1 / 20

Common writing issues

Common writing issues. April 20, 2011 Zoo 511. General comments. Answer the question! We didn’t grade too harshly on writing, our main focus was whether you had all components. This will change.

raleigh
Download Presentation

Common writing issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Common writing issues April 20, 2011 Zoo 511

  2. General comments • Answer the question! • We didn’t grade too harshly on writing, our main focus was whether you had all components. This will change. • It was evident that some of you did not use your peer review comments. This is a waste of our time and your classmate’s. • Sentences that don’t say anything “Comparing between different communities or populations of fishes is a way in which many types of research can be done”. • It was evident that some of you have not really read other papers. Don’t read them just for facts, read them for style and read them for context. • “The” “These” This” “There was”… read your sentence carefully –are these words needed? If you use this, this what? Always qualify it.

  3. General Comments • We will not re-write your paper for you. If we give you a suggestion, or you make one of the mistakes identified in this powerpoint, FIX IT THROUGHOUT YOUR PAPER! • This was not an experiment • “This study” does not expect, think, or do anything. You do. • Don’t capitalize common names • No significance? Include multiple years! • Only use relevant and important tables and figures • Don’t repeat data from a figure in a table. • Be very concise and clear in your writing. • What is the scale/applicability of this study?

  4. Quick Grammar Lesson • What is a subject? • Who or what the sentence is about. Find the verb! “There was a slight correlation between brown trout density and reach area” “Clark et al. found that there was a correlation between brown trout density and reach area.” “Figure 1 shows the correlation between brown trout density and reach area” “Brown trout density was positively correlated with reach area”

  5. Title • Concise and descriptive – should match with main message of paper • Can include scientific names, not absolutely necessary here (do include them in abstract and first time you mention a species in the main body of the paper) • Effect, Prefer, Influence, etc.

  6. Abstract • Not a random collection of sentences from your paper! • A sentence on why we should care (background; relevance to the broader scientific community) • A sentence of your goal/hypothesis • A sentence on what you found / the news/ the results • A sentence on why your findings are cool / what they mean / how they apply to the broader scientific community

  7. Introduction • Not a random assortment of facts about your study species. • All paragraphs should lead reader to your hypothesis/question, and all sentences in a paragraph should follow from topic sentence. • Hold the readers hand in a review of relevant literature that sets up the foundation of why this work was done. • Start with general/broad theory (I.e. Predator prey dynamics or foraging theory) • Why is your question important? Why should we care about your species? • Relate broad theory to your topic of interest • Conclude with a statement of your objective (BE SPECIFIC!). Set up what the reader should expect to find in the rest of the paper.

  8. Methods • Site description: Where, watershed, temp, species composition (maybe) ~ WDNR website and original handout • Appropriate level of detail: Original: Then, starting at the point furthest upstream, metal rebar was pounded into each side of the creek bank where each of the geomorphic units would be divided. After that, a net with weights along the bottoms was tied to the metal rebar by 3 students, stretching across the width of the river, preventing fish from going downstream. Suggested revision: Block nets were placed at the boundaries between reaches to prevent fish movement between reaches.

  9. Methods • Analysis methods • Define geomorphic units • Include calculation of area, cpue, etc. (Did you use average depth of a reach?) • What did you compare? • What tests did you use to compare?

  10. Results • Don’t describe figures, and ecology as subject! ORIGINAL: There was a slight correlation with an R2 value of 0.521 between brown trout density and reach area. This can be seen in Figure 2. SUGGESTED REVISION: Brown trout density was positively correlated with reach area (Figure 2, R2 =0.52, p=??). • Biological significance and trends –its okay to say density of suckers was twice as high in pools as in riffles, although this relationship was not statistically significant. • Significant digits –0.1287498 not needed. 0.13 will be fine.

  11. Results • Remember to consider validity of statistical tests • Residual plots: mention they were used, but don’t show them in paper • Transformations? • CPUE vs. CPUA vs. CPUV

  12. Discussion • Lead your reader to your conclusion. You must know what your conclusion is to do this! • Brief summary of findings in one or two sentences • Why did you find (or not find) what you found (expected)? • Sample size? Sampling Bias? • Violation of statistical test assumptions? • How does this compare to other studies? • Review of similar finding or opposite findings • Differences between our stream and their streams • Within-stream differences vs. across stream differences • Why are your findings or lack thereof relevant and important • How do they fit into the larger body of scientific knowledge? • Future studies, management implications.

  13. Tables and Figures • No title • Error bars (say what they are in the caption!) • Most tables are either completely unnecessary or better as a figure • Use symbols on figure to show significant differences • Stand-alone captions – need to be very detailed • Units on axes titles

  14. a Predicted log density of Ephemeroptera in Sparkling Lake across three habitat types. Predicted density is higher in cobble habitats than either macrophyte (p=0.01) or soft habitats (p=0.02). Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals, letters indicate significant differences at alpha=0.05. b LN(Ephemeroptera /m2) b Habitat type

  15. Context • Every paragraph in a section should lead reader to your main point of that section. • Every paragraph should begin with a topic sentence. • All other sentences in that paragraph should relate to your topic sentence • Introduction: leading your reader to your hypothesis. • Context = Why did you study what you did, and why should we care? Some background on other studies. • We don’t want to know everything that has ever been written about your study species! • Discussion: leading your reader to your overall conclusion. • Context = what have others found? Why are your results the same/different? What are the broad ecological or management implications of your results?

  16. Be concise! ORIGINAL: Likewise, a higher percentage of canopy cover indicates more shading. Furthermore, this shading can help control water temperature. This reduced water temperature is generally indicative of more dissolved oxygen. SUGGESTED REVISION: Canopy cover controls shading in streams, which affects both water temperature and dissolved oxygen.

  17. Passive vs. Active Original: It is a high productivity stream though because of steady inflows of warm water from wastewater treatment facilities in Verona. Suggested Revision: The steady inflow of warm water from wastewater treatment facilities in Verona result in a higher level of productivity in Badger Mill Creek.

  18. Writing like a Scientist Original: As Europeans began to colonize the New World, they considered it a good idea to bring along some of the organisms that they enjoyed in their homeland. Suggested Revision: Many prevalent “native” species in North America are actually native to Eurasia and were transported overseas as Europeans colonized the New World. Original: Upon first glance at the data there seemed to be a significant correlation between the density of white suckers and the percent canopy cover, however running statistical tests proved that percent canopy cover does not influence density of white suckers (p-value =0.61; R2= 0.02). Suggested Revision: No relationship existed between white sucker density and percent canopy cover (p-value =0.61; R2= 0.02; Figure 2).

  19. Clarity Original: These two groups of fishes should be found in different geomorphic units because, but not limited to, the threat of predation. Suggested Revision: We hypothesized small prey fish and brown trout would have significantly different densities within geomorphic units due to predator-prey dynamics. Original: This study examines white sucker and brown trout distributions with stream velocity. Suggested Revision: In this study, I investigate the relationship between stream velocity and the length of brown trout and white suckers.

  20. Using references effectively • Every fact needs a citation • No citations in abstract • Starting sentences with authors name • If you are studying the relationship between brown trout density and flow velocity, and you find a study on brown trout density vs. flow velocity, don’t write that they studied it, write what they found! EXAMPLE: “Latzka and Vennie-Vollrath (2010) found a relationship between habitat type and crayfish density”. SUGGESTED REVISION: “Crayfish density is highest in cobble habitats (Latzka and Vennie-Vollrath 2010).

More Related