Reddit reviews Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded
We found 11 Reddit comments about Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Oxford University Press USA
One of the best books I have ever read is “Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded” https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199760241/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_6MpxCb2Y2PH49
The book is easy to read and has DRASTICALLY improved my science writing. I read this book with my undergraduate lab (like 4 years ago) and still reference now in my PhD program.
This is the book that I was given to learn about how to structure and work out what I was going to write:
https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Science-Papers-Proposals-Funded/dp/0199760241
I'd recommend that you find some of the better papers in your discipline (and later from the journal you want to submit to) and print them out. Read through them twice. As you read a paper a second time you should jot down what each paragraph contributes to the main argument of the paper. Try to ask yourself why each paragraph was included. What purpose did they serve? In sections like the abstract it is sometimes helpful to even break it down by sentence like so:
> Motivational sentence that establishes problem. Second sentence about impact of problem. Sentence describing previous work that has been done. Sentence stating what these studies didn't do. What we did. Our results. Possible last sentence about broader impacts.
This way you can get an idea of how good papers are structured. Once you've studied a few (ask your PI for suggestions if you can't decide) then you may be interested in joining a writing group with other students as well.
Don't forget that every first draft is garbage. Just dump it out and then worry about correcting it to make it good later. With practice you'll get better at doing it right the first time, but I don't know any researchers who don't have to edit when writing. Most of my colleagues that have trouble writing just never take the risk of writing that first draft. Be brave about it, and be ready to be humbled by those who edit your work. Criticism and edits only make you and your paper stronger.
I remember writing a grant proposal for fieldwork in the first year of my PhD. Me and my supervisor edited it together (he thought ti would be a good exercise. No content was changed, but the entire text was red from the 'track changes' after working on it for two hours!
It's pretty normal and a others said: the learning curve is steep.
(PS: there are some great books out on academic writing. This is one of my favorites: https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Science-Papers-Proposals-Funded/dp/0199760241)
I'm in a proposal-writing class, and we're reading Writing Science by Joshua Schimel as part of the course. It's quite good, and emphasizes what science writing has in common with other kinds of writing/storytelling.
Ok, so I promised you that I would comment on this piece, if you posted it, so lets just jump right in!
THE BASICS OF STORY TELLING
Just because you are writing non-fiction, doesn't mean that you get to ignore the process of telling a story. In fact, it may be that the elements of a story are more important in non-fiction than fiction.
When was the last time you picked up a chemistry text book 'for fun'? But how about The Elegant Universe? Or A Short History of Nearly Everything? If you haven't read the latter, you should, as it is probably one of the greatest non-fiction science books of all time.
What makes these books more engaging than a standard textbook? They are telling a story. They are leading the reader on a journey of discovery, but are introducing that discovery in a way that makes the reader feel they have some skin in the game. They introduce problems (and questions) that demand answers. They introduce characters that are trying to solve them. There is antagonists (even if it is just nature) and heroes (even if it is just nature). And all this is introduced from the start.
In other words, they have a hook.
THE HOOK
So, lets think about your hook:
>I recently put aside my doubts that all of "reality" was anything but a simulation, created by an advanced civilization, and went for a long walk (for the sake of exploring the "fun" consequences, of course).
Not. Good.
First, you don't really introduce the problem. Sure, you said you put aside some doubts, but doubts of what? What do you mean by simulation? What do you mean by 'advanced civilization)? Why do I care what you are thinking? Why Do I care if you went for a walk -- and why do I care if it were long?
Do you see the problem? You introduce a string of loosely defined terms, which gives us a loosely defined problem. It is hard to care about a loosely defined problem. Worse you give us a character (YOU) that the reader know nothing about, and then probably won't care.
Do you know who the reader does care about? Themselves.
So, I would give a hook that is something related to the reader. You already mention The Matrix, and so you might just start a hook with something like:
"What if the matrix was right all along."
Something like this introduces a well-defined problem (borrowing from popular culture to do so), and then also a character that the reader cares about: themselves.
>I then, more quickly than expected, traversed the five stages of grief and arrived at an interesting realization.
>I'd like to retrace my steps with the hope that you too will attain the same simulated peace that I now possess. Where to begin...
The hook is now over. I do not know what the problem is, I do not know why I should care that you are having this problem, I don't know what your position is or why I should trust that it is 'interesting' and you claim.
If I were not reading for critique, I would not read past this. You need a better, stronger, hook, to draw the reader's attention to the problem that you wish to discuss, and show them how this problem relates to their own life (i.e., why they should care about it).
CLAIMS OF KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT SUPPORT
The other issue this piece has is the that give above in bold -- you routinely issue judgement statements without sufficient support. Let us look at some:
>the largest of the looming obstacles becomes the realization that all of reality as we know it could cease to exist for reasons beyond our control or even understanding.
How is this an obstacle? And obstacle to what? This just seems to be a fact of one particular type of simulation.
What if the simulation was being run in a manner such that it could not be interrupted? The technology to run this simulation is beyond our grasp, so why couldn't such a mechanism exist? You are making a claim that appears to have no foundation other than you think it to be true.
>It is a reasonable assumption that a civilization advanced enough to simulate literally everything must first have achieved a certain level of peace and stability.
There appears to be a logical flaw here. They did not simulate EVERYTHING -- just the things in the simulation. In fact, THEY must exist outside of the simulation, so that is not everything. In fact, if the laws of physics hold in their own universe, then the simulation we would be in would, by definition, be required to be MUCH simpler than their own world. The laws of thermodynamics dictate this. Therefore, this simulation would just a simple model of something.
Furthermore:
>After all, it's a bit difficult to investigate the nature of reality and advance science while you're busy trying to avoid being brutally murdered by bloodthirsty marauders hell-bent on wearing your skull as a hat
What if, and I am just widely speculating here, the desire to avoid the fate you propose led someone to invent some new technology to avoid this -- like maybe a helmet? Or a better sword? Or something?
Complete peace seems more likely to motivate technological advances. If all was perfect, then why change anything? Our invention of technology is a result of struggles against nature and others. Thus, violence and strife are primary motivators for technology, and it seems more logically sound to argue the opposite of what you are claiming.
> This would mean that our creators posses at least the ability to perceive us as valid life forms, and as such, subject to the same rights as themselves!
WHAT?
We accept that bacteria are life forms, and do not extend to them the rights that we grant other people. Where is there any support that one would expect creators to grant rights to their creations that are on par with their own? I see absolutely zero support for this position. Maybe is exists, but if it does, you need to supply it.
>The opposing perspectives could be summed up as follows:
>1. Simulations capable of producing conscious simulants should not be created, since the act of turning off such simulations would be an act of genocide.
>2. The knowledge obtained from simulations outweigh the ethical implications; the end justifies the means.
This is a false dichotomy. They could also assume that we are not worthy of rights. You have not established that. So, they could view us with EXACTLY the same view we extend to simulation of people in video games. Do we consider their rights? If not, then why would they consider ours? This has not been sufficiently established.
OVERALL FLOW
Just as a story needs to have a cohesive plot, your non-fiction needs to have a common thread that connects ideas back to the major problem.
In Star Wars: A New Hope, the story continually comes back to the problem of Luke establishing himself in a wider world. We care deeply about him, and his feeling of insignificance.
In your story, you MUST return to the same idea over and over again. The problem just structure your discussion of everything else.
The problem you REALLY have is this: if we are a simulation, do we have moral rights?
So, this needs to guide EVERY single fact you introduce.
Did the dinosaurs have rights? Then what do we make of the morality of the meteor coming in? What do we think about mammals taking over their environment?
If we do not have rights in the simulation, then should we care about murder?
These are interesting questions, that can be tied back the strange idea of us existing in a simulation. They provide stronger jumping off points for the tangents you are taking. They will provide a structure and focus that you are currently lacking. You need to identify a theme, and stick with it, very closely. In the same way that all actions in Star Wars were related to Luke gaining an understanding of his place in the galaxy, your story MUST always come back to the idea of Morality within and without a simulation.
*
SUMMARY*
The idea that you are discussing is interesting, but the manner you are doing it in is not yet engaging. The reason is that you have not introduced the problem with a proper hook, and you do not identify and tread near an established theme within the piece. These are elements of story telling that will serve you well in non-fiction, as in fiction.
If you want more information on this, try reading [Writing Science*](http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Science-Papers-Proposals-Funded/dp/0199760241). THough this is aimed more at the academic writer, it is a great place to start for understanding how to frame the introduction to serious non-fiction. That is, how to identify the story you are trying to tell, how to make a compelling hook, and then how to follow through on the themes that make your hook compelling.
Let me know if you have questions!
Excellent resource!
I get similar "ew, no" reactions when I recommend Josh Schimel's book Writing Science to fiction writers, even though that's one of the best-researched and most concise books on writing I've yet come across.
Definitely adding this article to my library.
https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Science-Papers-Proposals-Funded/dp/0199760241
I enjoyed this one.
Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded
After I read this book and wrote a grant proposal, my advisor told me how much clearer and stronger my writing became. Felt great!
We read this book in a graduate writing seminar I took this semester. It was the first book we read and I thought it had some great ideas on how to develop a writing schedule and stick to it. We followed it with "Writing Science" by Josh Schimel which really gets into the details of how to write WELL, not just a lot. It's much more dense but worth looking into if you're committed to improving your writing. :)
Reading journal articles is a good start but be careful because there are many poorly written published articles out there.
A book that could be really helpful is Writing Science - I haven't read it all personally but my supervisor outlined the major points in it before I started writing my thesis and it had some really good advice.
https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Science-Papers-Proposals-Funded/dp/0199760241
There are some good book resources if you want to take the time to read through them. Schimel's Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals that Get Funded seems pretty well recommended on Amazon.