To cite this article: Santiago García-Granda (): Writing science: how to chapter is concise and engaging and Professor Joshua Schimel. by. Joshua Schimel. · Rating details · ratings · 38 reviews. As a scientist, you are a professional writer: your career is built on successful proposals and. To be frank, books that emphasise the writing process to sci- entists are cluttered language of the scientist, to those written by scientists, By Joshua Schimel.
|Published (Last):||12 February 2012|
|PDF File Size:||5.97 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.29 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This main message clearly stuck in my head. In that, they are no different than Google, Apple, or Microsoft. Apr 08, Kangning Huang rated it it was amazing. The editor is not. The book targets the internal structure of a writung, explaining how to write clear and professional sections, paragraphs, and sentences in a way that is clear and compelling.
Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded
But keep in mind: Want to Read saving…. Create a free website or blog at WordPress. Choose your country or region Close. Those, of course, do not exist. Exciting questions and no major flaws. Did someone become a strong advocate for the proposal? Journal List Int Neurourol J v. And again, thanks to the fire crews who did amazing work. PIs show the novelty of the questions by demonstrating the knowledge gap. Peer review is essential and someone has to schieml that process: He also seems to have very concrete ideas for how a paper should be written, and disapproves of all other styles.
Sep 09, Joel rated it it was amazing. We were clueless sciencw wrong; Mary was considerate to even check. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. The core message is unaltered. But all datasets are subject to interpretation and that is sfhimel peer review is for: There’s just a lot to consider when writing.
Proposal review is different.
Book Review: Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded
On the little things, one thing I’ve decided is that saying “not X” is less wrriting ideal. Then, I include my line-by-line specific comments.
Author does not just plainly said so, he eloquently “told” his “story” about “story telling” with well chosen examples from published articles and enriched it with his extensive experience in reviewing numerous grant proposal and papers.
The author introduces story-telling into science writing. This is not a prolonged tirade of a high minded literary scholar nitpicking grammatical errors.
Academic Skip to main content. Ebook This title is available as an ebook.
Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded by Joshua Schimel
Leaving out the issue of the dynamics of the abstract is a bit odd, I think, since that’s really how people get into a paper. A seriously good book on writing non-fiction and science.
May 20, Jennifer Shaiman rated it liked it Shelves: Managing a large technology enterprise, which is necessary to handle the manuscript flow, is expensive. The book takes an integrated approach, using the principles of story structure to discuss every aspect of successful science writing, from the overall structure of a paper or proposal to individual sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words. But as this book states, seldom does clear writing emerge from clear thinking; rather clear writibg emerges from clear writing.
Jsoh now the only funds I have are for a separate desert-focused project.
You should almost never use this on a first review. Reviewing Revisions How does this advice change if you are getting a revised manuscript back for re-review? The explanation is sufficiently clear.
Want to Read Currently Reading Read. It covers all aspects of writing, from designing story structure to the usage of specific words, and everything in between.
Although some of its chapters focus specifically on writing in science, most schi,el the book is about writing and communicating in general. Dec 06, Bruno rated it it was amazing. That seems wrong when we can post documents to the web for free. Yes, that might be the difference between a good and a great paper, but we actually need the “solid” “incremental” papers to move science forward.
But by definition, that would not be science—it would be science fiction. Sometimes reviews get longer—I have written 6-page reviews, reviews where I wanted to say that I thought the paper was fundamentally interesting and important, but that I disagreed with some important parts of it and that I wanted to argue with the authors about those pieces.
Advices ranges from how to structure your article, down to schiimel to structure your sentences and what words and grammatical constructs to prefer and avoid. Which of these actually get funded becomes a function of the personal dynamics on the review panel and the quirks of the competition.