MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985386730 · doi:10.1353/scp.2008.0003

A Field Guide for Science Writers (review)

2008· article· en· W1985386730 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen K. Donovan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental, Ecological, and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingContext (archaeology)Field (mathematics)Relevance (law)NewspaperSociologyMedia studiesHistoryLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: A Field Guide for Science Writers Stephen K. Donovan (bio) Deborah Blum, Mary Knudson, and Robin Marantz Henig, eds. A Field Guide for Science Writers, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Pp. xiv, 321. Paper: ISBN-13 978-0-19-517499-1, US$18.95 Where are the boundaries between scholarly and popular publishing? Is a description of a new species of Australopithecus in Nature scholarly, yet a 'News and Views' article in the same journal and on the same find, but in a broader context, less so? And what of an essay on this discovery in a newspaper's Sunday supplement? Boundaries exist, but they are diffuse and flexible. Many scientists with a research program based in the great outdoors, including me, use field guides as an introduction to some new research area. So A Field Guide for Science Writers seemed too good to be true - an introduction to an area of publishing largely outside my experience. This parallel culture is separate from yet integrated with (a cynic might say parasitic upon) scholarly publishing. It may worry some readers of this review that A Field Guide is not concerned with scholarly publishing per se, but it is directly concerned with publication of the results of academic research for broad consumption, and many of the numerous tips for authors have wider application. A Field Guide is very well produced and logically arranged. Some of its chapters bear no relevance to any of my academic endeavours, yet even these made informative, even compelling, reading. The text is divided into a foreword, six parts (comprising forty-two chapters), an epilogue, and index. The quality of the text is uniformly high; whatever the style of a chapter, narrative, factual, or whatever, the authors provide adequate information on their subject to enable the reader to understand it and to make a critical judgement on its relevance to their own interests and intentions. Because the chapters are short, generally about six to eight pages, [End Page 186] authors have limited space to explain their ideas and experiences, which makes the book lean and highly readable. The first half of A Field Guide concerns nuts and bolts - parts consider 'Learning the Craft,' 'Choosing Your Market,' and 'Varying Your Writing Style,' followed by examples written by experts in contrasting fields and different work environments. The range of topics covered is broad, from 'Understanding and Using Statistics' (chapter 3) to writing for government agencies, publishing in popular magazines, and specializing in areas such as human genetics or space science. Rather than give a blow-by-blow account of this book, one chapter at a time, I have chosen to emphasize some of the chapters that I found particularly informative, entertaining, or both. The first section, 'Learning the Craft,' includes some useful thoughts by several authors in chapter 4, 'Writing Well about Science: Techniques from Teachers of Science Writing.' This chapter includes many sound and sometimes innovative ideas for better writing in general. For example, Ann Finkbeiner proposes that readers need to be led by the hand through your prose and suggests that the way to convey difficult ideas and concepts is to start 'each sentence with the word or phrase that ended the previous sentence' (29). Simple, effective, and, as she notes, agreeing well with Strunk and White's principle of placing the emphatic word(s) of a sentence at the end.1 Further, Finkbeiner's brief lists of phrases and words that can be deleted without loss of meaning also meets with my approval, but there are more, many more, that I might have included! John Wilkes recalls a memorable comment from an editor regarding over-explaining by his students: '[They are] very smart, but if you ask them what time it is, they tell you how the watch works' (32). In the succeeding section, 'Choosing Your Market,' Carl Zimmer (chapter 13) discusses science books. Here he touches a raw nerve: Love is crucial to writing books for three reasons. First, readers can tell when an author's heart isn't in the writing. Second, the book will be a dominant part of your life - from proposal to manuscript to publication - for at...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.035
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicEnvironmental, Ecological, and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207