Scientific Writing 2.0 A Reader Lebrun Jean Luc

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.NER has been successfully applied tonewswires [references].Today, researchers are adapting NERsystems to extract biomedical named entities protein, gene,or virus [more references] for applications such as automaticbuild of biomedical databases.Their success is limited.After reading this paragraph, the reader expects the writer to explainwhy success is limited, and to bring an answer to the main question What adaptations to NER will enable biomedical named entities tobe extracted more successfully?What is the main question of your paper, the question to whichyour contribution or the title of your paper is the answer? If youcannot phrase your contribution in question form, then you are notready to write your paper because you do not yet have a clear idea ofyour contribution.To help you determine the main question, practiseon the following familiar titles: Nonlinear finite element simulation to elucidate the efficacy ofslit arteriotomy for end-to-side arterial anastomosis in micro-asurgeryaReprinted from Gu H, Chua A, Tan BK,and Hung KC, Nonlinear finite element simulation to elucidatethe efficacy of slit arteriotomy for end-to-side arterial anastomosis in microsurgery , J Biomech 39:435 443, 2006 (with permission from Elsevier).January 24,2007 wspc/spi-b452/ch13 Scientific Writing: A Reader and Writer s GuideIntroduction: The Hands of Your Paper 145Main question: Energy-efficient data gathering in large wireless sensor net-bworksMain question:Read your title and abstract.Write the mainquestion they answer.Is this question clearlystated in your introduction? If there is morethan one question, you may have a paper withmultiple contributions, and possibly a paperthat could be divided into multiple papers.Alternatively, you may not yet clearlyunderstand your contribution.Now that you know the main question, include it in your intro-duction as soon as you can.It helps reviewers and readers understandthe problem in a clear, attention-grabbing, and succinct way.It evenhelps you to remain focused.Naturally, the main question triggersmany others.bLu KZ, Huang LS, Wan YY, and Xu HL, Energy-efficient data gathering in large wireless sensornetworks , Second International Conference on Embedded Software and Systems (ICESS 05), Xi an,China, pp.327 337, 2005.ell?woskorwyomotiretarslitoesdyhWum?minimisingathergdatatheforiononsumptcyenergotaltthatoskornetwlargeaindatadwarforothosencebdenoensorsacanwoHJanuary 24,2007 wspc/spi-b452/ch13 Scientific Writing: A Reader and Writer s Guide146 Scientific Writing: A Reader and Writer s GuideThe questionable cakeOne afternoon, Vladimir Toldoff received a call from hiswife Ruslana as he was finishing an experiment in the lab. Iam coming with one cake, two plates, and assorted cutlery ,she announced.He answered, What? Wait! First, what isthe occasion? And why now? Can t it wait until tonight?And by the way, what cake is it, and why do you want tocut it in the lab? You know that crumbs are not welcomedhere.The rapid fire of questions did not faze Ruslana.Sheknew her Vladimir.A full-fledged scientist.She paused andrephrased his questions succinctly. All right, let me see.You would like to know why a cake, why eat it now, whyits mouth-watering taste should make you shout Darling,come right away , and why I should slice it in the lab insteadof at home.Am I right? Vladimir, quite impressed withher matter-of-fact answer, started to laugh. That s right ,he responded.Ruslana then uttered three words that hadhim shout for joy: My Medovik cake.Similar questions are asked by the reader of a scientific article asshown hereunder (ignore the initials and domain terms, and concen-trate instead on the story thread).1.Why now? In this case, because previous studies produced con-flicting results. We were curious to see whether we could resolve the dis-crepancy between these gene profiling studies by using ourcurrent understanding of the gene differences between GCBcand ABC DLBCL.cWright G, Tan B, Rosenwald A, Hurt E, Wiestner A, and Staudt LM, A gene expression-based methodto diagnose clinically distinct subgroups of diffuse large B cell lymphoma , Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A100(17): 9991 9996, 2003.� 2003 National Academy of Sciences, USA.January 24,2007 wspc/spi-b452/ch13 Scientific Writing: A Reader and Writer s GuideIntroduction: The Hands of Your Paper 1472.Why this? In this case, because it was challenging. As was pointed out (3), it is a challenging task to comparethe results of these profiling studies because they useddifferent microarray platforms that were only partiallyoverlapping in gene composition.Notably, the Affymetrixarrays lacked many of the genes on the lymphochipdmicroarrays&.3.Why this way? In this case, because it worked with differentplatforms. For this reason, we developed a classification method thatfocuses on those genes that discriminate the GCB and ABCeDLBCL subgroups with highest significance.4.Why should the reader care? In this case, because it predictedsurvival. Our method does not merely assign a tumor to a DLBCLsubgroup but also estimates the probability that the tumorbelongs to the subgroup.We demonstrate that this methodis capable of classifying a tumor irrespective of which exper-imental platform is used to measure gene expression.TheGCB and ABC DLBCL subgroups defined by using thispredictor have significantly different survival rates afterfchemotherapy.Readers rely on you to answer these fundamental questions.The reviewer has another set of questions.Even though theyoverlap with the scientific reader s questions, they differ in some ways.1.Is the problem good and is solving it useful?2.Is the solution new, clear, and effective compared to others?dIbid.eIbid.fIbid.January 24,2007 wspc/spi-b452/ch13 Scientific Writing: A Reader and Writer s Guide148 Scientific Writing: A Reader and Writer s Guide3.Is the solution the best one for this problem?4.How does this paper help the readers of the journal?Therefore, you should have both reader and reviewer in mindwhen you write your introduction.It is up to you to convince themthat the problem is real, and that your solution is original and useful.The Introduction Sets the Foundations of Your CredibilityA solution that is claimed to be universal and better than anyother is not very credible.I remember reading an online article ongpresentation skills that claimed that if only one side of an issue ispresented, then believeability is in the low 10%; but if both sides arepresented (of course, the negative side is only presented after the goodside has had ample opportunity to be discussed), then believeabilityis in the high 50%.The title of this particular slide was fairness.Inscience, it would have been intellectual honesty.Intellectual honesty is demonstrated in many ways.One of themcannot be ignored by the author: a clear and honest description of theof problem s scope and the solution s application domain.Readersneed to know the scope of your work because they want to benefitfrom it; therefore, they need to evaluate how well your solution wouldwork on their problems.If the scope of your solution covers theirarea of need, then they will be satisfied [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Linki