How to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded

The paper might have gotten better, but not enough and the trajectory is looking relatively flat. Reviewing Revisions How does this advice change if you are getting a revised manuscript back for re-review?

The ideas within a paper should flow seamlessly, drawing readers along. It may not be obvious to them what you mean—you must explain your thinking and educate them.

Though Schimel has clear and interesting style, I found it a bit of a chore to read through to the end. Dealing with limitations An editor at a top-tier journal such as Nature is like a surgeon on a bloody battlefield, getting a flood of patients that overload any ability to treat them all, and so a higher proportion must be rejected and allowed to die.

The final section of the book deals with special challenges, such as how to discuss research limitations and how to writefor the public. The tone should be constructive and fundamentally supportive.

Well, too bad for them. When a paper is submitted, the editor and reviewers must therefore do triage: Its insights and strategies will equip science students, scientists, and professionals across a wide range of scientific and technical fields with the tools needed to communicate effectively.

This main message clearly stuck in my head. In my experience, reviewers are usually right when they identify problems, but are less reliably so in their suggestions for how to fix them. The book targets the internal structure of a paper, explaining how to write clear and professional sections, paragraphs, and sentences in a way that is clear and compelling.

I target that discussion toward the editor, since my primary responsibility is to help her with triage. Those are aimed at the authors, as they tend to be more specific comments about the details of the paper. Some only needed a light bandage, others required major surgery, but they all needed some editorial care.

If the suggestion is off-base, and I have received and probably written such recommendations, the author should ignore them and explain in their cover letter why or just note the ones you have included. I signed on to do that job, but I do appreciate your help.

She will ultimately tell the authors what changes they should make for the paper to become publishable.

Writing science how to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded

The paper should be allowed to die. It is one of the "boring" science related books; probably more aimed towards people who just started their career in science as PhD students. Overall this was probably the best written book on this subject by not only its content, but also its writing style.

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.

Its insights and strategies will equip science students, scientists, and professionals across a wide range of scientific and technical fields with the tools needed to communicate effectively.

Thus, when you are writing a review, the first paragraph s should target the triage decision and frame your argument for whether the paper should be rejected or should move forward in the editorial process.

However, this book impressed me by its clear messages and very engaging writing style. I signed on to do that job, but I do appreciate your help.

It begins by building core arguments, analyzing why some stories are engaging and memorable while others are quickly forgotten, and proceeds to the elements of story structure, showing how the structures scientists and researchers use in papers and proposals fit into classical models.

Its insights and strategies will equip science students, scientists, and professionals across a wide range of scientific and technical fields with the tools needed to communicate effectively.

When I do a review, I usually make side notes and comments as I read the paper. Success isn't defined by getting papers into print, but by getting them into the reader's consciousness.As he states, ‘the papers that get cited the most and the proposals that get funded are those that tell the most compelling stories’.

Therefore, the craft of writing is something that any enthusiastic researcher should want to pursue and eventually to reach.

Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded

Find great deals for Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded by Joshua Schimel (, Paperback). Shop with confidence on eBay!

How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded by Joshua Schimel (, Paperback) + $ Brand New. Free Shipping. Jan 01,  · Start by marking “Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded” as Want to Read: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded by.

Writing Science

Joshua Schimel · Ratings · 36 Reviews As a scientist, you are a professional writer: your career is built on successful proposals /5.

lietuvosstumbrai.com: Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded () by Joshua Schimel and a great selection of similar New, Used and Collectible Books available now at great prices/5().

Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded

Start by marking “Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded” as Want to Read/5.

How to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded. How to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded. About Josh Schimel; August 23, / jpschimel In Writing Science, I focus on professional skills: framing story, developing flow, and using language powerfully.

But professional skills should be balanced.

Download
How to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded
Rated 5/5 based on 79 review