scholarly journals Referencing in Scientific Writing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal W. Pollock
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Writing

Analysis of Reading, Reference and Information Management on the Quality of Scientific Writing

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-69
Author(s):  
Muhammad Zarlis ◽  
Sherly Astuti ◽  
Muhammad Salamuddin
Keyword(s):  
Information Management ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Management Skill ◽  
Library Search ◽  
Important Thing ◽  
Reading Material ◽  
Quality Of Research

In education, for educational instruments scientific writing is a very important thing. It requires an information management skill, information management is a library search, which can be done through a computer and guided by the internet. It can also be through the quality of reading used as a reference for scientific writing. In addition, in producing a paper also must know the management of writing, not only required to pay attention to the rules of standard language, but also must be able to convey ideas and ideas well and meet scientific criteria, such as making a quote or reference list used. This paper was written with the aim of improving the quality of research through reading material, making notes and avoiding plagiarism, references using the Harvard system for journals, books, and articles. Management of citing articles either CD or internet, writing, editing, storing references electronically, writing bibliography, and quotations.

Graphic instinct: the account of graphic instinct: the account of rhetorical action and its instinctive roots in Peirce’s classification of practical sciences

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-151
Author(s):  
Alessandro Topa
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Writing ◽  
Summum Bonum ◽  
Rhetorical Action

Em um artigo intimamente relacionado a este, mostramos que o estudo mais maduro de Peirce sobre a retórica especulativa, em Ideas, Stray or Stolen, about Scientific Writing (1904), nos convida a refletir e apreender o fenômeno da retórica em sua totalidade. Seguindo pistas aristotélicas, Peirce – implicitamente – diferencia três aspectos categoriais da ação retórica, diferenciando entre (i) sua potencialidade [δύναμις] e perfeição [ἐντελέχεια] como uma faculdade instintiva de tornar signos eficazes em uma utópica arte universal, (ii) sua atualidade como um discurso prático normativo historicamente eficaz e que molda a prática retórica [τέχνη], referida como retórica comum; e (iii) sua formalidade, articulada pela investigação puramente teórica [θεωρία] das condições necessárias da eficiência dos signos em geral, intitulada  Retórica Especulativa. Assim como nosso modo de ser com os outros em um mundo comum de compartilhamento de propósitos, a retórica, tanto para Aristóteles quanto para Peirce, constitui uma forma semiótica do summum bonum, cujo cultivo é essencial para o crescimento da razoabilidade concreta em qualquer comunidade política e na civilização como um todo. No presente artigo, começamos reconstruindo o relato da retórica de Peirce, no quadro de sua classificação das ciências práticas (Seção 2.1), e depois mostramos como esse relato da retórica como uma faculdade enraizada no “Instinto Gráfico” confirma a análise que apresentamos no trabalho anterior (Seções 2.2-2.3). Na seção final, tentaremos esboçar em que sentido a importância de conceber a retórica como uma δύναμις com uma ἐντελέχεια específica, ou “potencialidade-ideia” do aperfeiçoamento do desenvolvimento, pode nos ajudar a apreciar o papel histórico emancipatório que Peirce atribui às Ciências Normativas (Seção 3).

Developing the culture and discipline of conducting and publishing scientific research: Guiding principles

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Daniel Obeng-Ofori
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
Weekly Schedule ◽  
Academic Activities ◽  
Heavy Workload ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
Mentoring System ◽  
Critical Constraints

The pressure to publish is a fact of life in academia. Academics are expected to demonstrate that they are active researchersand that their work has been vetted by peers and disseminated in reputable scholarly forums. In practice, however, a numberof critical constraints hamper effective publication of scientific research in most developing countries. These include lackof effective mentoring system, poor facilities and inadequate funding for effective research and heavy workload where toomuch time and effort are spent in teaching, grading, meetings and other non-academic activities. In spite of these seeminglyinsurmountable challenges, with proper planning and commitment, one can still conduct research and publish to advanceones career and exchange of knowledge. The paper discusses the critical guiding principles in scientific writing and publishingin an unfriendly research environment as pertains in most universities in the developing world. The overriding principle isto cultivate the discipline of scientific writing consciously and follow it through religiously. This could be achieved if time isallocated for scientific writing in the scheme of weekly schedule of activities and made to be functional through meticulousplanning and commitment. Equally important is to avoid procedural mistakes in scientific writing. While the quality of theresearch is the single most important factor in determining whether an article will be published, a number of proceduralmistakes can help tip the balance against its publication. It should also be noted that when a manuscript is submitted to ascholarly journal, there are two audiences to satisfy: first the editor and external reviewers, and then the journal’s readers.That first group must be satisfied to create the opportunity to appeal to the second. Thus, familiarity with the style and tone ofthe specific journal is crucial.

The use of metaphor in scientific writing

1985 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shellie Jo Robson
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Writing

scholarly journals Teaching sustainability, ethics and scientific writing: An integrated approach

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ola Leifler ◽  
Lars Lindblom ◽  
Mikael Svensson ◽  
Madelene Gramfalt ◽  
Arne Jonsson
Keyword(s):  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
Sustainability Ethics

The passive voice in scientific writing through the ages: A diachronic study

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-489
Author(s):  
Alvin Ping Leong
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
Science Journal ◽  
Passive Voice ◽  
Composing Process ◽  
Diachronic Study ◽  
Time Periods ◽  
Current Shift ◽  
Modern Era

AbstractDiachronic studies on scientific writing have indicated an increase in the use of passives from the seventeenth to the twentieth century. With the current shift in focus towards making scientific writing more accessible, there is less certainty on the extent of passive use in the modern era. Although the use of the active voice is presently encouraged, the findings from available studies are mixed. There are also few diachronic studies involving recent articles. This present study investigated the trend in passive use from the nineteenth century to the present day using 80 articles from a multidisciplinary science journal covering four time periods (1880, 1930, 1980, and 2017). The study found that the extent of passive use was stable from 1880 to 1980 (occurring in about 29–36% of all clauses) but declined in 2017 (averaging below 25%). The study also found a decline in the use of finite passives to describe methodological actions and a corresponding increase in the use of first-person pronouns in the 2017 articles. Further work involving a larger corpus and an understanding of writer decisions in the composing process is needed.

scholarly journals Strong and Ethical Scholarly Writing for Multidisciplinary Audiences

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 858-858
Author(s):  
Suzanne Meeks
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Prior Work ◽  
Scholarly Writing ◽  
Good Writing

Abstract This presentation will emphasize the importance of plain, good writing. Editors of high impact journals read 10 or more manuscripts per week, and are under pressure to reject 80-90% of them. Regardless of scholarly quality, if the point and contribution are not clear in a quick scan of the paper, it likely will not be reviewed favorably. I will provide tips for strong scientific writing that are commonly violated in manuscript submissions, and provide references for additional writing support. I will also discuss some common publication ethics issues that arise during the review process, including author contributions and embedding your scholarship in the context of prior work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document