Talk:Writing: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Robert W King
(New page: {{subpages}})
 
imported>David H. Barrett
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
==Technical writing==
A few scientific journals attempt to advise on writing; one is the Style Notes for ''The Journal of Neuroendocrinology'' [http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/submit.asp?ref=0953-8194 here]. As I wrote them I don't comment further. They begin as follows:
"The purpose of writing is to convey information and ideas from one mind to another. Good writing achieves this efficiently, whether the subject is sex or science, and even if, as is often the case in neuroendocrinology, the subject is both.
Clarity of thought distinguishes the best of scientists, and clarity of expression is particularly important in science, where fast and efficient communication underpins collective progress. Yet it is still an apparently widespread misconception that, for a scientific paper to be good, it must be dull, or obscure, or both. No referee or editor has ever advised me that a paper was unsuitable because it was too clear, too fluent, or too elegantly written. On the other hand, it is a common complaint that, while a paper might contain interesting data, it is impossible to be sure because the introduction fails to make the purpose of the study clear, because the presentation of data is so confusing, because the discussion is so tortuous, or because the account of the methodology is so incomplete."[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 07:30, 31 July 2008 (CDT)
==Bot-suggested topics==
This article has a large number of bot-suggested topics, primarily because all 26 letters of the English alphabet were suggested as possible links. I have deleted all of them from the bot list, but anyone who objects is welcome to add them back in. (To ease that task, I've copied them here:
{{r|A (letter)}}
{{r|B (letter)}}
{{r|C (letter)}}
{{r|D (letter)}}
{{r|E (letter)}}
{{r|F (letter)}}
{{r|G (letter)}}
{{r|GH}}
{{r|H (letter)}}
{{r|I (letter)}}
{{r|J (letter)}}
{{r|K (letter)}}
{{r|L (letter)}}
{{r|M (letter)}}
{{r|N (letter)}}
{{r|O (letter)}}
{{r|P (letter)}}
{{r|Q (letter)}}
{{r|R (letter)}}
{{r|S (letter)}}
{{r|T (letter)}}
{{r|U (letter)}}
{{r|V (letter)}}
{{r|W (letter)}}
{{r|X (letter)}}
{{r|Y (letter)}}
{{r|Z (letter)}}

Latest revision as of 21:17, 12 September 2020

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  The process of recording thoughts or speech in a visually or haptically retrievable manner. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories:  Linguistics, Literature and Hobbies [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup category:  Written Language
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  American English

Technical writing

A few scientific journals attempt to advise on writing; one is the Style Notes for The Journal of Neuroendocrinology here. As I wrote them I don't comment further. They begin as follows:

"The purpose of writing is to convey information and ideas from one mind to another. Good writing achieves this efficiently, whether the subject is sex or science, and even if, as is often the case in neuroendocrinology, the subject is both.

Clarity of thought distinguishes the best of scientists, and clarity of expression is particularly important in science, where fast and efficient communication underpins collective progress. Yet it is still an apparently widespread misconception that, for a scientific paper to be good, it must be dull, or obscure, or both. No referee or editor has ever advised me that a paper was unsuitable because it was too clear, too fluent, or too elegantly written. On the other hand, it is a common complaint that, while a paper might contain interesting data, it is impossible to be sure because the introduction fails to make the purpose of the study clear, because the presentation of data is so confusing, because the discussion is so tortuous, or because the account of the methodology is so incomplete."Gareth Leng 07:30, 31 July 2008 (CDT)

Bot-suggested topics

This article has a large number of bot-suggested topics, primarily because all 26 letters of the English alphabet were suggested as possible links. I have deleted all of them from the bot list, but anyone who objects is welcome to add them back in. (To ease that task, I've copied them here:

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Writing&oldid=37248"