[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Science Writing and the Effective Science Paper

Tracy L. Ford (dino.hunter@cox.net) wrote:

<Great that they teach that class. But I've never gone to college and I've
had several papers published with out that class. Much to the chagrin of
Ken Carpenter :), alls I've ever done is read articles and followed that
format (I hope those authors had taken that class).>
  I do not want to make this sound like I was somehow dissing those who
have not taken this class, as I too have not. I was referring to a method
in which this form was taught. I would like to point out that there was an
exception to taking the class, and Tracy has done this: read enoyugh
papers, you get the feel for how they are written; aside from being
"taught", you are given sample papers to copy off of and this is not
dissimilar what I have seen and others have done. Tracy's papers I think
are very well written and are, like Bakker's, written with a flavor that
makes them fairly enjoyable to read. Sometimes you need to step outside a
strict formulaic paper and move to somethign that has a lot more freedom
in it, while keeping ones priorities clear; i would make an example of
much of what Bakker and Tracy write, for example, but I would never
recommend a shoddy, what I can get to support my theory idea to be
published without something rigorous in the method in which the data is


Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!