Talk:Scientific writing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Radhika.moh16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Restart
I have removed most of the style-guide content which was unsourced and inappropriate. I have created a History section with a good source which may help us redo in the article in a better way - recounting the history of the practise and summarising the details rather than exhaustively prescribing them. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good ideas, and good plan. I think your bold editing in this matter is helpful Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have moved the content of the previous "how-to" version of the article to the talk page of the Wikiversity Scientific writing article. I'm sure they'd appreciate any help from us to merge the text. Clifflandis (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to list this article for deletion (with a real discussion, rather than PROD), but given how really bad the article used to be, compared to what you've reduced it to, I figured I'd give the discussion a trial run here first. Is there really any benefit to having a separate article about scientific writing? How would it be possible to prevent it from becoming redundant to many of the articles that are already listed in the footer template (e.g., Academic publishing, Academic journal, Scientific journal)? &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley&rarr; &#x2709; 05:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the article can be improved by including summary style sections refering to several articles in the See also list. Especially the IMRAD section. Mange01 (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of passive voice
Use of passive voice in scientific writing is very common, and is usually discouraged as a classic example of "academese" style (although some argue (e.g. Dr. Pinker) that this rule is too general, and passive voice may be used under specific circumstances).

However, this article asserts that some encourage using passive voice (and even implies it is preferred). Following the references, I've found that reference 6. "Duke Scientific Writing Resource" actually states the opposite and discourages passive voice use-as found on the site's Presentation PDF; while the ref. 5. "Journal house style points" pdf does not encourage or discourage anything (leaves the decision to the author).

In addition, reference 5. is very weak since it pertains to just one scientific journal (there are many thousands). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamabushi1981 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I share your concern about the source labeled "International Studies Review" and currently numbered 5. It is a primary source – an instance of style review, rather than a description of scientific writing style. It is even worse than you suggest. This is not just the style recommended for one journal; it appears to be recommendations for one manuscript. The box for "Use passive voice throughout" is ticked, but there is another box for "Use active voice throughout", suggesting that this journal's style accepts either choice.


 * The Duke Scientific Writing Resource is a tertiary source, which is generally valued on Wikipedia, but it appears to be self-published advice from the Duke University Graduate School to its students. Moreover, the web publication appears to have changed very recently. The current (20 Dec.) version does not seem to mention passive voice, but as recently as 8 December it said, "Some writers speak out in vehement opposition to passive voice, others claim it should be used liberally", according to Google's cached version. The essay went on to list twelve secondary sources arguing against use of passive voice and six sources arguing for its use (though two of these are actually the same source).


 * I plan to remove both of the currently cited sources, but replace them with some of the secondary sources on the older version of the Duke Scientific Writing Resource web page, if I can find them in my university's library. Cnilep (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical Writing
— Assignment last updated by G.O Memo (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Honors SPC 1017 Fall 2023
— Assignment last updated by Ihutchins79 (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writ 2 - Academic Writing
— Assignment last updated by Icecream209 (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)