{"title":"Some Final Thoughts","authors":"A. Kelly","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190936600.003.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190936600.003.0011","url":null,"abstract":"This short final chapter draws together key conclusions from the preceding chapters to finish the book with some short conclusions. We reflect on the personal characteristics typical of a scientist and the way in which they are trained to know that their work is not complete until it has been passed on and made an impact, and how those who follow a career in science know that this is a key way in which their careers will be judged. The benefits of a career in science are considered, but placed alongside the responsibilities and expectations in terms of integrity and trust. Finally, the central role of communication in science, the theme for the book as a whole, is emphasized once again.","PeriodicalId":324671,"journal":{"name":"How Scientists Communicate","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124696743","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Perils of Peer Review","authors":"A. Kelly","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190936600.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190936600.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores the detailed stages of publication of a scientific paper, starting with selection of journal by authors and submission of papers. The system architecture and roles of editors, editorial boards, and referees are examined, and the nature of the review process is discussed, including potential pitfalls, ethical considerations, possible outcomes, and the interactions between authors and journals. The significance of rejection of papers (and famous cases of papers that were first rejected by journals) is explored, and the steps following acceptance of a paper, right through to proof correction and publication, explained. In addition, future developments being evaluated today, such as postpublication (or even preresearch) peer review, are discussed.","PeriodicalId":324671,"journal":{"name":"How Scientists Communicate","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121768798","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Scientific Voice","authors":"A. Kelly","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190936600.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190936600.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter is focused on the way in which scientists write, and the key characteristics that must describe their writing (i.e., clarity and avoidance of unnecessary complexity). The “voice” used in the modern scientific paper is discussed, with exploration of how this may be achieved, and some illustrative examples. In particular, examples are used to see how scientists present highly significant findings, or cast doubt on the findings of others. Some basic and simple principles for practicing and learning naturalistic yet professional writing skills are presented. The reader is encouraged to develop an ear for the rhythms of writing, and is equipped with the basic tools needed to do so. Further points that are discussed include the fact that effective scientific writing does not need to be stylish or deliberately complex, but must above all achieve clarity and a complete lack of ambiguity, while the writing should be “invisible” and place no barriers between reader and intended message. The chapter also considers the requirements for successful writing, including time, concentration, and suitable conditions.","PeriodicalId":324671,"journal":{"name":"How Scientists Communicate","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124487361","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}