot of good ideas that I will definitely incorporate in my own writing, but there were also things I think I shall leave to Schimel for his own. Worth a read, but I wouldn Schimel has some great tips for the scientific writer, but sometimes seems to contradict himself. Worth a read, but I wouldn’t take it as gospel. Dec 06, Bruno rated it it was amazing.
This book is one of the best I’ve ever read. It offers awesome writing tools presented in scbimel remarkably clear and engaging way. It covers all aspects of writing, from designing story structure to the usage of specific words, and everything in between. I recommend it sfhimel to non-scientists. Although some of its chapters focus specifically on writing in science, most sciejce the book is about writing and communicating in general.