Eje 2. Producci贸n de documentos del 13 de junio al 29 de agosto
Eje 2. Producción de documentos del 13 de junio al 29 de agosto
Grado de intervención en correcciones científicas ESTHER LÓPEZ-BAYGHEN PATIÑO es doctora en ciencias, con especialidad en microbiología por la Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biológicas del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, y un post-doctorado en el laboratorio de biología del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer, perteneciente a los Institutos Nacionales de Salud en la ciudad de Bethesda Maryland, Estados Unidos. Estuvo como investigadora invitada en la Unité des Virus Oncogénes, Département des Biotechnologies, del Instituto Pasteur de París, Francia; fue coordinadora académica del Departamento de Genética y Biología Molecular del Cinvestav-IPN, de donde actualmente es jefa del laboratorio de regulación transcripcional en eucariontes. Ha dirigido once tesis doctorales, de las cuales dos han sido distinguidas con el Premio Arturo Rosembluth; 22 de maestría y seis de licenciatura. En 2006 LópezBayghen obtuvo el primer lugar en el XVII Premio Nacional de Investigación de la Fundación GlaxoSmithKline dentro del área de investigación clínica para el trabajo Reconstrucción de vaginas humanas; antes (1990) había obtenido mención honorífica en su examen de maestría y reconocimiento académico por el IPN al mejor promedio en estudios de posgrado. Desde 1998 López-Bayghen es investigadora nacional del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores; actualmente es evaluadora de proyectos y miembro de la Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, de la Sociedad Mexicana de Bioquímica, de la Society for Neuroscience y de la Internacional Society for Neurochemistry. Cuenta con 44 publicaciones internacionales, lo que a la fecha le ha valido 400 citaciones; ha participado en 60 congresos nacionales y 61 internacionales gracias a sus líneas de investigación: Regulación de la transcripción de genes eucarióticos, Regulación transcripcional de receptores y transportadores de glutámico en Glia radial y en modelos neuronales, Efectos reguladores de la transcripción mediados por exposición al arsénico, e Ingeniería de tejidos para reemplazo de órganos urogenitales. Temario • Resultados • Discusión • Citación
• Generalidades de estilo • Cómo escribir el resumen • Materiales y métodos
Bibliografía recomendada
Rubio Arias HO y Saucedo Teran RA, Normas básicas en la redacción de artículos científicos, Universidad de Chihuahua, México, 2005,1a. edición. How to write a research paper, http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/report/reportform.html The Science of Scientific Writing, www.americanscientist.org 2
17/08/2009
Índice de temas
Eje 2. Producción de documentos
Grado de intervención en correcciones científicas
DRA. ESTHER LÓPEZ BAYGHEN PATIÑO
Eje 2
Tema 3. Tipología de documentos
• Grado de intervención en correcciones científicas • Correcciones ociosas
LOGO
Cinvestav investigación en los diferentes departamentos
Conocer las particularidades del texto científico Conocer los aspectos fundamentales del medio de las publicaciones científicas
Autora Revisora especializada Enseñanza escritura textos científicos
D t i 1994 Doctora en Ci Ciencias Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biológicas Instituto Politécnico Nacional México Sistema Nacional de Investigadores: Nivel 2
Objetivos
Determinar niveles de corrección
Company Logo
1
17/08/2009
Adentrarse o actualizarse en la corrección de textos científicos Capacidad para identificar errores en el lenguaje escrito en la presentación y forma de la información en el apego al estilo de la revista (journal) Además de aplicar las técnicas y herramientas propias de la corrección de estilo (como tipos, reglas gramaticales y normas editoriales, entre otras) Ofrecer al Autor El objetivo de la investigación Revisor científica es la publicación Lector un documento que pueda ser aceptado para su publicación
Tipos de textos Autores
Casas editoriales
Idioma
ié quién • Autor • Revisor • Editor (publisher) • Coordinador Editorial
é qué • Tipos de textos
ó cómo • Estructura • Reglas
¿qué? •Tipos de textos
Herramientas de citación y corrección
2
17/08/2009
Lectores del área científica buscan…
Revisiones •Objetivo: revisar la literatura sobre un tema y colocarla en alguna perspectiva. •Longitud: entre 10 y 50 páginas impresas. •Tema muy general o muy particular. Una buena revisión debe contener una evaluación crítica de la literatura y llegar a conclusiones importantes. •Es imprescindible p p preparar p un g guión o diagrama g de flujo j p para organizar g la secuencia lógica de la información. •Hay que proponerla a un editor antes de escribirla – puede sugerir ampliar temas o alcance. •Muchas revistas piden que se envíe un temario antes de escribir la revisión. •El escritor es el narrador: se usa yo o nosotros. •Hay que conocer los requisitos de la revista. •Las revisiones son críticas más que históricas. •El público es más amplio: lo leerán los de campos relacionados. •Hay H que lleer llas revisiones i i previas. i •El estilo de redacción es más ligero y extenso que el del artículo, menos telegráfico. •La introducción debe ser escrita con suficiente ingenio para captar la atención de los lectores, y que sigan leyendo. •Las conclusiones son el sitio donde se deben expresar con mayor claridad las nuevas visiones sobre el tema, cómo se modificó tu visión de las cosas.
Concentrarse en saber si los experimentos pruban o no la p hipótesis palnteada ¿Documentación científica completa? Interpretación por parte del escritor coincida con la interpretación por parte del lector
Dra. Esther López-Bayghen
Textos científicos: clases Resumen extenso
Artículo Revisión
Tesis
cinvestav
3
17/08/2009
Proceso de investigación: Debe resultar en la publicación de uno o más artículos Tesis El objetivo de la investigación científica es la publicación Revisión de literatura Tópico de interés
Establecer preguntas relativas al tópico
Tener claro el problema a resolver
Encontrar o desarrollar posibles soluciones
Resultados documentados
Tesis -
-
Mucha de la información se basa revisiones del tema. Varias secciones serán como el artículo. Contrastar resultados propios y de otros en la discusión. Índice: se basa en un diagrama de flujo del texto que nos ayude a armar la tesis. Introducción: historia del tema hasta state of the art, cómo y por qué se eligió el problema, cómo se abordó experimentalmente, hallazgos y aprendizaje a lo largo del estudio. Es más larga que en el artículo. Se escribe con cuidado el resumen, no tan largo. No agradecer tanto. tanto Secuencia lógica de los pensamientos. Puede llevar apéndices.
4
17/08/2009
El artículo científico
Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional Departamento de Genética y Biología Molecular “Análisis del papel de ZEB1 en la actividad transcripcional del gen CRTAM humano” Tesis que presenta
Crystelle Alicia Rojas Márquez Para obtener el grado de Maestra en Ciencias en la especialidad de Genética y Biología Molecular
DISCUSIÓN Estudios previos han mostrado que CRTAM se expresa de manera transitoria en células TCD8+, NK y NKT activadas con estímulos policlonales {Arase Noriko , 2005 #2;Boles Kent S., 2005 #3;Patiño-Lopez Genaro, 2006 #6;Kennedy Jacqueline, 2000 #1;Galibert Laurent , 2005 #5} y recientemente ha sido observado que la presencia de esta proteína es fundamental en el establecimiento de respuestas inflamatorias del tipo Th1 y Th17 (caracterizadas por la producción de IFN-g e IL-17 respectivamente) (40), por lo anterior se sugiere la importancia de CRTAM como un modulador de la respuesta inmune. En nuestro grupo de trabajo se caracterizó la cinética de expresión del RNA mensajero del gen CRTAM en LTCD8+ estimulados, encontrando que este alcanza un pico máximo de expresión a las 12 horas pos-estimulación y posteriormente disminuye hasta las 72 horas en las que no se observa RNA mensajero ni proteína en la superficie de los LTCD8+ {Valle-Rios Ricardo, 2009 #7}. Durante la caracterización de la región promotora del gen CRTAM por medio de ensayos de gen reportero en células Jurkat no estimuladas y estimuladas se encontró que para la construcción C9 (la cual contiene 903pb río arriba de inicio de la traducción) no existe expresión del gen reportero en cualquiera de las condiciones condiciones, caso contrario a otras construcciones utilizadas, esto sugiere que en dicha región se encuentran elementos en cis que regulan negativamente la expresión del gen CRTAM. Con lo anterior se realizó un análisis in silico preliminar de la región promotora del gen CRTAM, encontrando posibles sitios de unión para el represor transcripcional ZEB1, el cual ha sido implicado en la regulación de diversos genes del sistema inmune y de manera representativa en la regulación negativa de la citocina IL-2 (18), la cual se expresa en células del tipo Th1 solo bajo condiciones de estimulación. Por lo anterior en este trabajo nos propusimos caracterizar la participación de ZEB1 en la regulación transcripcional del gen CRTAM humano en células Jurkat.
Proceso para publicar un artículo científico una vez que tenemos evidencias experimentales suficientes para sustentar la hipótesis
1
Selección de la(s) revista(s) apropiada(s) •Calidad, •Calidad cantidad y novedad de los resultados •Costos de publicación
2
Preparar el manuscrito de acuerdo a la guía de estilo de la revista (instrucciones a los autores)
3
Enviar el manuscrito y esperar el veredicto •Aprobado con correcciones menores •Puede ser aprobado si se logra responder a las inquietudes de los revisores •Rechazado
Company Logo
5
17/08/2009
fijar la estructura del manuscrito Se trata básicamente de una actividad de venta. La tarea consiste en crear un producto (el artículo científico) y vendérselo al cliente (el director). Una vez que éste lo ha comprado (publicación) se completa la transacción y se ha resuelto con éxito la tarea. En otras palabras, se ha ganado la partida.
En primer lugar, se debe consultar la revista en la que se desea publicar y analizar la estructura que tienen los artículos existentes. Fijarse, en particular, en las diferentes secciones. En los artículos originales, generalmente, serán cuatro: Introducción (¿por qué lo hizo?), Métodos (¿qué hizo?), Resultados (¿qué encontró?) y Discusión (¿qué significado tiene todo ello?). Observar estilo, longitud, forma de presentar resultados
Estructura del artículo científico
Primer paso: comprender el juego de la publicación Segundo paso: decidir si se quiere jugar Tercer paso: definir el mensaje del artículo í Cuarto paso: decidir la información a presentar Quinto paso: fijar la estructura del manuscrito Sexto paso: escribir Séptimo Sé ti paso: volver l a escribir ibi Octavo paso: añadir los extras Noveno paso: revisores internos Décimo paso: enviar el manuscrito
Resumen
Resumen
Introducción Materiales y métodos Resultados
Desarrollo del Tema
Discusión Literatura citada
Literatura citada
(a) (b) Identificación y contraste de las secciones mayores que debe de presentar un artículo formal (a) en comparación de una nota de investigación (b).
6
17/08/2009
Modelo de triángulo invertido que representa como escribir una introducción
Características que identifican un buen título
Entre E t 14 y 20 palabras
Consistente con sus resultados, discusión y conclusiones
Claro y Cl Objetivo
Título de un manuscrito científico
Información previa Objetivos
No use abreviaturas
Escasez de información Beneficiario
No presente Evitar términos ambiguos y subjetivos
Oración universal
Fórmulas, símbolos, ni marcas comerciales
Elementos que se deben incluir en una buena introducción
métodos
Información general
Información específica
7
17/08/2009
Elementos que deben de aparecer en el texto de la sección de resultados de un artículo científico
métodos
Resultados
Elemento 1 Una oración que señale la localización de los resultados
Existen dos formas independientes al escribir una sección de resultados
Elemento 2 Una (s) oración (es) que describa (n) los resultados más importantes
Elemento 3 Una oración que explique los resultados encontrados
Formatos para la escritura de la sección de resultados y discusión
Resultados Formato alterno: R1+C1;R2+C2;R3+C3;R4+C4 Resultados y Discusión En esta sección se informa de los lt d resultados encontrados y se plasma una discusión de los mismos.
Resultados En esta sección se hace é f i en énfasis resultados y comentarios específicos. (breve discusión)
Discusión En esta sección se hace énfasis en la discusión de los lt d que ya resultados fueron presentados en la sección anterior.
Formato alterno: R1+R2+R3+C;R4+R5+R6+C Formato alterno-secuencial: (R1+C1)+(R2+R3+R4+C2) R= Resultado (Elemento 2); C= Comentario (Elemento 3)
8
17/08/2009
Cómo escribir los resultados?
…la discusión
9
17/08/2009
Guide for Authors
El metadiscurso What is metadiscourse? It refers to the linguistic devices writers employ to shape their arguments to the needs and expectations of their target readers” (Hyland 2004). It is language used to organize the discourse that helps the reader understand the writer’s stance and the content of the article. In other words, metadiscourse mediates a relationship l ti hi b between t the th writer it and d reader, d and helps guide the reader through the text and ideas.
Citar la literatura: nuevas herramientas http://www.endnote.com/
INTRODUCTION Types of paper BEFORE YOU BEGIN Ethics in Publishing - Conflict of interest - Submission d l declaration ti - Copyright C i ht - Retained R t i d author th rights i ht - Role R l off the th funding source - Funding body agreements and policies Language and language services - Submission - Additional information PREPARATION Use of wordprocessing software - Article structure - Subdivision - numbered sections - Introduction - - Material and methods Results - Discussion - Conclusions - Essential title page information - Abstract - Keywords - Abbreviations Acknowledgements - Nomenclature and Units - Accession numbers - Math formulae - Footnotes - Electronic artwork - Color artwork - - Figure captions - Tables - References - Citation in text - Web references - References in a special issue - Reference Style - Journal abbreviations source - Supplementary material Submission checklist AFTER ACCEPTANCE Use of the Digital Object Identifier - Proofs - Offprints
Guidelines for reviewers American Society of Microbiology - Significance of research question - Originality - Appropriateness of experimental design - Adequation of experimental techniques - Soundness of conclusions and interpretations - Relevance of discussion - Soundness of organization - Adherence to style as set forth in instructions - Adequation of title and abstract - Appropriateness of figures and tables - Length of article - Adherence to the correct nomenclature - Appropriateness of literature citations --Read instructions to the authors first!
10
17/08/2009
Proceso para publicar un artículo científico una vez que tenemos evidencias experimentales suficientes para sustentar la hipótesis
http://www.errnet.net/
WhiteSmoke 2009 http://www.whitesmoke.com/ Grammar. Spelling. Style. "I love this program. You guys have come up with a great product that really helps me write better. Keep up the good work!" – Louise Symons, USA
Niveles de intervención
quién •Autor •Revisor •Editor ó Coordinador Editorial •(publisher)
El objetivo de la investigación científica es la publicación
Escritor o autor principal Director del trabajo “corresponding author” Revisor elegido por el editor de la revista Editor científico en la revista en particular Co e to de e Corrector estilo tilo e en lla casa editorial
11
17/08/2009
De… a… que hacer por el autor Results Cilostazol reduces proliferation rates and arrests cell cycle Cilostazol increases intracellular cAMP concentrations by selectively blocking phosphodiesterase type III (Tjon and Riemann, 2001). Several lines of evidence indicate that cilostazol additionally inhibits the proliferation of VSMCs, via an increase in intracellular cAMP, because cAMP inhibits the proliferation of VSMCs by induction of p53-mediated and p21-mediated apoptosis (Hayashi et al., 2000). Naderi et al demonstrated that increased cAMP leads to inhibition of phosphorylation of pRB, which regulates the activity of the E2F family, and consequently leads to arrest of cells at G1 in human lymphocytes (Naderi et al., 2000). Cilostazol inhibits VSMC proliferation, specifically through the suppression of E2F mediated transcription, which is regulated by pRB phosphorylation. In PKD, formation and growth of cysts is accompanied by increased proliferation and apoptosis of cyst-lining epithelia. MDCK cells have been successfully used in studies as in vitro model of tubulogenesis and cystogenesis (Bukanov et al., 2002)
Manuscrito original v.5 2008
Manuscrito publicado 2009
De… a…
12
17/08/2009
…sobre el primer autor Especializado (a) en el trabajo experimenta l, con poca experiencia en la comunicació n escrita
Lenguaje formal Lenguaje informal
Tomará mucha de la información del inglés y traducirá mal Como correctores debemos tener muy claro lo que es aceptable y lo que no lo es en este ámbito de los artículos Ejemplos de sus problemas específicos:
Se usa A group of Many Surrounding Composed of Varied slightly Has been studied Do not Cannot It is Results by X
En lugar de A bunch of A lot of All around Made up of Varied a little Was already studied Don´t Can´t It’s X’s et al results
Cada vez se usa más hablar en primera persona (del singular o del plural). Hay que leer las instrucciones al autor y artículos de muestra de la revista en la que queremos publicar.
Algunas palabras mal utilizadas en español e inglés (o mal traducidas): Algunas palabras mal utilizadas en español e inglés (o mal traducidas): Se usa En lugar de De acuerdo con De acuerdo a Con base en En base a Tener sentido Hacer sentido Durante mucho tiempo Durante largo tiempo Primero que todo Antes que nada Se estudiaron Fueron estudiados Movimiento lento Lento movimiento Se traduce como Give thought to Considerar detenidamente Made up his mind
Formarse una opinión
State of the art
Situación actual de un campo,
de punta, de vanguardia. No usar gerundio excesivo, ni traducir en pasivo.
13
17/08/2009
Verbosidad Frases gramaticalmente correctas, que de preferencia se sustituyen por otras. En lugar de Se usa Aunque A pesar del hecho que Durante Durante el transcurso de Durante Por un periodo de Cerca En la vecindad de Puede Es capaz de Puede Posee la habilidad para Puede Tiene el potencial de X demostró que Estudios realizados por X demostraron que Tabla x Como se ve el la tabla x Hay evidencia Se ha encontrado evidencia Se comparó Se hizo una comparación p Tiene un ritmo de crecimiento Crece rápido rápido Muchos Un gran número de Many A considerable amount of Some A number of Now At this point in time As In a manner similar to To In order to
Anglicismos De preferencia no usar las palabras en inglés, o palabras en inglés modificadas, sino su traducción al español. Ejemplos: Attachment, buffer, chatear (charlar), clickear (seleccionar), e-mail, freezer, isolado (aislado), machear (equiparar), mouse, paper, plotear (trazar o cartografiar), printer, spray, staff, accesar (acceder), compulsorio o mandatorio (obligatorio), sensar (detectar), interaccionar (interactuar), disectar (disecar), logo, magnificación (aumento), presumiblemente (presuntamente), remedial (remediador), similaridad (similitud), sucrosa (sacarosa), tutorial (guía), control (testigo), aplicar (solicitar), eventualmente (finalmente-en lugar de incidentalmente), evidencia (dato), (dato) fuente (tipo de letra) letra), resumir (reanudar), (reanudar) salvar (guardar), severo (grave), sumisión (envío), realizar (darse cuenta), camuflagear (camuflar), cleavage (segmentación), embebido (incrustado), epidermal (epidérmico), estresar (tensar), externalizar (exteriorizar).
Pacheco chavez y Villa soto. El comprortamiento del escritor y la producción de de textos científicos
Los escritores expertos lo hacen considerando al lector, mientras que la escritura de los novatos es similar a una conversación Retroalimentación mejora ejecución Aprender a redactar de acuerdo a los estándares de las comunidades científicas
14
17/08/2009
Evitar esto… European Journal of Pharmacology Dear Dr López-Bayghen, Your manuscript no EJP-29939 entitled Cilostazol reduces proliferation through c-Myc down-regulation in MDCK cells has been evaluated by the referee(s), who raised a number of important points, as can be seen from the enclosed evaluation sheet(s). I am sorry to inform you that we have therefore decided that, in its present form, this manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in the EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY. p If you are willing to alter the manuscript according to the comments made by the referee(s), we shall be glad to reconsider it for publication. Also, we inform you that the checklist for style revision should be followed carefully point to point (also consult the guide for authors).
Contestar al editor las preguntas hechas por los revisores
REVIEW SYSTEM
Many of Elsevier Elsevier’s s journals use the Elsevier Editorial System (EES) for managing the submission and peer review process. Editors and managing editors use the system to communicate with author(s) and reviewers. EES ensures a seamless flow from article submission, through peer review, all the way to publication. EES offers a range of benefits for reviewers, including:
Reviewer #1: Major concerns: •The referee points out the lack of some critical information regarding cell number, concentrations of chemicals, etc. We carefully revised the paper and added missing details as suggested. •Reviewer requested to repeat MTT experiments with ½ and with ¼ of the initial amount of cells used in the presented experiments. We did so, and in this new version of Figure 1, we added new data and confirmed our initial observations. We carefully determined that when we seeded up to 4000 cells/cm2 culture did not reached confluence in 96 hours; times in figure 1 are now set to this time. Reviewer also asks us to provide the absolute numbers of cells seeded per well in MTT experiments. Now, we include this data in Materials and Methods and also in figure legends for all experiments related to cell viability or to proliferation rates. •As pointed before, we added the requested information on absolute number of cells and volumes of provided growth medium, thus again up to 96 h culture did not reached cell confluence up to 96 h.
15
17/08/2009
Comentarios de los revisores ™ Minor concerns: 1.) Labelings in several figures are rather unfortunate. For example, figure 1A would be much more readable if the Y-axis would be labeled as "Cell survival (% CTRL)" instead of just % CTRL. Please be more descriptive within figures since many readers just "scan" papers by reading the abstract and looking at figures. 2.) Minor grammar mistakes could occasionally be spotted in the text (i.e. p9, upper paragraph, ".dose of cilostazol was used evaluate its effects."). 3.) Figure 5D, please do not use double arrows to indicate the specific p p protein bands.
Negociando con los revisores a travĂŠs del editor
Editors' comments "...my current view is that the author should take as many steps as possible to make k their h i article i l right i h before b f iit iis submitted..." "... authors have to be responsible for ensuring at least reasonable language." "Poor English is a worrying problem, especially when the scientific work is novel and deserves publication." -- Language Editing Survey 2007
16
17/08/2009
Niveles de intervención Escritor o autor principal Tutor o director del trabajo “corresponding author” Revisor publicación Editor en la publicación Co e to de e Corrector estilo tilo e en lla casa editorial
Guidelines for reviewers American S. Microb. - Significance of research question - Originality - Appropriateness of experimental design - Adequation of experimental techniques - Soundness of conclusions and interpretations - Relevance of discussion - Soundness of organization - Adherence to style as set forth in instructions - Adequation of title and abstract - Appropriateness of figures and tables - Length of article - Adherence to the correct nomenclature - Appropriateness of literature citations --Read instructions to the authors first!
17
17/08/2009
LOGO
TOPICS a) Research Journals and the Publication Process b) Research articles: the Introduction. Citation practices c) Research articles: Methods and Results d) Research articles: the Abstract e) Research articles: Discussion and Conclusion Metadiscourse You must have advanced reading and writing skills in English (TOEFL 550 or equivalent).
18
17/08/2009
Saberes Teóricos 1. Características de la redacción académica y científica, y su relación con otros tipos p de p producción textual. Parámetros para su valoración. 2. Recursos lingüísticos de la redacción académica y científica. 3. La corrección de estilo de la redacción académica. 4. Características 4 C t í ti generales l d dell proceso de arbitraje y publicación en revistas especializadas. 5. Tipología de conferencias y otros ámbitos de presentación de los avances de investigación.
Saberes Formativos 1. Fomentar el ejercicio de distintas modalidades de producción textual, atendiendo al ámbito en que se planea l ejercerla, j l y ttomando d en cuenta t los l fines fi buscados b d con la misma.
1. Follow a grammatical subject as soon as possible with its verb. 2. Place in the stress position the "new information" you want the reader to emphasize. 3. 3 Place the person or thing whose "story" a sentence is telling at the beginning of the sentence, in the topic position. 4. Place appropriate "old information" (material already stated in the discourse) in the topic position for linkage backward and contextualization forward. 5. Articulate the action of every clause or sentence in its verb. 6. In general, provide context for your reader before asking that reader to consider anything new. 7. In general, try to ensure that the relative emphases of the substance coincide with the relative expectations for emphasis raised by the structure.
1. La redacción académica y científica. 1.1 Definición, funciones, propósitos, características distintivas. 1.2 Semejanzas y diferencias con otros tipos de producción textual. 1.3 Propiedad intelectual y derechos de autor. 1.4 La redacción académica en el área de las humanidades y ciencias sociales. 2. El artículo científico.
2. Valorar la importancia del conocimiento y adaptación de los requisitos de la redacción científica al producto de la investigación personal.
2.1 Características y requisitos. 2.2 Nivel del lenguaje. 2.3 Partes del artículo científico.
3. Fomentar la responsabilidad intelectual frente a la investigación propia. propia 4. Promover el conocimiento e intercambio de experiencias entre los investigadores de áreas semejantes o colindantes.
2.3.1 Título. 2.3.2 Resumen. 2.3.3 Introducción. 2.3.4 Metodología. 2.3.5 Resultados. 2.3.6 Conclusiones. 2.3.7 Reconocimientos. 238R f
i
19
17/08/2009
3. El proceso de arbitraje y publicación en revistas especializadas. p 3.1 Relación con la redacción del artículo científico. 3.2 Requisitos generales para la publicación de textos en distintas revistas Especializadas. 3.3 Principales revistas especializadas en áreas específicas de las humanidades y Ciencias sociales en México, Latinoamérica y el mundo (en español y otros idiomas). Nota: La selección de las mismas se hará en función de los intereses particulares
El factor de impacto y otros índices bibliométricos son utilizados en la actualidad en diversos países factor de impacto (o el factor de prestigio). Calculation para evaluar la producción y/o la The impact for a journal is calidad defactor la investigación científica. calculated on a three-year El factor based de impacto de las revistas es period, andbibliométrico can be viewed as an el índice approximation theevaluar averagey number más utilizadoof para ofcomparar times published papers de arelos cited in la producción países, the two calendar years following publication. For example, theThe 2003 Impact factor, often impact factor for a journal would be abbreviated IF, is a measure of calculated as follows: the citations to science and social A = the number of times articles science journals. It is frequently published in 2001-2 were cited in as a proxy for the used indexed journals during 2003importance of a journal to its B = the number of "citable items" field. (usually articles, reviews, proceedings or notes; not editorials and letters-to-the-Editor) published in 2001-22003 impact factor = A/B
Cuadro 1 Los diez mandamientos para incrementar las citas 01. Incrementar la difusión de la revista. 02. Incluir la revista en el mayor número posible de bases de datos. datos 03. Publicar artículos polémicos. 04. Publicar revisiones. 05. Publicar en idioma inglés. 06. Publicar artículos sobre temas de actualidad. 07. Publicar artículos de autores muy citados. 08. Establecer acuerdos con medios de comunicación. 09. Recomendar que se citen trabajos publicados en la misma revista. 10. Facilitar el acceso a los artículos por internet. Fuente: Buela-Casal (2002)
Cuadro 2 Ejemplo de la tendencia a publicar estudios en los que se encuentran efectos y a rechazar los que no encuentran El autor de este artículo, cuando era un estudiante de doctorado, envió un trabajo para su posible publicación en una revista incluida en el Journal Citation Reports. El director de la revista devolvió el trabajo diciendo que aunque era metodológicamente correcto no podía aceptarlo para su publicación pues en realidad no demostraba ningún efecto de la variable independiente sobre las dependientes. El autor se quedó sorprendido, pues la muestra del estudio era diez veces superior a la de otros estudios similares, algunos publicados en la misma revista, y en los que sí se encontraban efectos. La conclusión era clara, lo importante no era ni usar una metodología adecuada ni el tamaño de la muestra, lo realmente importante era «encontrar efectos». Así las cosas, el joven investigador decidió archivar el trabajo y no enviarlo a ninguna otra revista, pues ya bastante atrevimiento había sido enviarlo a una revista de «prestigio». Pasaron bastantes b años ñ y ya siendo d profesor f ell autor del d l trabajo, b con motivo d de un cambio de universidad, encuentra en el fondo de un cajón de su despacho el artículo que había olvidado totalmente. Ya instalado en la nueva universidad decidió actualizar la revisión teórica, exclusivamente eso. Envió el trabajo a una revista incluida en el Journal Citation Reports, pero con un factor de impacto cuatro veces superior al que tenía la revista que lo había rechazado varios años antes. El trabajo fue aceptado sin ninguna crítica y fue publicado. Alguien podría pensar que la madera del cajón había tenido el mismo
20
17/08/2009
We know from case studies by Berkenkotter and Huckin (1995), Blakeslee (1997), Flowerdew (2000), Gosden (1996), and Myers (1985), as well as from my own work (e.g., (e g Casanave, Casanave 1998, 1998 2002), 2002) that novice and established scholars alike, working in first and second languages, negotiate pieces of writing into print or into acceptance by granting agencies through sometimes extended and difficult interactions with peer readers, mentors, reviewers, journal editors, and granting agency evaluators. As Hyland (1996, 1998, 2000) has documented, these social and political negotiations require that writers situate their work within academic and research communities by skillfully using a wide array of linguistic resources to effect politeness, humility and modesty, authority, persuasiveness, and confidence. These sometimes contradictory stances need to be negotiated for each piece of writing in relation to other actors and institutional expectations in the writers’ fields, and case studies are especially wellsuited to exploring these negotiations.
• Los expertos redactan considerando al lector • Conocimiento de su público La existencia de audiencia real favorece la composiciónLa escritura incluye tres grandes procesos Planificación formulación y revisión
Los escritores expertos dedican más tiempo reexaminan los avances de sus textos y dedican más tiempo a corregirlos en función de la audiencia Enseñar a exqminar escritura considerando la audiencia (Sengputa 2000) La enseñanza explicita de estartegias de revisión favoreció que los alumnos anticiparan los requerimiento de la audiencia en sus escritos. Esto sugiere redacción múltiple y constante revisión de la escritura
La escritura incluye tres grandes procesos Planificación formulación y revisión
Respuestas del lector Comunicación efectiva C fi Confirmar aciertos i t Corregir errores Es mejor corregir durante la escritura Calidad de la redacción Coherencia ((inclusión de información relevante y organizada de manera adecuada) Cohesión (conección sintáctica de frases) Fluidez (cantidad y calidad de las palabras)
de un caso real de falta de fiabilidad revisores). La cualificación y la objetividad de losentre revisores Los sesgos de ylos revisores. Los revisores no son tan cualificados,f)independientes Además de los sesgos particulares objetivos de cada revisor, el hecho de que sean a) La elección de los revisores no es perfecta, especialistas en No se sigue el criterio de ser un especialista, sino otros tema y conocedores de las teorías como prestigio del revisor, amistadelcon el director, sobre un campo concreto etcc. de trabajo anuncios para que se presenten candidatos que implica cumplanun cierto sesgo en aceptar trabajos las siguientes condiciones: haber publicado coherentes con ser la situación actual y previamente en revistas con sistema de revisión, rechazar lector habitual de cinco o seis revistas de untrabajos área, innovadores. Esto es una estar especializado en un tema y disponer de limitación para aquellos investigadores suficiente tiempo para Los revisores no son más cualificados los autores. De hecho, más que creativos. realizar las revisiones. no se selecciona ocurre que en algunas ocasiones los El autores son más conocidos, anonimato de los revisores a los mejores posibles, sino a los queg) se presentan. pues han publicado más que los revisores, por tanto, facilita críticas intencionadas,, all menos se puede d cuestionar i lla autoridad id d que tiene i revisor i desproporcionadas oellcrueles. Si los para juzgar el trabajo del autor. Un buen ejemplo es el caso revisores son especialistas de dos autores que en el anexo de critican dan ensuunartículo área de trabajoy es que han consejos a los revisores de la misma revistainvestigaciones para que mejoren realizado el sistema de revisión (véase Montero y León, 2001). y publicaciones en ese campo. Si un c) Los revisores no son mejores cuando quea cuando trabajorevisan sometido investigan. Si los revisores también hacencrítica investigaciones, revisión o los resultados que luego son juzgadas por otros contradicen «iguales» y total que podrían o parcialmente ser rechazadas se entra en una contradicción: se consideran t b j á b bl l
21
17/08/2009
Links to websites offering useful writing resources Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab (handouts) http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/index2.html Colorado SState U C Universityy O Online Writing g Lab http://writing.colostate.edu/ University of Richmond Writing Center http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb.html Mary Bucholtz. Tips for Writing Conference Abstracts. http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/bucholtz/ sociocultural/abstracttips.html
22
How to write a research paper
1 de 7
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/report/reportform.html
Parts of a research paper: [Title page] [Abstract] [Introduction] [Materials and Methods] [Results] [Discussion] [Literature Cited] Other resources: [Common errors in student research papers] [Selected writing rules]
Writing Research Papers Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead. --- Gene Fowler A major goal of this course is the development of effective technical writing skills. To help you become an accomplished writer, you will prepare several research papers based upon the studies completed in lab. Our research papers are not typical "lab reports." In a teaching lab a lab report might be nothing more than answers to a set of questions. Such an assignment hardly represents the kind of writing you might be doing in your eventual career. Written and oral communications skills are probably the most universal qualities sought by graduate and professional schools as well as by employers. You alone are responsible for developing such skills to a high level.
Resources for learning technical writing Before you begin your first writing assignment, please consult all of the following resources, in order to gain the most benefit from the experience. General form of a typical research article Specific guidelines (if any) for the assignment – see the writeups on individual lab studies McMillan, VE. "Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences, Third Ed." New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. ISBN 0-312-25857-7 (REQUIRED for Bios 211, 311, recommended for other science courses that include writing) Writing portfolio examples (pdf) As you polish up your writing skills please make use of the following resources Instructor feedback on previous assignments Common errors in student research papers Selected writing rules (somewhat less serious than the other resources) For Biosciences majors the general guidelines apply to future course work, as can be seen by examining the guidelines for the advanced experimental sciences research paper (Bios 311). Instructions for authors from the Journal of Biological Chemistry editorial board may be helpful as well. Their statement of editorial policies and practices may give you an idea of how material makes its way into the scientific literature.
General form of a research paper An objective of organizing a research paper is to allow people to read your work selectively.
22/06/2009 04:22 a.m.
How to write a research paper
2 de 7
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/report/reportform.html
When I research a topic, I may be interested in just the methods, a specific result, the interpretation, or perhaps I just want to see a summary of the paper to determine if it is relevant to my study. To this end, many journals require the following sections, submitted in the order listed, each section to start on a new page. There are variations of course. Some journals call for a combined results and discussion, for example, or include materials and methods after the body of the paper. The well known journal Science does away with separate sections altogether, except for the abstract. Your papers are to adhere to the form and style required for the Journal of Biological Chemistry, requirements that are shared by many journals in the life sciences.
General style Specific editorial requirements for submission of a manuscript will always supercede instructions in these general guidelines. To make a paper readable Print or type using a 12 point standard font, such as Times, Geneva, Bookman, Helvetica, etc. Text should be double spaced on 8 1/2" x 11" paper with 1 inch margins, single sided Number pages consecutively Start each new section on a new page Adhere to recommended page limits Mistakes to avoid Placing a heading at the bottom of a page with the following text on the next page (insert a page break!) Dividing a table or figure - confine each figure/table to a single page Submitting a paper with pages out of order In all sections of your paper Use normal prose including articles ("a", "the," etc.) Stay focused on the research topic of the paper Use paragraphs to separate each important point (except for the abstract) Indent the first line of each paragraph Present your points in logical order Use present tense to report well accepted facts - for example, 'the grass is green' Use past tense to describe specific results - for example, 'When weed killer was applied, the grass was brown' Avoid informal wording, don't address the reader directly, and don't use jargon, slang terms, or superlatives Avoid use of superfluous pictures - include only those figures necessary to presenting results
Title Page Select an informative title as illustrated in the examples in your writing portfolio example package. Include the name(s) and address(es) of all authors, and date submitted. "Biology lab #1" would not be an informative title, for example.
Abstract The summary should be two hundred words or less. See the examples in the writing portfolio package.
General intent
22/06/2009 04:22 a.m.
How to write a research paper
3 de 7
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/report/reportform.html
An abstract is a concise single paragraph summary of completed work or work in progress. In a minute or less a reader can learn the rationale behind the study, general approach to the problem, pertinent results, and important conclusions or new questions.
Writing an abstract Write your summary after the rest of the paper is completed. After all, how can you summarize something that is not yet written? Economy of words is important throughout any paper, but especially in an abstract. However, use complete sentences and do not sacrifice readability for brevity. You can keep it concise by wording sentences so that they serve more than one purpose. For example, "In order to learn the role of protein synthesis in early development of the sea urchin, newly fertilized embryos were pulse-labeled with tritiated leucine, to provide a time course of changes in synthetic rate, as measured by total counts per minute (cpm)." This sentence provides the overall question, methods, and type of analysis, all in one sentence. The writer can now go directly to summarizing the results. Summarize the study, including the following elements in any abstract. Try to keep the first two items to no more than one sentence each. Purpose of the study - hypothesis, overall question, objective Model organism or system and brief description of the experiment Results, including specific data - if the results are quantitative in nature, report quantitative data; results of any statistical analysis shoud be reported Important conclusions or questions that follow from the experiment(s) Style: Single paragraph, and concise As a summary of work done, it is always written in past tense An abstract should stand on its own, and not refer to any other part of the paper such as a figure or table Focus on summarizing results - limit background information to a sentence or two, if absolutely necessary What you report in an abstract must be consistent with what you reported in the paper Corrrect spelling, clarity of sentences and phrases, and proper reporting of quantities (proper units, significant figures) are just as important in an abstract as they are anywhere else
Introduction Your introductions should not exceed two pages (double spaced, typed). See the examples in the writing portfolio package.
General intent The purpose of an introduction is to aquaint the reader with the rationale behind the work, with the intention of defending it. It places your work in a theoretical context, and enables the reader to understand and appreciate your objectives.
Writing an introduction The abstract is the only text in a research paper to be written without using paragraphs in order to separate major points. Approaches vary widely, however for our studies the following approach can produce an effective introduction. Describe the importance (significance) of the study - why was this worth doing in the first place? Provide a broad context. Defend the model - why did you use this particular organism or system? What are its
22/06/2009 04:22 a.m.
How to write a research paper
4 de 7
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/report/reportform.html
advantages? You might comment on its suitability from a theoretical point of view as well as indicate practical reasons for using it. Provide a rationale. State your specific hypothesis(es) or objective(s), and describe the reasoning that led you to select them. Very briefy describe the experimental design and how it accomplished the stated objectives. Style: Use past tense except when referring to established facts. After all, the paper will be submitted after all of the work is completed. Organize your ideas, making one major point with each paragraph. If you make the four points listed above, you will need a minimum of four paragraphs. Present background information only as needed in order support a position. The reader does not want to read everything you know about a subject. State the hypothesis/objective precisely - do not oversimplify. As always, pay attention to spelling, clarity and appropriateness of sentences and phrases.
Materials and Methods There is no specific page limit, but a key concept is to keep this section as concise as you possibly can. People will want to read this material selectively. The reader may only be interested in one formula or part of a procedure. Materials and methods may be reported under separate subheadings within this section or can be incorporated together.
General intent This should be the easiest section to write, but many students misunderstand the purpose. The objective is to document all specialized materials and general procedures, so that another individual may use some or all of the methods in another study or judge the scientific merit of your work. It is not to be a step by step description of everything you did, nor is a methods section a set of instructions. In particular, it is not supposed to tell a story. By the way, your notebook should contain all of the information that you need for this section.
Writing a materials and methods section Materials: Describe materials separately only if the study is so complicated that it saves space this way. Include specialized chemicals, biological materials, and any equipment or supplies that are not commonly found in laboratories. Do not include commonly found supplies such as test tubes, pipet tips, beakers, etc., or standard lab equipment such as centrifuges, spectrophotometers, pipettors, etc. If use of a specific type of equipment, a specific enzyme, or a culture from a particular supplier is critical to the success of the experiment, then it and the source should be singled out, otherwise no. Materials may be reported in a separate paragraph or else they may be identified along with your procedures. In biosciences we frequently work with solutions - refer to them by name and describe completely, including concentrations of all reagents, and pH of aqueous solutions, solvent if non-aqueous. Methods: See the examples in the writing portfolio package Report the methodology (not details of each procedure that employed the same methodology) Describe the mehodology completely, including such specifics as temperatures,
22/06/2009 04:22 a.m.
How to write a research paper
5 de 7
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/report/reportform.html
incubation times, etc. To be concise, present methods under headings devoted to specific procedures or groups of procedures Generalize - report how procedures were done, not how they were specifically performed on a particular day. For example, report "samples were diluted to a final concentration of 2 mg/ml protein;" don't report that "135 microliters of sample one was diluted with 330 microliters of buffer to make the protein concentration 2 mg/ml." Always think about what would be relevant to an investigator at another institution, working on his/her own project. If well documented procedures were used, report the procedure by name, perhaps with reference, and that's all. For example, the Bradford assay is well known. You need not report the procedure in full - just that you used a Bradford assay to estimate protein concentration, and identify what you used as a standard. The same is true for the SDS-PAGE method, and many other well known procedures in biology and biochemistry. Style: It is awkward or impossible to use active voice when documenting methods without using first person, which would focus the reader's attention on the investigator rather than the work. Therefore when writing up the methods most authors use third person passive voice. Use normal prose in this and in every other section of the paper – avoid informal lists, and use complete sentences. What to avoid Materials and methods are not a set of instructions. Omit all explanatory information and background - save it for the discussion. Omit information that is irrelevant to a third party, such as what color ice bucket you used, or which individual logged in the data.
Results The page length of this section is set by the amount and types of data to be reported. Continue to be concise, using figures and tables, if appropriate, to present results most effectively. See recommendations for content, below.
General intent The purpose of a results section is to present and illustrate your findings. Make this section a completely objective report of the results, and save all interpretation for the discussion.
Writing a results section IMPORTANT: You must clearly distinguish material that would normally be included in a research article from any raw data or other appendix material that would not be published. In fact, such material should not be submitted at all unless requested by the instructor. Content Summarize your findings in text and illustrate them, if appropriate, with figures and tables. In text, describe each of your results, pointing the reader to observations that are most relevant. Provide a context, such as by describing the question that was addressed by making a particular observation. Describe results of control experiments and include observations that are not presented in a formal figure or table, if appropriate. Analyze your data, then prepare the analyzed (converted) data in the form of a figure
22/06/2009 04:22 a.m.
How to write a research paper
6 de 7
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/report/reportform.html
(graph), table, or in text form. What to avoid Do not discuss or interpret your results, report background information, or attempt to explain anything. Never include raw data or intermediate calculations in a research paper. Do not present the same data more than once. Text should complement any figures or tables, not repeat the same information. Please do not confuse figures with tables - there is a difference. Style As always, use past tense when you refer to your results, and put everything in a logical order. In text, refer to each figure as "figure 1," "figure 2," etc. ; number your tables as well (see the reference text for details) Place figures and tables, properly numbered, in order at the end of the report (clearly distinguish them from any other material such as raw data, standard curves, etc.) If you prefer, you may place your figures and tables appropriately within the text of your results section. Figures and tables Either place figures and tables within the text of the result, or include them in the back of the report (following Literature Cited) - do one or the other If you place figures and tables at the end of the report, make sure they are clearly distinguished from any attached appendix materials, such as raw data Regardless of placement, each figure must be numbered consecutively and complete with caption (caption goes under the figure) Regardless of placement, each table must be titled, numbered consecutively and complete with heading (title with description goes above the table) Each figure and table must be sufficiently complete that it could stand on its own, separate from text
Discussion Journal guidelines vary. Space is so valuable in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, that authors are asked to restrict discussions to four pages or less, double spaced, typed. That works out to one printed page. While you are learning to write effectively, the limit will be extended to five typed pages. If you practice economy of words, that should be plenty of space within which to say all that you need to say.
General intent The objective here is to provide an interpretation of your results and support for all of your conclusions, using evidence from your experiment and generally accepted knowledge, if appropriate. The significance of findings should be clearly described.
Writing a discussion Interpret your data in the discussion in appropriate depth. This means that when you explain a phenomenon you must describe mechanisms that may account for the observation. If your results differ from your expectations, explain why that may have happened. If your results agree, then describe the theory that the evidence supported. It is never appropriate to simply state that the data agreed with expectations, and let it drop at that. Decide if each hypothesis is supported, rejected, or if you cannot make a decision with confidence. Do not simply dismiss a study or part of a study as "inconclusive." Research papers are not accepted if the work is incomplete. Draw what conclusions
22/06/2009 04:22 a.m.
How to write a research paper
7 de 7
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/report/reportform.html
you can based upon the results that you have, and treat the study as a finished work You may suggest future directions, such as how the experiment might be modified to accomplish another objective. Explain all of your observations as much as possible, focusing on mechanisms. Decide if the experimental design adequately addressed the hypothesis, and whether or not it was properly controlled. Try to offer alternative explanations if reasonable alternatives exist. One experiment will not answer an overall question, so keeping the big picture in mind, where do you go next? The best studies open up new avenues of research. What questions remain? Recommendations for specific papers will provide additional suggestions. Style: When you refer to information, distinguish data generated by your own studies from published information or from information obtained from other students (verb tense is an important tool for accomplishing that purpose). Refer to work done by specific individuals (including yourself) in past tense. Refer to generally accepted facts and principles in present tense. For example, "Doofus, in a 1989 survey, found that anemia in basset hounds was correlated with advanced age. Anemia is a condition in which there is insufficient hemoglobin in the blood." The biggest mistake that students make in discussions is to present a superficial interpretation that more or less re-states the results. It is necessary to suggest why results came out as they did, focusing on the mechanisms behind the observations.
Literature Cited Please note that in the introductory laboratory course, you will not be required to properly document sources of all of your information. One reason is that your major source of information is this website, and websites are inappropriate as primary sources. Second, it is problematic to provide a hundred students with equal access to potential reference materials. You may nevertheless find outside sources, and you should cite any articles that the instructor provides or that you find for yourself. List all literature cited in your paper, in alphabetical order, by first author. In a proper research paper, only primary literature is used (original research articles authored by the original investigators). Be cautious about using web sites as references - anyone can put just about anything on a web site, and you have no sure way of knowing if it is truth or fiction. If you are citing an on line journal, use the journal citation (name, volume, year, page numbers). Some of your papers may not require references, and if that is the case simply state that "no references were consulted."
Copyright and Intended Use Visitors: to ensure that your message is not mistaken for SPAM, please include the acronym "Bios211" in the subject line of e-mail communications Created by David R. Caprette (caprette@rice.edu), Rice University 25 Aug 95 Updated 20 Aug 07
22/06/2009 04:22 a.m.
[This Article appeared in the American Scientist (Nov-Dec 1990), Volume 78, 550-558. Retyped and posted with permission.]
The Science of Scientific Writing If the reader is to grasp what the writer means, the writer must understand what the reader needs George D. Gopen and Judith A. Swan* *George D. Gopen is associate professor of English and Director of Writing Programs at Duke University. He holds a Ph.D. in English from Harvard University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. Judith A. Swan teaches scientific writing at Princeton University. Her Ph.D., which is in biochemistry, was earned at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Address for Gopen: 307 Allen Building, Duke University, Durham, NC 27706
Science is often hard to read. Most people assume that its difficulties are born out of necessity, out of the extreme complexity of scientific concepts, data and analysis. We argue here that complexity of thought need not lead to impenetrability of expression; we demonstrate a number of rhetorical principles that can produce clarity in communication without oversimplifying scientific issues. The results are substantive, not merely cosmetic: Improving the quality of writing actually improves the quality of thought. The fundamental purpose of scientific discourse is not the mere presentation of information and thought, but rather its actual communication. It does not matter how pleased an author might be to have converted all the right data into sentences and paragraphs; it matters only whether a large majority of the reading audience accurately perceives what the author had in mind. Therefore, in order to understand how best to improve writing, we would do well to understand better how readers go about reading. Such an understanding has recently become available through work done in the fields of rhetoric, linguistics and cognitive psychology. It has helped to produce a methodology based on the concept of reader expectations. Writing with the Reader in Mind: Expectation and Context Readers do not simply read; they interpret. Any piece of prose, no matter how short, may "mean" in 10 (or more) different ways to 10 different readers. This methodology of reader expectations is founded on the recognition that readers make many of their most important interpretive decisions about the substance of prose based on clues they receive from its structure. This interplay between substance and structure can be demonstrated by something as basic as a simple
table. Let us say that in tracking the temperature of a liquid over a period of time, an investigator takes measurements every three minutes and records a list of temperatures. Those data could be presented by a number of written structures. Here are two possibilities: t(time)=15’, T(temperature)=32º, t=0’, T=25º; t=6’, T=29º; t=3’, T=27º; t=12’, T=32º; t=9’; T=31º time (min) 0 3 6 9 12 15
temperature(ºC) 25 27 29 31 32 32
Precisely the same information appears in both formats, yet most readers find the second easier to interpret. It may be that the very familiarity of the tabular structure makes it easier to use. But, more significantly, the structure of the second table provides the reader with an easily perceived context (time) in which the significant piece of information (temperature) can be interpreted. The contextual material appears on the left in a pattern that produces an expectation of regularity; the interesting results appear on the right in a less obvious pattern, the discovery of which is the point of the table. If the two sides of this simple table are reversed, it becomes much harder to read. temperature(ºC) 25 27 29 31 32 32
time(min) 0 3 6 9 12 15
Since we read from left to right, we prefer the context on the left, where it can more effectively familiarize the reader. We prefer the new, important information on the right, since its job is to intrigue the reader. Information is interpreted more easily and more uniformly if it is placed where most readers expect to find it. These needs and expectations of readers affect the interpretation not only of tables and illustrations but also of prose itself. Readers have relatively fixed expectations about where in the structure of prose they will encounter particular items of its substance. If writers can become consciously aware of these locations, they can better control the degrees of recognition and emphasis a reader will give to the various pieces of information being presented. Good writers are intuitively aware of these expectations; that is why their prose has what we call "shape." This underlying concept of reader expectation is perhaps most immediately evident at the level of the largest units of discourse. (A unit of discourse is defined as anything with a beginning and an end: a clause, a sentence, a section, an article, etc.) A research article, for example, is generally divided into recognizable sections, sometimes labeled Introduction, Experimental Methods, Results and Discussion. When the sections are confused--when too much experimental detail is found in the Results section, or when discussion and results intermingle--readers are often equally confused. In smaller units of discourse the functional divisions are not so explicitly labeled, but readers have definite expectations all
the same, and they search for certain information in particular places. If these structural expectations are continually violated, readers are forced to divert energy from understanding the content of a passage to unraveling its structure. As the complexity of the context increases moderately, the possibility of misinterpretation or noninterpretation increases dramatically. We present here some results of applying this methodology to research reports in the scientific literature. We have taken several passages from research articles (either published or accepted for publication) and have suggested ways of rewriting them by applying principles derived from the study of reader expectations. We have not sought to transform the passages into "plain English" for the use of the general public; we have neither decreased the jargon nor diluted the science. We have striven not for simplification but for clarification. Reader Expectations for the Structure of Prose Here is our first example of scientific prose, in its original form: The smallest of the URF’s (URFA6L), a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the NH2-terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H+-ATPase subunit 8 gene. The functional significance of the other URF’s has been, on the contrary, elusive. Recently, however, immunoprecipitation experiments with antibodies to purified, rotenone-sensitive NADH-ubiquinone oxido-reductase [hereafter referred to as respiratory chain NADH dehydrogenase or complex I] from bovine heart, as well as enzyme fractionation studies, have indicated that six human URF’s (that is, URF1, URF2, URF3, URF4, URF4L, and URF5, hereafter referred to as ND1, ND2, ND3, ND4, ND4L, and ND5) encode subunits of complex I. This is a large complex that also contains many subunits synthesized in the cytoplasm.* [*The full paragraph includes one more sentence: "Support for such functional identification of the URF products has come from the finding that the purified rotenone-sensitive NADH dehydrogenase from Neurospora crassa contains several subunits synthesized within the mitochondria, and from the observation that the stopper mutant of Neurospora crassa, whose mtDNA lacks two genes homologous to URF2 and URF3, has no functional complex I." We have omitted this sentence both because the passage is long enough as is and because it raises no additional structural issues.]
Ask any ten people why this paragraph is hard to read, and nine are sure to mention the technical vocabulary; several will also suggest that it requires specialized background knowledge. Those problems turn out to be only a small part of the difficulty. Here is the passage again, with the difficult words temporarily lifted: The smallest of the URF’s, and [A], has been identified as a [B] subunit 8 gene. The functional significance of the other URF’s has been, on the contrary, elusive. Recently, however, [C] experiments, as well as [D] studies, have indicated that six human URF’s [1-6] encode subunits of Complex I. This is a large complex that also contains many subunits synthesized in the cytoplasm. It may now be easier to survive the journey through the prose, but the passage is still difficult. Any number of questions present themselves: What has the first sentence of the passage to do with the last sentence? Does the third sentence contradict what we have been told in the second sentence? Is the functional significance of URF’s still "elusive"? Will this passage lead us to further discussion about
URF’s, or about Complex I, or both?
Information is interpreted more easily and more uniformly if it is placed where most readers expect to find it. Knowing a little about the subject matter does not clear up all the confusion. The intended audience of this passage would probably possess at least two items of essential technical information: first, "URF" stands for "Uninterrupted Reading Frame," which describes a segment of DNA organized in such a way that it could encode a protein, although no such protein product has yet been identified; second, both APTase and NADH oxido-reductase are enzyme complexes central to energy metabolism. Although this information may provide some sense of comfort, it does little to answer the interpretive questions that need answering. It seems the reader is hindered by more than just the scientific jargon. To get at the problem, we need to articulate something about how readers go about reading. We proceed to the first of several reader expectations. Subject-Verb Separation Look again at the first sentence of the passage cited above. It is relatively long, 42 words; but that turns out not to be the main cause of its burdensome complexity. Long sentences need not be difficult to read; they are only difficult to write. We have seen sentences of over 100 words that flow easily and persuasively toward their clearly demarcated destination. Those well-wrought serpents all had something in common: Their structure presented information to readers in the order the readers needed and expected it.
Beginning with the exciting material and ending with a lack of luster often leaves us disappointed and destroys our sense of momentum. The first sentence of our example passage does just the opposite: it burdens and obstructs the reader, because of an all-too-common structural defect. Note that the grammatical subject ("the smallest") is separated from its verb ("has been identified") by 23 words, more than half the sentence. Readers expect a grammatical subject to be followed immediately by the verb. Anything of length that intervenes between subject and verb is read as an interruption, and therefore as something of lesser importance.
The reader’s expectation stems from a pressing need for syntactic resolution, fulfilled only by the arrival of the verb. Without the verb, we do not know what the subject is doing, or what the sentence is all about. As a result, the reader focuses attention on the arrival of the verb and resists recognizing anything in the interrupting material as being of primary importance. The longer the interruption lasts, the more likely it becomes that the "interruptive" material actually contains important information; but its structural location will continue to brand it as merely interruptive. Unfortunately, the reader will not discover its true value until too late-until the sentence has ended without having produced anything of much value outside of that subject-verb interruption. In this first sentence of the paragraph, the relative importance of the intervening material is difficult to evaluate. The material might conceivably be quite significant, in which case the writer should have positioned it to reveal that importance. Here is one way to incorporate it into the sentence structure: The smallest of the URF’s is URFA6L, a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the NH2-terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene; it has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H+-ATPase subunit 8 gene. On the other hand, the intervening material might be a mere aside that diverts attention from more important ideas; in that case the writer should have deleted it, allowing the prose to drive more directly toward its significant point: The smallest of the URF’s (URFA6L) has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H+-ATPase subunit 8 gene. Only the author could tell us which of these revisions more accurately reflects his intentions. These revisions lead us to a second set of reader expectations. Each unit of discourse, no matter what the size, is expected to serve a single function, to make a single point. In the case of a sentence, the point is expected to appear in a specific place reserved for emphasis. The Stress Position It is a linguistic commonplace that readers naturally emphasize the material that arrives at the end of a sentence. We refer to that location as a "stress position." If a writer is consciously aware of this tendency, she can arrange for the emphatic information to appear at the moment the reader is naturally exerting the greatest reading emphasis. As a result, the chances greatly increase that reader and writer will perceive the same material as being worthy of primary emphasis. The very structure of the sentence thus helps persuade the reader of the relative values of the sentence’s contents. The inclination to direct more energy to that which arrives last in a sentence seems to correspond to the way we work at tasks through time. We tend to take something like a "mental breath" as we begin to read each new sentence, thereby summoning the tension with which we pay attention to the unfolding of the syntax. As we recognize that the sentence is drawing toward its conclusion, we begin to exhale that mental breath. The exhalation produces a sense of emphasis. Moreover, we delight in being rewarded at the end of a labor with something that makes the ongoing effort worthwhile. Beginning with the exciting
material and ending with a lack of luster often leaves us disappointed and destroys our sense of momentum. We do not start with the strawberry shortcake and work our way up to the broccoli. When the writer puts the emphatic material of a sentence in any place other than the stress position, one of two things can happen; both are bad. First, the reader might find the stress position occupied by material that clearly is not worthy of emphasis. In this case, the reader must discern, without any additional structural clue, what else in the sentence may be the most likely candidate for emphasis. There are no secondary structural indications to fall back upon. In sentences that are long, dense or sophisticated, chances soar that the reader will not interpret the prose precisely as the writer intended. The second possibility is even worse: The reader may find the stress position occupied by something that does appear capable of receiving emphasis, even though the writer did not intend to give it any stress. In that case, the reader is highly likely to emphasize this imposter material, and the writer will have lost an important opportunity to influence the reader’s interpretive process. The stress position can change in size from sentence to sentence. Sometimes it consists of a single word; sometimes it extends to several lines. The definitive factor is this: The stress position coincides with the moment of syntactic closure. A reader has reached the beginning of the stress position when she knows there is nothing left in the clause or sentence but the material presently being read. Thus a whole list, numbered and indented, can occupy the stress position of a sentence if it has been clearly announced as being all that remains of that sentence. Each member of that list, in turn, may have its own internal stress position, since each member may produce its own syntactic closure. Within a sentence, secondary stress positions can be formed by the appearance of a properly used colon or semicolon; by grammatical convention, the material preceding these punctuation marks must be able to stand by itself as a complete sentence. Thus, sentences can be extended effortlessly to dozens of words, as long as there is a medial syntactic closure for every piece of new, stress-worthy information along the way. One of our revisions of the initial sentence can serve as an example: The smallest of the URF’s is URFA6L, a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the NH2-terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene; it has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H+-ATPase subunit 8 gene. By using a semicolon, we created a second stress position to accommodate a second piece of information that seemed to require emphasis. We now have 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. Using these principles, we can begin to unravel the problems of our example prose. Note the subject-verb separation in the 62-word third sentence of the original passage: Recently, however, immunoprecipitation experiments with antibodies to purified, rotenone-sensitive NADH-ubiquinone oxido-reductase [hereafter referred to as respiratory chain NADH dehydrogenase or complex I] from bovine heart, as well as enzyme fractionation studies, have indicated that six human URF’s (that is, URF1, URF2, URF3, URF4, URF4L, and URF5,
hereafter referred to as ND1, ND2, ND3, ND4, ND4L and ND5) encode subunits of complex I. After encountering the subject ("experiments"), the reader must wade through 27 words (including three hyphenated compound words, a parenthetical interruption and an "as well as" phrase) before alighting on the highly uninformative and disappointingly anticlimactic verb ("have indicated"). Without a moment to recover, the reader is handed a "that" clause in which the new subject ("six human URF’s") is separated from its verb ("encode") by yet another 20 words. If we applied the three principles we have developed to the rest of the sentences of the example, we could generate a great many revised versions of each. These revisions might differ significantly from one another in the way their structures indicate to the reader the various weights and balances to be given to the information. Had the author placed all stress-worthy material in stress positions, we as a reading community would have been far more likely to interpret these sentences uniformly. We couch this discussion in terms of "likelihood" because we believe that meaning is not inherent in discourse by itself; "meaning" requires the combined participation of text and reader. All sentences are infinitely interpretable, given an infinite number of interpreters. As communities of readers, however, we tend to work out tacit agreements as to what kinds of meaning are most likely to be extracted from certain articulations. We cannot succeed in making even a single sentence mean one and only one thing; we can only increase the odds that a large majority of readers will tend to interpret our discourse according to our intentions. Such success will follow from authors becoming more consciously aware of the various reader expectations presented here.
W e cannot succeed in making even a single sentence mean one and only one thing; we can only increase the odds that a large majority of readers will tend to interpret our discourse according to our intentions. Here is one set of revisionary decisions we made for the example: The smallest of the URF’s, URFA6L, has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H+-ATPase subunit 8 gene; but the functional significance of other URF’s has been more elusive. Recently, however, several human URF’s have been shown to encode subunits of rotenone-sensitive NADH-ubiquinone oxido-reductase. This is a large complex that also contains many subunits synthesized in the cytoplasm; it will be referred to hereafter as respiratory chain NADH dehydrogenase or complex I. Six subunits of Complex I were shown by enzyme fractionation studies and immunoprecipitation experiments to be encoded by six human URF’s (URF1, URF2, URF3, URF4, URF4L, and URF5); these URF’s will be referred to subsequently as ND1, ND2, ND3, ND4, ND4L and ND5.
Sheer length was neither the problem nor the solution. The revised version is not noticeably shorter than the original; nevertheless, it is significantly easier to interpret. We have indeed deleted certain words, but not on the basis of wordiness or excess length. (See especially the last sentence of our revision.) When is a sentence too long? The creators of readability formulas would have us believe there exists some fixed number of words (the favorite is 29) past which a sentence is too hard to read. We disagree. We have seen 10-word sentences that are virtually impenetrable and, as we mentioned above, 100-word sentences that flow effortlessly to their points of resolution. In place of the word-limit concept, we offer the following definition: A sentence is too long when it has more viable candidates for stress positions than there are stress positions available. Without the stress position’s locational clue that its material is intended to be emphasized, readers are left too much to their own devices in deciding just what else in a sentence might be considered important. In revising the example passage, we made certain decisions about what to omit and what to emphasize. We put subjects and verbs together to lessen the reader’s syntactic burdens; we put the material we believed worthy of emphasis in stress positions; and we discarded material for which we could not discern significant connections. In doing so, we have produced a clearer passage--but not one that necessarily reflects the author’s intentions; it reflects only our interpretation of the author’s intentions. The more problematic the structure, the less likely it becomes that a grand majority of readers will perceive the discourse in exactly the way the author intended.
T he information that begins a sentence establishes for the reader a perspective for viewing the sentence as a unit. It is probable that many of our readers--and perhaps even the authors--will disagree with some of our choices. If so, that disagreement underscores our point: The original failed to communicate its ideas and their connections clearly. If we happened to have interpreted the passage as you did, then we can make a different point: No one should have to work as hard as we did to unearth the content of a single passage of this length. The Topic Position To summarize the principles connected with the stress position, we have the proverbial wisdom, "Save the best for last." To summarize the principles connected with the other end of the sentence, which we will call the topic position, we have its proverbial contradiction, "First things first." In the stress position the reader needs and expects closure and fulfillment; in the topic position the reader needs and expects perspective and context. With so much of reading comprehension affected by what shows up in the topic position, it behooves a writer to control what appears at the beginning of sentences with great care. The information that begins a sentence establishes for the reader a perspective for viewing the sentence
as a unit: Readers expect a unit of discourse to be a story about whoever shows up first. "Bees disperse pollen" and "Pollen is dispersed by bees" are two different but equally respectable sentences about the same facts. The first tells us something about bees; the second tells us something about pollen. The passivity of the second sentence does not by itself impair its quality; in fact, "Pollen is dispersed by bees" is the superior sentence if it appears in a paragraph that intends to tell us a continuing story about pollen. Pollen’s story at that moment is a passive one. Readers also expect the material occupying the topic position to provide them with linkage (looking backward) and context (looking forward). The information in the topic position prepares the reader for upcoming material by connecting it backward to the previous discussion. Although linkage and context can derive from several sources, they stem primarily from material that the reader has already encountered within this particular piece of discourse. We refer to this familiar, previously introduced material as "old information." Conversely, material making its first appearance in a discourse is "new information." When new information is important enough to receive emphasis, it functions best in the stress position. When old information consistently arrives in the topic position, it helps readers to construct the logical flow of the argument: It focuses attention on one particular strand of the discussion, both harkening backward and leaning forward. In contrast, if the topic position is constantly occupied by material that fails to establish linkage and context, readers will have difficulty perceiving both the connection to the previous sentence and the projected role of the new sentence in the development of the paragraph as a whole. Here is a second example of scientific prose that we shall attempt to improve in subsequent discussion: Large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are approximately uniform. Therefore, in first approximation, one may expect that large ruptures of the same fault segment will occur at approximately constant time intervals. If subsequent main shocks have different amounts of slip across the fault, then the recurrence time may vary, and the basic idea of periodic mainshocks must be modified. For great plate boundary ruptures the length and slip often vary by a factor of 2. Along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault the recurrence interval is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long term prediction of a future mainshock. This is the kind of passage that in subtle ways can make readers feel badly about themselves. The individual sentences give the impression of being intelligently fashioned: They are not especially long or convoluted; their vocabulary is appropriately professional but not beyond the ken of educated general readers; and they are free of grammatical and dictional errors. On first reading, however, many of us arrive at the paragraph’s end without a clear sense of where we have been or where we are going. When that happens, we tend to berate ourselves for not having paid close enough attention. In reality, the fault lies not with us, but with the author. We can distill the problem by looking closely at the information in each sentence’s topic position: Large earthquakes The rates
Therefore...one subsequent mainshocks great plate boundary ruptures the southern segment of the San Andreas fault the smaller the standard deviation... Much of this information is making its first appearance in this paragraph--in precisely the spot where the reader looks for old, familiar information. As a result, the focus of the story constantly shifts. Given just the material in the topic positions, no two readers would be likely to construct exactly the same story for the paragraph as a whole. If we try to piece together the relationship of each sentence to its neighbors, we notice that certain bits of old information keep reappearing. We hear a good deal about the recurrence time between earthquakes: The first sentence introduces the concept of nonrandom intervals between earthquakes; the second sentence tells us that recurrence rates due to the movement of tectonic plates are more or less uniform; the third sentence adds that the recurrence rates of major earthquakes should also be somewhat predictable; the fourth sentence adds that recurrence rates vary with some conditions; the fifth sentence adds information about one particular variation; the sixth sentence adds a recurrence-rate example from California; and the last sentence tells us something about how recurrence rates can be described statistically. This refrain of "recurrence intervals" constitutes the major string of old information in the paragraph. Unfortunately, it rarely appears at the beginning of sentences, where it would help us maintain our focus on its continuing story. In reading, as in most experiences, we appreciate the opportunity to become familiar with a new environment before having to function in it. Writing that continually begins sentences with new information and ends with old information forbids both the sense of comfort and orientation at the start and the sense of fulfilling arrival at the end. It misleads the reader as to whose story is being told; it burdens the reader with new information that must be carried further into the sentence before it can be connected to the discussion; and it creates ambiguity as to which material the writer intended the reader to emphasize. All of these distractions require that readers expend a disproportionate amount of energy to unravel the structure of the prose, leaving less energy available for perceiving content. We can begin to revise the example by ensuring the following for each sentence: 1. The backward-linking old information appears in the topic position. 2. The person, thing or concept whose story it is appears in the topic position. 3. The new, emphasis-worthy information appears in the stress position. Once again, if our decisions concerning the relative values of specific information differ from yours, we can all blame the author, who failed to make his intentions apparent. Here first is a list of what we perceived to be the new, emphatic material in each sentence: time to accumulate strain energy along a fault approximately uniform large ruptures of the same fault different amounts of slip vary by a factor of 2 variations of several decades
predictions of future mainshock Now, based on these assumptions about what deserves stress, here is our proposed revision: Large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are roughly uniform. Therefore, nearly constant time intervals (at first approximation) would be expected between large ruptures of the same fault segment. [However?], the recurrence time may vary; the basic idea of periodic mainshocks may need to be modified if subsequent mainshocks have different amounts of slip across the fault. [Indeed?], the length and slip of great plate boundary ruptures often vary by a factor of 2. [For example?], the recurrence intervals along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long term prediction of a future mainshock. Many problems that had existed in the original have now surfaced for the first time. Is the reason earthquakes do not occur at random intervals stated in the first sentence or in the second? Are the suggested choices of "however," "indeed," and "for example" the right ones to express the connections at those points? (All these connections were left unarticulated in the original paragraph.) If "for example" is an inaccurate transitional phrase, then exactly how does the San Andreas fault example connect to ruptures that "vary by a factor of 2"? Is the author arguing that recurrence rates must vary because fault movements often vary? Or is the author preparing us for a discussion of how in spite of such variance we might still be able to predict earthquakes? This last question remains unanswered because the final sentence leaves behind earthquakes that recur at variable intervals and switches instead to earthquakes that recur regularly. Given that this is the first paragraph of the article, which type of earthquake will the article most likely proceed to discuss? In sum, we are now aware of how much the paragraph had not communicated to us on first reading. We can see that most of our difficulty was owing not to any deficiency in our reading skills but rather to the author’s lack of comprehension of our structural needs as readers.
In our experience, the misplacement of old and new information turns out to be he No. 1 problem in American professional writing today. In our experience, the misplacement of old and new information turns out to be the No. 1 problem in American professional writing today. The source of the problem is not hard to discover: Most writers produce prose linearly (from left to right) and through time. As they begin to formulate a sentence, often their primary anxiety is to capture the important new thought before it escapes. Quite naturally they rush to record that new information on paper, after which they can produce at their leisure contextualizing material that links back to the previous discourse. Writers who do this consistently are attending more to their own need for unburdening themselves of their information than to the reader’s need for receiving the material. The methodology of reader expectations articulates the reader’s needs explicitly, thereby
making writers consciously aware of structural problems and ways to solve them.
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. A note of clarification: Many people hearing this structural advice tend to oversimplify it to the following rule: "Put the old information in the topic position and the new information in the stress position." No such rule is possible. Since by definition all information is either old or new, the space between the topic position and the stress position must also be filled with old and new information. Therefore the principle (not rule) should be stated as follows: "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." Perceiving Logical Gaps When old information does not appear at all in a sentence, whether in the topic position or elsewhere, readers are left to construct the logical linkage by themselves. Often this happens when the connections are so clear in the writer’s mind that they seem unnecessary to state; at those moments, writers underestimate the difficulties and ambiguities inherent in the reading process. Our third example attempts to demonstrate how paying attention to the placement of old and new information can reveal where a writer has neglected to articulate essential connections. The enthalpy of hydrogen bond formation between the nucleoside bases 2’deoxyguanosine (dG) and 2’deoxycytidine (dC) has been determined by direct measurement. dG and dC were derivatized at the 5’ and 3’ hydroxyls with triisopropylsilyl groups to obtain solubility of the nucleosides in non-aqueous solvents and to prevent the ribose hydroxyls from forming hydrogen bonds. From isoperibolic titration measurements, the enthalpy of dC:dG base pair formation is -6.65±0.32 kcal/mol. Although part of the difficulty of reading this passage may stem from its abundance of specialized technical terms, a great deal more of the difficulty can be attributed to its structural problems. These problems are now familiar: We are not sure at all times whose story is being told; in the first sentence the subject and verb are widely separated; the second sentence has only one stress position but two or three pieces of information that are probably worthy of emphasis--"solubility ...solvents," "prevent... from forming hydrogen bonds" and perhaps "triisopropylsilyl groups." These perceptions suggest the following revision tactics: 1. Invert the first sentence, so that (a) the subject-verb-complement connection is unbroken, and (b) "dG" and "dC" are introduced in the stress position as new and interesting information. (Note that inverting the sentence requires stating who made the measurement; since the authors performed
2. 3. 4. 5.
the first direct measurement, recognizing their agency in the topic position may well be appropriate.) Since "dG and "dC" become the old information in the second sentence, keep them up front in the topic position. Since "triisopropylsilyl groups" is new and important information here, create for it a stress position. "Triisopropylsilyl groups" then becomes the old information of the clause in which its effects are described; place it in the topic position of this clause. Alert the reader to expect the arrival of two distinct effects by using the flag word "both." "Both" notifies the reader that two pieces of new information will arrive in a single stress position.
Here is a partial revision based on these decisions: We have directly measured the enthalpy of hydrogen bond formation between the nucleoside bases 2’deoxyguanosine (dG) and 2’deoxycytidine (dC). dG and dC were derivatized at the 5’ and 3’ hydroxyls with triisopropylsilyl groups; these groups serve both to solubilize the nucleosides in non-aqueous solvents and to prevent the ribose hydroxyls from forming hydrogen bonds. From isoperibolic titration measurements, the enthalpy of dC:dG base pair formation is -6.65±0.32 kcal/mol. The outlines of the experiment are now becoming visible, but there is still a major logical gap. After reading the second sentence, we expect to hear more about the two effects that were important enough to merit placement in its stress position. Our expectations are frustrated, however, when those effects are not mentioned in the next sentence: "From isoperibolic titration measurements, the enthalpy of dC:dG base pair formation is -6.65±0.32 kcal/mol." The authors have neglected to explain the relationship between the derivatization they performed (in the second sentence) and the measurements they made (in the third sentence). Ironically, that is the point they most wished to make here. At this juncture, particularly astute readers who are chemists might draw upon their specialized knowledge, silently supplying the missing connection. Other readers are left in the dark. Here is one version of what we think the authors meant to say, with two additional sentences supplied from a knowledge of nucleic acid chemistry: We have directly measured the enthalpy of hydrogen bond formation between the nucleoside bases 2’deoxyguanosine (dG) and 2’deoxycytidine (dC). dG and dC were derivatized at the 5’ and 3’ hydroxyls with triisopropylsiyl groups; these groups serve both to solubilize the nucleosides in non-aqueous solvents and to prevent the ribose hydroxyls from forming hydrogen bonds. Consequently, when the derivatized nucleosides are dissolved in non-aqueous solvents, hydrogen bonds form almost exclusively between the bases. Since the interbase hydrogen bonds are the only bonds to form upon mixing, their enthalpy of formation can be determined directly by measuring the enthalpy of mixing. From our isoperibolic titration measurements, the enthalpy of dG:dC base pair formation is -6.65±0.32 kcal/mol. Each sentence now proceeds logically from its predecessor. We never have to wander too far into a sentence without being told where we are and what former strands of discourse are being continued. And the "measurements" of the last sentence has now become old information, reaching back to the "measured directly" of the preceding sentence. (It also fulfills the promise of the "we have directly measured" with which the paragraph began.) By following our knowledge of reader expectations, we
have been able to spot discontinuities, to suggest strategies for bridging gaps, and to rearrange the structure of the prose, thereby increasing the accessibility of the scientific content. Locating the Action Our final example adds another major reader expectation to the list. Transcription of the 5S RNA genes in the egg extract is TFIIIA-dependent. This is surprising, because the concentration of TFIIIA is the same as in the oocyte nuclear extract. The other transcription factors and RNA polymerase III are presumed to be in excess over available TFIIIA, because tRNA genes are transcribed in the egg extract. The addition of egg extract to the oocyte nuclear extract has two effects on transcription efficiency. First, there is a general inhibition of transcription that can be alleviated in part by supplementation with high concentrations of RNA polymerase III. Second, egg extract destabilizes transcription complexes formed with oocyte but not somatic 5S RNA genes. The barriers to comprehension in this passage are so many that it may appear difficult to know where to start revising. Fortunately, it does not matter where we start, since attending to any one structural problem eventually leads us to all the others. We can spot one source of difficulty by looking at the topic positions of the sentences: We cannot tell whose story the passage is. The story’s focus (that is, the occupant of the topic position) changes in every sentence. If we search for repeated old information in hope of settling on a good candidate for several of the topic positions, we find all too much of it: egg extract, TFIIIA, oocyte extract, RNA polymerase III, 5S RNA, and transcription. All of these reappear at various points, but none announces itself clearly as our primary focus. It appears that the passage is trying to tell several stories simultaneously, allowing none to dominate. We are unable to decide among these stories because the author has not told us what to do with all this information. We know who the players are, but we are ignorant of the actions they are presumed to perform. This violates yet another important reader expectation: Readers expect the action of a sentence to be articulated by the verb. Here is a list of the verbs in the example paragraph: is is...is are presumed to be are transcribed has is...can be alleviated destabilizes The list gives us too few clues as to what actions actually take place in the passage. If the actions are not to be found in the verbs, then we as readers have no secondary structural clues for where to locate them. Each of us has to make a personal interpretive guess; the writer no longer controls the reader’s interpretive act.
As critical scientific readers, we would like to concentrate our energy on whether the experiments prove the hypotheses. Worse still, in this passage the important actions never appear. Based on our best understanding of this material, the verbs that connect these players are "limit" and "inhibit." If we express those actions as verbs and place the most frequently occurring information--"egg extract" and "TFIIIA"--in the topic position whenever possible,* we can generate the following revision: In the egg extract, the availability of TFIIIA limits transcription of the 5S RNA genes. This is surprising because the same concentration of TFIIIA does not limit transcription in the oocyte nuclear extract. In the egg extract, transcription is not limited by RNA polymerase or other factors because transcription of tRNA genes indicates that these factors are in excess over available TFIIIA. When added to the nuclear extract, the egg extract affected the efficiency of transcription in two ways. First, it inhibited transcription generally; this inhibition could be alleviated in part by supplementing the mixture with high concentrations of RNA polymerase III. Second, the egg extract destabilized transcription complexes formed by oocyte but not by somatic 5S genes. [*We have chosen these two pieces of old information as the controlling contexts for the passage. That choice was neither arbitrary nor born of logical necessity; it was simply an act of interpretation. All readers make exactly that kind of choice in the reading of every sentence. The fewer the structural clues to interpretation given by the author, the more variable the resulting interpretations will tend to be.]
As a story about "egg extract," this passage still leaves something to be desired. But at least now we can recognize that the author has not explained the connection between "limit" and "inhibit." This unarticulated connection seems to us to contain both of her hypotheses: First, that the limitation on transcription is caused by an inhibitor of TFIIIA present in the egg extract; and, second, that the action of that inhibitor can be detected by adding the egg extract to the oocyte extract and examining the effects on transcription. As critical scientific readers, we would like to concentrate our energy on whether the experiments prove the hypotheses. We cannot begin to do so if we are left in doubt as to what those hypotheses might be--and if we are using most of our energy to discern the structure of the prose rather than its substance. Writing and the Scientific Process We began this article by arguing that complex thoughts expressed in impenetrable prose can be rendered accessible and clear without minimizing any of their complexity. Our examples of scientific writing have ranged from the merely cloudy to the virtually opaque; yet all of them could be made significantly more comprehensible by observing the following structural principles: 1. Follow a grammatical subject as soon as possible with its verb.
2. Place in the stress position the "new information" you want the reader to emphasize. 3. Place the person or thing whose "story" a sentence is telling at the beginning of the sentence, in the topic position. 4. Place appropriate "old information" (material already stated in the discourse) in the topic position for linkage backward and contextualization forward. 5. Articulate the action of every clause or sentence in its verb. 6. In general, provide context for your reader before asking that reader to consider anything new. 7. In general, try to ensure that the relative emphases of the substance coincide with the relative expectations for emphasis raised by the structure.
It may seem obvious that a scientific document is incomplete without the interpretation of the writer; it may not be so obvious that the document cannot "exist" without the interpretation of each reader. None of these reader-expectation principles should be considered "rules." Slavish adherence to them will succeed no better than has slavish adherence to avoiding split infinitives or to using the active voice instead of the passive. There can be no fixed algorithm for good writing, for two reasons. First, too many reader expectations are functioning at any given moment for structural decisions to remain clear and easily activated. Second, any reader expectation can be violated to good effect. Our best stylists turn out to be our most skillful violators; but in order to carry this off, they must fulfill expectations most of the time, causing the violations to be perceived as exceptional moments, worthy of note. A writer’s personal style is the sum of all the structural choices that person tends to make when facing the challenges of creating discourse. Writers who fail to put new information in the stress position of many sentences in one document are likely to repeat that unhelpful structural pattern in all other documents. But for the very reason that writers tend to be consistent in making such choices, they can learn to improve their writing style; they can permanently reverse those habitual structural decisions that mislead or burden readers. We have argued that the substance of thought and the expression of thought are so inextricably intertwined that changes in either will affect the quality of the other. Note that only the first of our examples (the paragraph about URF’s) could be revised on the basis of the methodology to reveal a nearly finished passage. In all the other examples, revision revealed existing conceptual gaps and other problems that had been submerged in the originals by dysfunctional structures. Filling the gaps required the addition of extra material. In revising each of these examples, we arrived at a point where we could proceed no further without either supplying connections between ideas or eliminating some existing material altogether. (Writers who use reader-expectation principles on their own prose will not have to conjecture or infer; they know what the prose is intended to convey.) Having begun by analyzing the structure of the prose, we were led eventually to reinvestigate the substance of the science.
The substance of science comprises more than the discovery and recording of data; it extends crucially to include the act of interpretation. It may seem obvious that a scientific document is incomplete without the interpretation of the writer; it may not be so obvious that the document cannot "exist" without the interpretation of each reader. In other words, writers cannot "merely" record data, even if they try. In any recording or articulation, no matter how haphazard or confused, each word resides in one or more distinct structural locations. The resulting structure, even more than the meanings of individual words, significantly influences the reader during the act of interpretation. The question then becomes whether the structure created by the writer (intentionally or not) helps or hinders the reader in the process of interpreting the scientific writing. The writing principles we have suggested here make conscious for the writer some of the interpretive clues readers derive from structures. Armed with this awareness, the writer can achieve far greater control (although never complete control) of the reader’s interpretive process. As a concomitant function, the principles simultaneously offer the writer a fresh re-entry to the thought process that produced the science. In real and important ways, the structure of the prose becomes the structure of the scientific argument. Improving either one will improve the other.
The methodology described in this article originated in the linguistic work of Joseph M. Williams of the University of Chicago, Gregory G. Colomb of the Georgia Institute of Technology and George D. Gopen. Some of the materials presented here were discussed and developed in faculty writing workshops held at the Duke University Medical School. Bibliography Williams, Joseph M. 1988. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Scott, Foresman, & Co. Colomb, Gregory G., and Joseph M. Williams. 1985. Perceiving structure in professional prose: a multiply determined experience. In Writing in Non-Academic Settings, eds. Lee Odell and Dixie Goswami. Guilford Press, pp. 87-128. Gopen, George D. 1987. Let the buyer in ordinary course of business beware: suggestions for revising the language of the Uniform Commercial Code. University of Chicago Law Review 54:1178-1214. Gopen, George D. 1990. The Common Sense of Writing: Teaching Writing from the Reader’s Perspective. To be published.