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. by. Joshua Schimel. · Rating details · ratings · 38 reviews. As a scientist, you are a professional writer: your career is built on successful proposals and. In , Joshua Schimel (University of California) published a great book called Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get.

Author: Fenrijinn Tekasa
Country: Togo
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: History
Published (Last): 20 January 2005
Pages: 47
PDF File Size: 5.63 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.54 Mb
ISBN: 317-2-80503-465-8
Downloads: 9024
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kazirisar

But the real fun in being a scientist will always be the rush of a new data set. Visit our Beautiful Books page and find lovely books for kids, photography lovers and more. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.

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

I have learned a great deal from this book. Lets go back, koshua, to the example that drew my attention: By serving on review panels you learn how to write good proposals—as I learned when I started serving on panels! To be precise, this xcience does contain a lot of advices on how to write, but these advices secondarily come from a foundation which is much deeper and far greater: If we all wrote like Schimel, papers would be 3 pages long and have nothing but short, powerful sentences.


To ask other readers questions about Writing Scienceplease sign up. Success isn’t defined by getting papers into print, but by getting them into the reader’s consciousness.

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

Pretty much essential reading for any research active academic. Also, in my discipline computer science, artificial intelligence, machine learning, roboticsconferences matter a lot, and the paper is only one component of getting citations. I very much hope that ERL will find a better, more suitable term to describe witing they are looking for. It also works when I read a cited paper. We use cookies sfience give you the best possible experience.

Dec 06, Bruno rated it it was amazing. But all datasets are subject to interpretation and that is what peer review is for: Good writers use their verbs well, imbuing their papers with life.

The editor is not. When wounded soldiers are brought into a medical unit, busy doctors must separate who is likely to die regardless of what surgeons might do from those who can be saved by appropriate medical care. It is the author’s job to make the reader’s job easy.


Trivia About Writing Science: No trivia or quizzes yet. ERL is a journal that aims to publish science that will be relevant to environmental policy decisions. With the right philosophy, even an ordinary person can do extraordinary works.

The paper is wounded, but savable. Dec 06, Joe IV rated it it was amazing Shelves: Jan 04, Willem rated it it was amazing Shelves: To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: No matter how good we are, review makes our work better. Yet, for the undergraduate, even the upper-division one, this kind of development is a step beyond where most of them are working.


Filed under AcademeLanguage use and abuse.

About Josh Schimel | Writing Science

Book ratings by Goodreads. Sign up to receive breaking news as well as receive other site updates!

Apr 08, Kangning Huang rated it it was amazing. When doing a re-review, your job is to determine whether the paper has crossed the threshold of acceptability, not whether the authors have done everything that you had suggested, and particularly not whether they did everything in the way you might have suggested.

The author empathises with, rather than criticise, the tendency for scientists to focus on conveying data than conveying a cohesive story. And again, thanks to the fire crews who did amazing work. One challenge in reviewing is that since only the best proposals will be funded, reviewing is inherently relative: Thanks for telling us about the problem. Oxford University Sciehce available at Amazon. Filed under AcademePeer reviewScience.