GeoVerbiage

As you have no doubt noticed, authors of scientific papers cite other papers--a lot.  Why do we cite other work?  This may seem like an obvious question, but breaking down the citations by their purpose provides some insights that might help guide you through this surprisingly perilous part of scholarship. Here are most of the reasons we cite other papers: (1)  To provide background, history, and context:  We all build on the work of those who have gone before us.  The history leading up to the work you've done is important to readers for understanding the context of the work.  It is also important to acknowledge the work of those who are working on similar topics if their results could augment--or counter--yours. (2)  To give credit where it is due.  Chances are someone before you has come up with at least part of the answer you are seeking.  Acknowledging priority is an important part of what makes a good scientist.  And t...

The article in this link has some really excellent advice for how to write a scientific paper.  Most of the advice is directed toward what I called elsewhere "transparency".  In this case, transparency is not revealing everything you know or have done, although that doesn't hurt.  It means writing clearly enough that the reader is not aware of the writing but only of the message.   Such papers are much more enjoyable to read. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02404-4

If you read "Reading #2--reading the literature ("The Literature"), you probably were wailing something along the lines of "But I just did a Google Scholar search in my own field and there are thousands of papers!  I don't have time to read all those!".  You're right.  You don't. First, the good news:  Most of those papers will not be relevant.   Now, the bad news:  You need to at least scan then to determine their relevancy. Now, the  really  bad news:  Such searches can overlook papers that are more important and relevant, and not just because your search terms weren't adequate. It's enough to make one throw in the towel.  Don't. Before I start on the topic of this blog entry, let me clarify what I mean by "accessing".  I'm not talking about the technical side.  I'm assuming you know that part.  If you don't, go to your library and make them teach you.  However, I can't avoid the old trope ...

As graduate students, we are required to read something called "The Literature".  Until I started this post, I never really cottoned to the fact that how we speak, often reverently, of The Literature actually does require the use of upper case.  It is one of the quirks of science. So, what is The Literature and why is it so important to read it?  Of course, the literature (I will revert now to a more sensible style) consists of all the books and journal papers--sometimes even commentaries--written on the general topic of our chosen subdiscipline within geology.  This is one area where I'm reluctant to use my own career as an example because my work has incorporated elements of just about every topic in geology except, I think, metamorphic rocks and structure, and not a few elements of biology, atmospheric science, and oceanography.  So for the time being, let's assume I've spent my career working on eolian sedimentary rocks and associated deposits (my curren...

This blog covers mostly reviewing papers, and a bit on writing papers.  But a post I saw in Facebook requires a discussion about reading scientific papers.  I covered this a little bit under "reviewing", but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to weigh in a bit more. There is a wonderful column from Science  that is worth linking to:   column here I remember those days. First, not all scientific articles are so bad.  But some surely are.  A lesson to be gained from reading such papers is how not  to write! Second, to my astonishment, almost 30 years after its publication, people still seem to be using my book, Understanding Paleoclimate from the pre-Quaternary Geologic Record  (Columbia University Press).  It is badly out of date.  It was partly out of date the day it appeared.  So why isn't it being completely ignored now?  I think it's because I have never fallen into the temptation of trying to sound erudite.  To...

Bearing in mind that this blog is mostly directed at grad students, postdocs, and earlier-career professionals, I pick up here on some of my thoughts about writing.  Writing a scientific paper is one of those things that we should have been taught systematically, but often were not.  Often it's kind of hit or miss; we pick things up along the way, during thesis revision, etc.  So if you are feeling a bit uncertain about some aspects of writing, this blog will help, I hope. One of the things you have almost certainly been taught, or already picked up on, is that scientific papers are expected to have a certain form of organization.  The basic elements are Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion.  In geology, if the length of the paper makes it easier, we commonly have a section titled "Previous Work" between the Introduction and the Methods.  We also may have a separate section for "Conclusions", which follows the Discussion.   I th...

You've all heard about shingling and what it is.  As a reviewer, you can be very helpful to the editor by pointing out that a paper is a shingle.  Keep in mind that, even in specialty journals, the editors may come from a wide variety of backgrounds and may not be familiar with all aspects of the literature.  At high-load journals, it may be very difficult if not impossible for the editors to do the legwork--which can take a couple of hours or more per paper--to figure out if a paper is a shingle, so they really are dependent on the reviewers. Before I start, though, let me define shingling for those of you who might not be that familiar with the concept.  Shingling is publishing basically the same paper as one you've published before, but with some new data added, resulting in, at best, a mere expansion of already-reached conclusions. Not all papers that have new data added to old data are shingles.  I have seen many papers that add new data to previous wor...