Writing in Science

1. Writing in Science 2/24/2011

2. Formatting • We use exact same approach required for submitting to actual professional journals. Not made-up rules. • Same font, homogenous format, Citations always go at the END of sentences • Grammar • Tense, spelling, difference between ‘weather’ and ‘whether’… • Future tense is used in predictions and experiments not done yet to be super clear what is real authentic and what isn’t yet. • Always past tense in Methods, final manuscript all past tense • Professional journals just send manuscript back.

3. Hypothesis vs. Prediction

4. Hypothesis vs. Prediction

5. Hypothesis vs. Prediction “Wepredict (what; e.g. ‘we’ll see a band of 1205 bp’) …. because (rationale; e.g. ‘primers 1 & 2 5’ end are designed to bind precisely at base 120345 and 121550’) …(citation, e.g. ‘Jensen et al, 2010’)” No predictions in final draft

6. Hypothesis vs. Prediction

7. Hypothesis vs. Prediction “Under ideal conditions etc, the primers will anneal and PCR will work”–not a well developed hypothesis Hypothesis is mental model of what is being tested. What is original about your project? PCR, gels?

8. Introduction • Include supporting studies • Prior assays that give good support to your project • Factually accurate and fair, including recognizing objections. What does that mean? • Need to present another argument and defend your findings

9. Talk as ascientist not like high school student • “Through these experiments, we will drastically improve our understanding of PCR” • “This study will allow us to improve our diagnostic technique” • “We performed this to practice and learn how to do PCR.” • Your instructors know this already! • These are unnecessary sentences • They also would be disturbing in a professional publication (“Ummm so these folks don’t even know how to do PCR?”)

10. Results • Include numerous actual findings (observations, data, numbers, distances, brightness of gel bands) do not just say equivalent of “Gel worked (Figure 1).” • Include what statistics you used to analyze your data • Must also include how you analyzed/interpreted your 30 day approach. 30 Days worth 1/3 the grade. • Don’t use lingo that would be confusing in a professional publication, e.g. “red zone” “30 Days” “DIY” “LAs” • We expect groups to make intelligent efforts with wtDNA but acquiring mtDNA or perfect band is not required. • If research goes well, do get mutant DNA (positive control) to work, may submit manuscript to ReCUR for resume building material

11. Figures PCR results from lambda and E. coli only used if made relevant. No predicted figures in final draft. Figure legends– same page as figure Crop your gel photos, label extensively. Versus

12. Discussion Discuss future research plans, special separate “Future Directions” section. The Discussion is NOT just another version of the introduction Need to analyze, interpret, and thoroughly discuss your results section (What does it mean, why?) Connect your new assay to the larger picture of the field. Once again no websites, no anonymous, no course packet citations anywhere in this professional paper.