Excellence in Scientific Writing

How the internet is changing reading habits of researchers

2008-06-15T19:22:00.012-06:00

An article in the July/August issue of The Atlantic Monthly entitled, "Is Google making us stupid?" was based in part on a UK study prepared primarily for academic librarians and issued in January 2008. One of the stated goals of the study was to determine whether scholarly research methods for content are changing and, if so, its impact on libraries and publishers.

"The report Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future (PDF format; 1.67MB) shows that research-behaviour traits that are commonly associated with younger users – impatience in search and navigation, and zero tolerance for any delay in satisfying their information needs – are now becoming the norm for all age-groups, from younger pupils and undergraduates through to professors."

Based on longitudinal studies in the UK and the US, the CIBER research team at University College London reported on the need for a new library model due to changes in the way users research material, collaborations with publishers, open-sourcing and the excellent prospects for e-books.

Nicholas Carr, author of The Atlantic article, cautioned that online research may negatively impact the ability to evaluate content:

"The kind of deep reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds. In the quiet spaces opened up by the sustained, undistracted reading of a book, or by any other act of contemplation, for that matter, we make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas. Deep reading, as Maryanne Wolf argues, is indistinguishable from deep thinking."

http://www.bl.uk/news/2008/pressrelease20080116.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

To write or not to write

2008-06-10T16:03:00.004-06:00

Perhaps it's back to the drawing board on these long-term forecasts, eh?

" The AP contacted the emergency management agency in every coastal state from Texas to Maine and asked whether these [six-month] seasonal forecasts play any role in their preparations for the hurricane season. Their response was unanimous: They're a great way to get people thinking about the upcoming season, but that's about it."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080601/ap_on_re_us/hurricane_forecasts

Microsoft provides free access to new WorldWide Telescope

2008-05-14T03:03:00.009-06:00

Microsoft has given us a great gift, the WorldWide Telescope.

"The WorldWide Telescope (WWT) is a step toward the 'democratization' of the conduct of science. The Internet will become, as astronomers put it, 'the world´s best telescope'--a supercomputer at your desktop.

"The mission of the WWT is twofold:

To aggregate scientific data from major telescopes, observatories and institutions and make temporal and multi-spectral studies available through a single cohesive Internet–based portal.
To re-awaken the interest for science in the younger generations through astronomy and new technologies through the virtual observatory of the WWT. This also provides a wonderful base for teaching astronomy, scientific discovery, and computational science".

...

"By connecting to the same source materials that scientists at NASA and Caltech are using for their research, WWT is a powerful 'virtual observatory' for scientists, educators, and the public. Researching the sky as easy as viewing a Web site and is accessible to everyone with an Internet connection.

"WWT also contains features to help you explore the Earth, satellites, such as the Moon, and 360 degree panoramas of Yosemite’s Half Dome and other locations".

http://www.worldwidetelescope.org/whatIs/whatIsWWT.aspx

How you say it can be as important as what you say, according to journal editors

2008-05-08T01:00:00.003-06:00

Excerpt from a letter to an author:

"Both reviewers complained of technical and editorial errors throughout the manuscript. I believe very strongly that it is not the job of scientific reviewers to perform technical editing. Please take pains to make the manuscript as coherent and well written as possible. You may wish to obtain the services of a technical editor before submitting your revision.

"To protect my reviewers, I will read the revision and reject it without further review if it appears that insufficient effort has been applied to the technical editing, organization and presentation of the manuscript".

Jim Hansen, Ph.D.
Editor, Monthly Weather Review
Naval Research Laboratory
Monterey, CA

Open-source access and copyright issues

2008-04-09T02:43:00.001-06:00

Regarding the pros and cons of open-source access to writing, I've heard two sides in the scientific community. One is that scientists need access to the results of each other's work as soon as possible, particularly in a global community. Many prestigious departments and universities have begun permitting papers to be posted on their websites as soon as they are written or vetted by the authors' respective departments. Who becomes known for a discovery first is very important in terms of prestige, honors and possible commercial offshoots. Most academic writing benefits scientists' (and other academics') careers indirectly; they are usually not paid for their writing. In fact, most academic and scientific journals charge them to publish, so much more of their time than they would like to spend goes toward seeking grants to cover such charges.

On the other hand, scientific journals say that the volunteer peer-review process is crucial to maintaining the quality and integrity of research. As for attribution, each journal article includes its submission date as verification in case of a dispute over who discovered a process or phenomenon first. Such journals are already under a great deal of pressure from their members to reduce page charges, particularly for color reproductions of charts, graphs and other illustrations. Some are now discouraging print subscriptions and trying to move individuals and institutions, including libraries, to exclusively electronic subscriptions. Surprisingly, however, publication costs do not decline as much as one might think when paper and postage are eliminated.

Another issue is that papers that are posted before peer review may be revised by the authors as more information is available. This may result in confusion over which results are accurate. The increasing use of multimedia supplements to papers also affects the publishing process. Work that is available electronically can be much richer, in terms of color, video, etc., than what can be economically printed. So a journal's dilemma becomes: Which is the official journal, the print journal academic libraries still subscribe to, or the electronic version? So far, most journals are requiring authors to pay color charges for images to be printed if they want them to be available in color electronically. Resistance to electronic-only subscriptions remains high but is declining as the advantages of cost, speed and supplementary materials are recognized.

The copyright process in scientific journals is different from other publications. Authors must transfer their copyrights to the journals upon submission, but they still retain most rights. Reprints, however, require permission from the journals. Increasingly, U.S. journals are publishing work from abroad, where copyright laws are quite different. Another trend is that many individuals and institutions are collaborating on research and publication of results. Consequently, journals are being driven to change their policies. In 2007, for example, one scientific society that publishes a number of journals began making accepted papers accessible via its website immediately upon acceptance by the peer-review editor, if desired by the author(s). Some accepted papers require considerable post-acceptance editing, which is why the production process can take several months, but at least the meat of the work will be searchable as soon as it has been validated by the peer-review process.

This helps to explain why a substantial number of academics support open-sourcing. Their self-interest is quite different from that of the typical writer. For one thing, most of their work is developed by teams and most articles are co-authored, with any financial benefits shared by their institutions. The sooner their work becomes known, the sooner they receive invitations to speak, inquiries from potential commercial interests, promotions, and funding for further research.

A matter of significance

2008-03-18T22:40:00.007-06:00

The use of the word "significant" in scientific writing poses a unique problem because it is implicitly ambiguous in the term "statistically significant".  While the dictionary definition of "significant" does not necessarily invoke statistical measure, and its synonyms include "notable" and "important", its use in a nonstatistical sense in a scholarly article amounts to a misuse.  

This is especially true when the comparison being made could indeed be tested for statistical significance.  In such a case, the "statistical" modifier should be understood, because a statistical test should be undertaken during any serious analysis.

During broad introductions, the use of "significant" in a nonstatistical sense may be appropriate, although its use should be discouraged.  Elsewhere in scientific writing, it should absolutely be avoided unless a statistical demonstration of significance is offered.  This guideline will disambiguate a term for which there are an ample number of synonyms to be used in cases where statistical significance cannot be shown.

contributed by Dr. Ron McTaggart-Cowan
Numerical Weather Prediction Section
Meteorological Service of Canada
ron.mctaggart-cowan@ec.gc.ca

A new PAC: the Period And Comma manifesto

2008-02-29T13:41:00.006-07:00

One of the frustrations of writers is the differing rules of grammar as used in English-speaking countries. Perhaps the spirit of activism engendered by the election year will stimulate a new PAC: the Period And Comma liberation movement!

Many rules of grammar were created not by writers or editors but by typesetters to accommodate the needs of their equipment. The placement of punctuation is one. While the period and comma appear before the final quotation mark in U.S. style books, other punctuation appears after it. I've adapted an anthem for our new PAC. To join, post a comment.

It's based on "The Internationale", of course! There! I've done it! I placed a comma after a final quotation mark! You, too, can be bold!

Arise, ye writers from your slumbers
Arise, ye prisoners of type
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of tripe.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We'll change henceforth the old tradition
And spurn the rule to win the prize.

So editors, do not dally
Be brave and boldly take a stand
International style unites the human race!
So editors, do not dally
To this fight we must lend a hand
International style unites the human race!

No more deluded by reaction
Tyrants of type we'll heed no more
The writers too will take fast action
They'll say farewell to guides of yore
And if those old style books keep trying
To sacrifice sense to their pride
They soon will see the marks go flying
Illogic we shall nevermore abide!

Let us stand together for tomorrow
International style unites the human race!

No savior on high will deliver
No lord have we in print or year
Our own strong minds the chains must shiver
Chains of handset movable type and fear.
To such silly rules no more we'll hark!
Put the period and the comma
Beyond the final quotation mark!
To one English style we'll say, "Hurrah!"

Let us stand together for tomorrow
International style unites the human race!

Word Choice Influences Readers

2008-02-17T19:35:00.006-07:00

FairerScience.org focuses on gender and science. On this simply written page, the authors contrast the use of different phrases to convey meaning. Their advice is useful to avoid offending or confusing readers or listeners, whether the words represent gender or ethnicity, or even arcane concepts that might be of interest to scientists outside the narrow field of the authors of a paper.

http://www.fairerscience.org/WordsMatter.html

For authors: Tips on responding to reviews

2008-02-09T12:17:00.000-07:00

Dr. Roger Samelson has generously provided these tips to authors of scientific papers as a guide to preparing responses to reviewers' (and editors') comments:

Here's what I would recommend, based on what has been most helpful to me as an editor and reviewer:

1. Identify each conceptually independent reviewer comment in some straightforward way: quote the first few words, refer to numbers if given, etc. In general, don't repeat or quote the entire reviewer comment. Most reviews are best read as a continuous document, and the editor or reviewer will want to refer to the original anyway.

2. For each such comment, list the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript, by section, page number, etc., as specifically as possible. If practical, quote added or edited passages in the response. Avoid general statements, such as "Section X was rewritten to address the reviewer's comments," that give little specific information as to what changes were made and to which paragraphs and sentences.

3. If no revision was made in response to a comment, say that and explain why. Recognize that if a detailed response to a reviewer comment is necessary, the inclusion of at least some portion of the response in the revision is frequently merited, even if it is a rebuttal. Most of the questions that occur to reviewers will occur to other readers.

4. In general, focus on clearly identifying what revisions were made, or requested but not made, and explaining why they were or were not made. Avoid responses that are not clearly tied to specific changes in the text or figures, or that don't specifically rebut certain suggested changes.

5. Include an introductory statement that briefly outlines the main elements of the response, especially if major changes were made, or suggested but not made. This can be helpful simply because it allows the editor or reviewer to estimate quickly how much time the review will take to complete.

Pretty simple, really! In my experience, most authors do it well.

Roger Samelson
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University

http://www.coas.oregonstate.edu/faculty/samelson.html

Why early-career scientists should review papers

2008-02-09T12:10:00.000-07:00

MWR Chief Editor Dave Schultz offers concise tips on reviewing on his blog at http://mwr-editors.blogspot.com.

Weather Coalition Town Hall Meeting 1/22/08

2008-01-18T12:27:00.000-07:00

Is the Weather Enterprise Ready for the Next Administration?

Town Hall Meeting at the AMS Annual Meeting
Tuesday, January 22
7:15-8:15 AM (Light breakfast)
Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, Room 208

The Weather Coalition, an advocacy group composed of members from
industry, academia, and scientific and professional associations, will
hold a Town Hall Meeting to discuss coalition priorities and advocacy
strategies for the second session of the 110th Congress, and the next
Administration.

Climate change issues have gained traction in Congress.  This has
created an important opportunity for the weather enterprise to advance
its agenda – but it will take the active participation of the entire
enterprise to be successful. Legislation of relevance to our community
should move forward next year, including the NOAA Organic Act.  What
issues are important to the weather enterprise in such an act? In this
time of declining budgets, have the following community priorities
changed?

* Restore NOAA budget (FY08 below FY05 levels)
* Pass a NOAA Organic Act (including language to create a Weather
Services Advisory Committee and support for extramural research
partnerships)
* Support the NOAA Profiler Network
* Support for Observing Systems
* Pass Hurricane Research Legislation

This timely discussion will help guide our advocacy efforts for this
year and beyond.  The meeting will include an update by Joel Widder of
Lewis-Burke Associates on the outcome of the FY08 Omnibus Bill for
agencies of importance to our work and a brief presentation by Jack
Fellows on a community transition document.  We urge you to join us
for this heavy discussion and light breakfast!

For more information, contact Laura Curtis at lcurtis@ucar.edu

AMS workshop 1/20/08: Improving your writing skills -- for students and scientists

2008-01-08T23:53:00.000-07:00

Improving Your Writing Skills -- for Students and Scientists
AMS Annual Meeting Student Conference
New Orleans, LA
Sunday, January 20, 2:00-3:30 pm
Location: Room R07
Ernest N. Morial Convention Center
Open to all attendees

presented by Dr. David M. Schultz
Chief Editor, Monthly Weather Review
Professor, University of Helsinki and Finnish Meteorological Institute

AMS journals reject 30% of submitted manuscripts. In this workshop, we will discuss several simple steps that practicing scientists and students can take to write a better scientific document. Whether it is a journal article, grant proposal, class project, or your dissertation, the skills you will learn in this workshop will produce immediate results. Among the items discussed in this workshop that attendees will learn about are:

* the publication process, and how to deal with cranky reviewers and authors
* how to attract an audience to your paper
* organizing a paper for maximum readability
* combating writer's block
* six tips to improve the flow and content of your writing
* shortening your writing and increasing its clarity
* ten rules for effective figures
* specific issues for writing meteorological papers

"The most brilliant Ph.D. thesis ever written in astronomy"

2008-01-08T19:48:00.000-07:00

"The reward of the young scientist is the...thrill of being the first person in the history of the world to see something or to understand something.... The reward of the old scientist is the sense of having seen a vague sketch grow into a masterly landscape.... He may have roughed out part of the design, laid on a few strokes, but he has learned to accept the discoveries of others with the same delight that he experienced in his own when he was young." Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin

Payne-Gaposchkin's Ph.D. dissertation entitled "Stellar Atmospheres, A Contribution to the Observational Study of High Temperature in the Reversing Layers of Stars," was reportedly the best written on astronomy in the entire 20th century, according to noted astronomer Otto Struve. Stellar atmospheres, The Observatory, 1925; Harvard College Observatory, Monographs, no. 1.

Winner of the American Astronomical Society's Henry Norris Russell Prize in 1976, the British-American scientist achieved numerous firsts, including:

first woman to become a full professor at Harvard
first woman to become a department chair at Harvard
first person to receive a Ph.D. in astronomy from either Radcliffe or Harvard
first to show that the sun is composed primarily of hydrogen

For more information, see the website "4000 Years of Women in Science" at
http://www.astr.ua.edu/4000WS/4000WS.html
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/payne2.html

Reduced U.S. funding for scientific research and education imperil budgets for NSF, NASA, NOAA, DOE's Office of Science, and UCAR/NCAR

2008-01-07T03:13:00.000-07:00

The following letter is reprinted with permission of its author to highlight the serious underfunding of scientific research and the need for continuing advocacy.

Dear friends and colleagues,

As you no doubt read over the holidays, Congress has completed and the president has signed into law the federal budget for FY08. While the FY08 process started out with hopes for a strong budget for science, the political differences between the Congress and the Administration led to a collapse in the process which resulted in real reductions in Federal support for research and education. These reductions will likely affect many UCAR and NCAR programs negatively over the rest of the year.

The fiscal year began officially on October 1, 2007. Government agencies were kept operating through continuing resolutions, essentially at FY07 levels. Congress and the White House were $22 billion apart (Congress budgeting the higher numbers) on discretionary spending which includes the budgets for NSF, NASA, NOAA, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. Negotiations between the White House and Congress failed to bring about any compromise, with the president, helped by a core group of Republicans, holding firm to his top line request for overall spending of $933 billion. Given the Democrats’ slim margin of control in Congress, the Congressional leadership was unable to assemble a veto-proof majority and therefore could not overcome the threatened presidential veto of a funding bill that exceeded the president’s request.

NSF was an important part of the Administration’s multi-year American Competitiveness Initiative, and its budget was slated to double over the next several years. The FY08 outcome interrupted that progress and also eliminated improvements for other science agencies. The Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Congressman David Obey (D-WI), indicated that Congress had to restore funding and "fill some of the unacceptable holes" in the President's budget request within an overall budget that essentially freezes discretionary spending. To do this, funding for many of the programs and initiatives supported by industry and the university community were reduced significantly below the levels recommended earlier this year.

NSF’s research budget will increase by only 1.2 percent over FY07, instead of the anticipated 8 percent increase. NOAA’s overall budget is $182 million below FY 2007. Recall that the FY 2007 NOAA budget was more or less frozen at the FY 2006 level. The DOE Office of Science budget received about half of its proposed increase with close to half of that modest increase for special congressional “earmarked” projects. The NASA Science Mission Directorate fares somewhat better with an overall increase of 5.4 percent over the FY07 level. The congressional attempt to supplement the NASA budget by $1 billion failed. For omnibus bill language and details on budget numbers for these agencies, please see the UCAR Government Affairs web site at http://www.ucar.edu/oga/html/budget/index.html.

Unfortunately, FY 2009 is not likely to be much better given the relationship that exists between the Congress and the White House and the fact that this is a Presidential election year. Nevertheless, it is my intent to continue to speak out, mobilize the atmospheric science community and work closely with the rest of the Nation’s research and education enterprise to convince our policy makers of the importance of investing adequately in science in order to meet our economic, environmental and health-related needs of our Nation.

Agencies are now putting together their FY08 work plans based on the new budget numbers and we must be realistic in our expectations given the disappointing outcome of the FY 08 appropriations process. UCAR and NCAR management will meet with agency leadership to continue to communicate and promote the importance of our scientific plans to the greatest extent possible. We will keep you informed of developments.

Sorry for the bad news.

Dr.Richard A. Anthes, President
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colorado

A call for a presidential debate on science and technology

2007-12-31T02:19:00.000-07:00

"Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness," the group Science Debate 2008 is soliciting others to join in a "call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Medicine and Health, and Science and Technology Policy."

Among those supporting the effort are numerous Nobel and Crafoord Laureates, heads of scientific organizations and institutions, leading scientists, government officials, and business and publishing luminaries.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=7

Sri Lanka scientist changes national policy to protect environment and reduce tsunami impact

2007-12-31T01:30:00.002-07:00

Here is a story showing how the initiative of one person can result in life-saving policy changes. Dr. Harindra Joseph S. Fernando is the director of the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Program at Arizona State University and a U.S. citizen born in Sri Lanka. He and his team followed up on information gathered on a family holiday about the destruction of coral reefs off that nation's coast.

By demonstrating that human activity greatly increased the devastation of the 2004 tsunami, they sparked enforcement of laws against coral mining and other environmentally unsafe practices.

Their report was published in the 16 August 2005 issue of Eos, the newspaper of the
American Geophysical Union.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/science/25conv.html?ref=science
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005EO330002.shtml

The curse of expertise

2007-12-31T00:35:00.000-07:00

"As our knowledge and expertise increase, our creativity and ability to innovate tend to taper off....

"[O]nce you’ve become an expert in a particular subject, it’s hard to imagine not knowing what you do.... When it’s time to accomplish a task...those in the know get it done the way it has always been done, stifling innovation...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/business/30know.html?em&ex=1199250000&en=
4b43ce36ce3b24df&ei=5087%0A

1919 paper leads to today’s news feature on Yahoo: "Flu mystery solved"

2007-12-10T23:38:00.000-07:00

Scientists who want to get the results of their work before the public would do well to consider how “Flu mystery solved” became a news feature on today’s Yahoo.

While a newspaper ordinarily reports on current events, a clever writer can leap across a century. The news peg this story hangs on is simple: it's flu season. Key to the article's success are timing, good writing and good science.

The December 10 Yahoo banner linked a reader to Gina Kolata’s story of December 5 in The New York Times, “Study Shows Why Flu Likes Winter.” Kolata relied on a paper that appeared last October in PLoS Pathogens entitled, “Influenza Virus Transmission Is Dependent on Relative Humidity and Temperature.” In the newspaper business, two months is old news.

So how about 88 years? The lead author of the October 2007 study was Peter Palese, who chairs the microbiology department at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. According to Kolata, “the crucial hint that allowed him to do his study came from a paper published in the aftermath of the 1918 flu pandemic” by the American Medical Association in 1919.

That laboratory guinea pigs began to die soon after the long-ago outbreak of influenza in New Mexico inspired Palese and his team to initiate similar experiments in 2006. How they stated their results demonstrates not only a desire to advance science but to be credited with the discovery by their peers:

· “To our knowledge, we demonstrate for the first time that cold temperatures and low relative humidity are favorable to the spread of influenza virus.”

· “We provide direct, experimental evidence to support the role of weather conditions in the dynamics of influenza and thereby address a long-standing question fundamental to the understanding of influenza epidemiology and evolution.”

Kolata addressed the general public differently. She wrote that the virus “is more stable and stays in the air longer when air is cold and dry, the exact conditions for much of the flu season” of November through March.

By comparing Kolata’s and Palese’s articles, one can learn more about writing for different audiences and with different goals. As the authors undertook the process of informing their respective readers about aerosol-transmitted flu viruses, their first consideration may have been to use appropriate vocabulary and structure to communicate their key points.

Both pieces are comprehensible to an educated reader of the publications in which they appeared. The Times piece includes additional interviews and links; the PLoS Pathogens paper is replete with references and figures.

The Gopan and Swan article discussed in the post on this blog of December 5 sets forth guidelines for evaluating figures and other aspects of writing:

Is information placed where a reader would expect to find it?
Newspaper and scientific journal writing follow conventions in placement of elements. A news story is often built on an inverted pyramid with the most important information at the top, and a journal article is divided into sections with subheadings. Did each author confine topics appropriately or does the information jump around confusingly?
Did the author put old information in the topic position and new information in the stress position, and give the reader enough background to understand the new?
Did the author take advantage of the natural structure of thought to lead the reader to key points and control the reader’s perceptions?
Is the most important information in a sentence toward the end, thus giving it the most natural stress?
Is the vocabulary appropriate to the reader?
Does the writing proceed logically or does one sentence contradict another?
Does the verb closely follow the subject?
Does the topic sentence of each paragraph link the preceding and following information, providing perspective and context?
Are hypotheses presented clearly enough to allow the reader to analyze the author's conclusions?
Is the author convincing?

Answering such questions will help authors improve communication by enhancing style and filling in material needed to support conclusions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/health/research/05flu.html?no_interstitial

http://pathogens.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=
10.1371/journal.ppat.0030151

http://www.amstat.org/publications/jcgs/sci.pdf

High school girls win two $100,000 grand prizes in math, science and technology competition

2007-12-09T01:53:00.001-07:00

"Girls swept the top prizes in America’s premier high school science competition for the first time in its nine-year history...as Isha Jain and the team of Janelle Schlossberger and Amanda Marinoff were named $100,000 Grand Prize winners in the 2007-08 Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology," according to the Siemens Foundation.

"Isha Jain, a senior at Freedom High School in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, won the $100,000 scholarship in the individual category for research on bone growth. Janelle Schlossberger and Amanda Marinoff, seniors at Plainview-Old Bethpage John F. Kennedy High School in Plainview, New York, won the $100,000 prize in the team category, which they will share equally, for research on tuberculosis."

"The national finals were judged by a panel of nationally renowned scientists and mathematicians headed by lead judge Dr. Joseph Taylor, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics and James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University."

For details on the winning projects and other Siemens winners, see http://www.siemens-foundation.org/pool/resources_for/press/2007-08_national_
winners.pdf.

MSNBC Chief Medical Editor Dr. Nancy Snyderman also reported on the competition. She noted that more than half of the 2007-2008 finalists were female students. To view the video, see:

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
id/3032118/&fg=&from=00&vid=5a08bd96-dcb0-4355-bf70-4da34c844081&playlist=
videoByTag:mk:us:vs:0:tag:News_Editors%20Picks:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-
1:ind:1:ff:8A

Gopen and Swan: A classic article on scientific writing

2007-12-05T23:40:00.000-07:00

Numerous courses and books on scientific writing in English reference a classic, "The Science of Science Writing," by George D. Gopen and Judith A. Swan, first published in American Scientist (Nov-Dec 1990), Volume 78, 550-558.

In fewer than ten pages, the authors deliver a bouquet of rhetorical principles and techniques that can ensure clarity while avoiding oversimplification. They provide concise examples of the effective use of topic position and stress, placement of old (linkage) information and new information, and how to help readers focus their efforts on understanding content rather than unraveling sentences.

Tossing out a ball of data and analysis is not the same thing as communication, which requires that readers grasp the author’s key points. To be successful, a scientist must follow the same advice given to a salesperson, a labor negotiator or a lecturer: Know your audience. To a writer, this includes understanding the way a reader interprets material.

Relying on research in the fields of linguistics, rhetoric and cognitive psychology, Gopen and Swan state "three rhetorical principles based on reader expectations: First, grammatical subjects should be followed as soon as possible by their verbs; second, every unit of discourse, no matter the size, should serve a single function or make a single point; and, third, information intended to be emphasized should appear at points of syntactic closure."

While no fixed algorithms apply to good scientific writing, the authors believe it is most important to: “Put in the topic position the old information that links backward; put in the stress position the new information you want the reader to emphasize."

By following the natural structure of how readers learn, an informed writer will also identify gaps in the science underpinning the work. As the writer gains more control over how the reader interprets the information, “the structure of the prose becomes the structure of the scientific argument. Improving either one will improve the other.”

http://www.amstat.org/publications/jcgs/sci.pdf

Windows to the Universe - Education & fun for all ages

2007-12-04T02:00:00.000-07:00

This continually updated multimedia site invites adults and children to have fun learning about Earth and space science. Offered in Spanish and English, you will find teacher and parent resources, games, an "ask a scientist" feature, and much, much more.

Tips on testifying at Congressional hearings

2007-12-03T23:58:00.001-07:00

The Office of Governmental Affairs at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) has developed an excellent reputation for providing well-prepared testimony before Congress.

Its website summarizes and presents practical information to help scientists get their message across at www.ucar.edu/oga. Some of the advice comes from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and other resources such as William G. Wells, Jr.'s Working with Congress: A Practical Guide for Scientists and Engineers.

To read an excerpt from this book entitled "The 17 Rules for Working with Congress," visit http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/wwc/rules.htm.

Communicating science to the world - Nanobiotechnology winners

2007-12-02T23:27:00.000-07:00

Throughout the sciences, organizations continually seek new ways to expand awareness of the results of scientific research. An effective means of doing so is to acknowledge the accomplishments of scientists who succeed.

Nano2Life recently awarded prizes to three winners of a competition inviting young scientists to submit articles "outlining their research focus in a manner appealing to the general public."

Christer Spegel of University Lund, Sweden, took first prize for his report on Parkinson's Disease.

Petra Schneider from the University of Kaiserslautern, Germany, was cited for her work in a new environment: cells on surfaces.

Santiago A. Rodriguez-Segui from the Barcelona Science Park in Spain clearly explained key terms regarding stem cells.

According to its website, "Nano2Life is the first European Network of Excellence in nanobiotech supported by the 6th Framework Programme of the EU."

The group includes 23 centers with more than 200 scientists who are developing a virtual European Nanobiotech Institute (EIN) that will focus on "the nanoscale interface between biological and nonbiological entities," e.g., in "integrated novel sensor technologies, health care, pharmaceuticals, environment, security and food safety."

For details and upcoming events, see: http://www.nano2life.org/content.php?id=1

Implicit gender and ethnic biases harm science and technology

2007-12-01T00:27:00.000-07:00

...
"Implicit bias, rather than explicit prejudice, is a major barrier to women's advancement in senior faculty positions at the nation's universities. American science and technology will not reach its full potential unless active efforts are made to address bias and other problems, witnesses concluded at a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Research and Science Education."
...
"[National Science Foundation] Deputy Director Kathie Olsen described 'significant challenges' the NSF has found in faculty recruitment and retention, and the general climate in academic science and engineering fields. Among these challenges are the importance of well-established networks, implicit bias, the feeling of isolation, and unclear policies for hiring, tenure and promotion."
...
"Freeman Hrabowski, President of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County...outlined steps his university has taken to support and advance women and underrepresented minority students.... Among them are human resource policies, campus-wide discussions, and targeted mentoring programs. He spoke of the need to provide a 'culture of inclusion' and a 'community of support'...."

The report includes references to a number of studies detailing the barriers to career advancement, as well as descriptions of effective solutions. Cited was a 2006 report by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine which found in part:

"[There is] no clear evidence that men are biologically advantaged in learning and performing mathematics and science."
"[T]he community needs to work together, across departments, through professional societies, and with funders and federal agencies to bring about gender equity.... Our nation's future depends on it."

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2007/117.html
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2006/118.html
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/women05.pdf

Entrepreneurship and public policy

2007-11-30T03:53:00.000-07:00

"Many proponents believe that interdisciplinary research is a must to address complex problems in society. At the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Laxenburg, Austria, 'The goal is to do research in global change relevant to policy,' says Leen Hordijk, IIASA's director. An international research organization with scientists from 38 different countries, IIASA was founded as an east-west think tank at the height of the Cold War."

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/
2007_11_23/science_opms_r0700032

400 years of global-scale societal impacts of climate change

2007-11-29T18:49:00.000-07:00

First study to give quantitative and scientific evidence about the impact of climate change on human societies in recent human history at global and continental scales

Hong Kong University Department of Geography professor Dr. David Zhang and researcher Mr. Harry Lee found that “historical war-peace, population and economic cycles are most likely induced by climate change.”

“Even though temperatures are increasing now, the same resulting conflicts may occur since we still greatly depend on the land as our food source,” said Peter Brecke, associate professor in the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Sam Nunn School of International Affairs and co-author of the study. Brecke assembled a database of 4,500 wars worldwide and population data between the years 1400-1900, with funding from the U.S. Institute of Peace.

The article by David D. Zhang, Peter Brecke, Harry F. Lee, Yuan-Qing He and Jane Zhang is to be published on 4 December 2007 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). It is entitled, "Global climate change, war and population decline in recent human history."

http://www.hku.hk/eroesite/html/ccc.pdf http://www.hku.hk/press/news_detail_5664.html
http://www.gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/climate-war.htm

Advice from AMS/MWR Reviewers and Editors

2007-11-28T02:45:00.000-07:00

The following excerpts can help authors, reviewers and editors improve their writing.

TOP OF THE LINE
I have never been able to write a review quite this positive before, but I really thought the manuscript was exceptionally good. This manuscript was very informative and was a joy to read. The authors use special data to document [the subject] and place this case in the context of others observed by routinely available data. Finally, they demonstrate the inability of satellite-derived products to adequately resolve the [subject]. The manuscript certainly is appropriate and will be of interest to many…. I commend the authors on a well-written manuscript. The data and methodology are clearly described, the results are presented in an easy-to-understand fashion, and the conclusions are fully supported. In addition, the figures are of high quality and the figure captions are complete, fully describing the content of each figure…. Summary: This is a great manuscript!

CO-AUTHORS CAN’T LEAVE THE JOB TO REVIEWERS
This paper reads like a rough draft. I do not know how the more experienced co-authors could have let this paper be submitted in the shape that it is in. They are supposed to take the time to go through the paper and in the process provide guidance for their graduate student in effective technical/scientific writing. They should not turn this responsibility over to the reviewers…. Writing quality cannot be stressed enough, so it is very important to review each sentence in the manuscript carefully (does it say what I really mean, could it be interpreted differently, could I have been more concise, is this sentence essential, etc.). Again, take this point in a constructive way. We have all been through the process of learning how to write effectively (with plenty of critiques along the way).

A number of the figures are substandard and in some cases the analysis on the figure is wrong…. If the reader finds basic analysis errors and less than adequate graphics, it prompts the thought…why should I believe anything else that follows? There are a number of instances in the text where the authors [appear] intent on displaying a higher degree of technical skill than need be (it basically comes off looking artificial and reads poorly)…. Sometimes simple and concise really is best. As a reviewer, I am getting worn down by all the items needing attention.

A BIG IMPROVEMENT
I have reexamined the revised manuscript and found it to be much improved: more concise, better focused, and much more useful to the reader. The authors should be complimented for responding so positively to all the reviewers’ comments and taking suggestions seriously.

The Response document sent back to me was first-rate. Each of my comments had a response and any modifications to the text quoted in the response. This saved a significant amount of time and allowed a nonstop, continuous reread of the manuscript without having to stop to verify changes. All in all, a big improvement. In my view the manuscript is ready for publication.

COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE
The originality of the article is poor. While the…effect is a unique aspect of the study, the conclusions from this study have been found previously through either observational analyses or numerical simulations. Several previously published studies that discuss many of the aspects addressed in the manuscript are not referenced.

The technical quality of the article is very poor. Several areas of the manuscript demonstrate the authors' lack of familiarity with basic meteorological concepts and processes. For an observational case study, very few meteorological observations are presented and NCEP reanalysis is relied on heavily for "data" analyses. Additionally, the author uses a checklist approach of previously known…conditions to the investigation / description of the…event without presenting quantitative data.

The clarity of the presentation is poor. Grammatical errors are present throughout the manuscript and basic meteorological processes are poorly presented. The manuscript is very repetitive throughout all sections and analyses/discussions are presented in very vague and general terms.

The practical significance of the article is good; however the relationships that are presented as the main findings of the study are very general and are already well known....

Based on a critical review of the manuscript, I recommend rejection of the article. The scientific analyses and interpretations...are at a level well below the standards of the typical AMS publication....

The manuscript is poorly written and organized with very sophomoric descriptions of meteorological processes that I would not accept from my introductory undergraduate meteorology students.... A personal memory of past events should not be used to provide a climatological description of weather events. Although the deployment of radar systems may be recent and not provide an adequate data source for a climatological study, perhaps historical records...combined with a historical synoptic analysis could give insight into the frequency of these events.

POOR ENGLISH USAGE
I serve as the Editor of your recently submitted manuscript. I am sorry to inform you that I am rejecting it for publication. Your manuscript has numerous grammatical mistakes and nonexistent words that inhibit the ability of a reader to understand your arguments. According to page 23 of the AMS Authors' Guide at http://www.ametsoc.org/PUBS/Authorsguide/pdf_vs/authguide.pdf:

"All manuscripts must be written in the English language. Neither AMS editors nor staff have the time available to edit manuscripts that require extensive grammatical changes, as can sometimes be the case with authors from non-English-speaking countries. While the AMS wishes to encourage the international exchange of scientific results through its journals, it requests that such authors make their own arrangements to ensure that submitted manuscripts are already in correct English. If not, their submissions may be returned unreviewed."

The magnitude and extent to which correct English is not employed in your paper is such that I am returning your manuscript unreviewed, as per the AMS guidelines. Only if your manuscript undergoes significant revision may it be resubmitted as a new article. Should you wish to revise and resubmit your manuscript to any journal, I recommend that you hire a technical editor who is proficient in the English language to improve the manuscript or seek out the advice of a native English speaker who will take the time to provide feedback to you in revising your manuscript. Without either one of these approaches, I am afraid you will find your manuscript rejected by most journals.

NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS NEED HELP, TOO
I am happy to see that AMS will publish a book on scientific writing. Even [authors] who predominately have English as their native language need help.... If I were hard-nosed (or even more so than I am) when reviewing [poorly written] manuscripts...I would simply return them without a review. In cases in which I think the science is good, I will do the editing in hopes that it can get published. In some cases where I suspect that I would have to first do a lot of editing and I suspect the science is not that good, I simply refuse to do the review.

http://www.ametsoc.org/PUBS/Authorsguide/pdf_vs/authguide.pdf