Scientific Writing Skills courseCourse for scientific writing
Write & Publish A Scientific Paper Workshop
NIH students and biomedicine researchers of all backgrounds are invited to attend this four-week, write-intensive group. Students will prepare a research proposal on the basis of information from their recent or earlier research for publishing in a peer-reviewed scientific periodical. The focus of this seminar is on the organisation of a scientific research document, focusing on the two most challenging parts, introduction and discussion.
This also includes drafting charts and illustrations and writing a clear and succinct abstracts and a covering note for scientific journals. Furthermore, the attendees get to know the publishing processes from the point of view of a scientific journalist and find out how to select the right scientific journals for their work and how to browse through peer review.
The students get and give feedbacks on their daily tasks through regular evaluation groups and also get feedbacks from the Instructors. Each participant must have enough information to start writing a thesis and be willing to work 3-5 working days per workday. The course is a non-compensable day course that does not belong to the graduate school's conventional academics, accredited and semester-long nightclasses.
All NIH interns and researchers whose research results can be published in peer-review-reviews. Also non-NIH researchers are welcome. Attendees from NIH satellites and other sites across the nation can attend via webinars. Students who have successfully completed the course will receive a graduation certification.
To be quoted or not, the reader decides.
To be quoted or not, the reader decides. The reader goes to the authors, not to the reader. Having a piece of writing in the press means quite nothing, other than just one or two reviewer found some possibly new wisdom in what you typed in. And if the reader doesn't go to your newspaper, you won't have achieved anything.
You have achieved nothing if someone reads your document but is not convinced to use it or at least verifies it. First of all, you must draw the reader's attention to your newspaper. Then you have to persuade both the reviewers and the readers of the value of your scientific article to the publishing portal and the quote lock.
You have several working days to rate your work; the editor gives you less than two seconds. Readers' needs are reflected in key words, hopefully found in the cover of your work; these key words are entered in the only line by scientific research machines such as Google Scholar, the Web of Science (Thompson Reuters) and Science Direct (Elsevier); these research machines receive a list of publications that contain these key words.
If your song is displayed on the monitor as one element in a long listing, the person intent on finding a pertinent story will not spend more than two seconds with your song while he or she scans the page (mainly wordspotting). When too much sound is drowning the message, when your track does not satisfy the needs of the readers within two seconds, your attention has passed your track on the way down to the end of the page so as never to comeback.
If your song is on page six of this long listing of songs, you can't have done anything, because rarely are those who are patience enough to scale that far down. We' re all reads before we become authors. A scientist reads much more than the ordinary person; and what we are reading is much more intricate.
Can we become a better author by developing our literacy skills? When writing is clear, succinct, interesting, fluent and organized, we relish the opportunity to discover the information we need. And seldom do we look for the cause of this inconvenience by accusing instead our brief indulgence or our ignorance; for if what we see is not clear to us, it must be because we do not fully comprehend it.
It'?s ours, not the author's. The right to clear, succinct, interesting, fluent and organized writing. In order to protect our prerogatives, we must find the causes that lead to a bad literacy record and establish with equity where the responsibilities lie, with the readership or the author.
Usually it's up to the author. Therefore, for those who want to be "reader-friendly", a great educational practice is knowing what makes us doomed. It is the aim of the work and this website to help scientists comprehend how they cause literacy incidents in which their readership stumbles upon mental ambiguities, gets lost in a maze of incoherent notions, are absorbed into the fast sands of extra-long phrases from which they can extrapolate only after two of three consecutive reads.
Newcomers are often tossed into the depths of the authoring community with referrals such as "Take my piece of work as an example and do the same". Marc Raibert, a former MIT professor, once wrote: "Good writing is poor writing that has been rewritten". Also, the normal work has seldom been re-written enough to set a good example; the pressures to comply with release dates, the shortage of writing work and other very good grounds speak against it.
Authors are not able to see what makes them trip up in their writing. The reason is that it is incredibly hard to move from author to author without giving the viewer a face that is different from their own. Authors sometimes turn into readership by setting their writing aside for a whole weeks and looking back with a smile.
Since it is the author's mind that has to be reconstructed by the author, the authors need the help of their readership in order to recognize what is not working properly in their translations. It is much simpler to recognize the pitfalls in your own writing once you are aware of them. is a" Reading and Writer's Guide" to help you find them.
Persons who disregard the intrinsic difference between a piece of writing and its verbal representation do not do well in front of an audiences. The reader does not act like an public. They may be the same, the newspaper and the lecture may have the same titles, but everything else is different because the moderator is there and the moderator has the say.
If the writer is not there, the reader is responsible. They' re travelling on the move, going their own way through the newspaper. Audiences are motionless and cannot select any other way than the default movie-sequences. Audiences cannot access past transparencies, not until Q&A. Audiences have no complete command of their surroundings except to decide where to seat.
Most of the liberty of the captured public has been gone, like a passenger who can see a film or get a good night's rest. Give a guessing talk on who's in command and in command now: She, the writer and host. Instead of an un-natural fifteen-minute dialog followed by a short dialog, they would rather involve the public one to one in a discussion.
Many see this as a great chance to personally affect their readership and to reach things in the privacy of the conference room that writers can only hope for. First and foremost, the collapse of an verbal communication is the non-interest of the public in what the speaker does and who the speaker is.
The reason for this lack of success is often that the moderator tries to do more than just interest them. Inability of the speaker to take charge of the content means that the document takes over; it forces its texture and its condensed content is passed through the transparencies. A lack of willingness on the part of the moderator to take charge of controlling elapsed times means that elapsed times take over.
Then there is the tyrannic champion of the age. In a hurry, the moderator presents the film. If the moderator's expectation had been reduced to just interest the public, there would be less restrictions on content and timeframe. It is not only the lack of interest that causes an verbal speech to fail.
It' also the breakdown of networking. It may have been a good performance, but the moderator did nothing to get in touch with the crowd that could have a decisive impact on the remainder of his or her being.