FISH 6000: Week 4 - Anatomy of a Science Paper Part 1

4th lecture in FISH 6000

updated sept 24 2019

Transcript

1. Week 4: Anatomy of a Science Paper Part 1 FISH 6000: Science Communication for Fisheries Brett Favaro 2017 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
2. Land Acknowledgment We would like to respectfully acknowledge the territory in which we gather as the ancestral homelands of the Beothuk, and the island of Newfoundland as the ancestral homelands of the Mi’kmaq and Beothuk. We would also like to recognize the Inuit of Nunatsiavut and NunatuKavut and the Innu of Nitassinan, and their ancestors, as the original people of Labrador. We strive for respectful partnerships with all the peoples of this province as we search for collective healing and true reconciliation and honour this beautiful land together. http://www.mun.ca/aboriginal_affairs/
3. Today: 1. Establishing good writing habits • Activity: Writing team and Power ¼ Hour. 2. Peer feedback - Proposal 3. The core sections of most science papers • Activity: Abstract (deep dive).
4. First… Power ¼ Hour! 15 minutes… Ready… GO!
5. Today: 1. Establishing good writing habits • Activity: Writing team and Power ¼ Hour. 2. Peer feedback - Proposal 3. The core sections of most science papers • Activity: Abstract (deep dive). Pair up with your reviewer. Author: • State what grant or scholarship you were targeting with this proposal Reviewer: • Summarize to the writer what you think they were proposing to do, in broad terms • What did you like about the proposal? What was hard to follow? • Was there anything that didn’t make sense? Was jargon defined? 10 minutes per partner. Total = 20-30 minutes.
6. Today: 1. Establishing good writing habits • Activity: Writing team and Power ¼ Hour. 2. Peer feedback - Proposal 3. The core sections of most science papers Chapters 8-15
7. Most science papers contain: • Title • Abstract • Introduction • Methods • Results • Discussion • Acknowledgments • References • Tables and Figures
8. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10244.pdf Today, we’ll examine this paper in detail:
9. Title Abstract We will come back to these later
10. Intro Broad concept Fish matter because they are food Context Not enough food to go around. Review of literature and contextualization
11. Intro • What do we know at this point? Still don’t know what THEY did in this paper. That’s okay. Is your interest piqued?
12. 495 words Ideas: - Small scale fisheries lack attention - …Over a large geographic area (why this MATTERS) - …and as a result, FAO data might be wrong. This first hints at the problem the authors will solve
13. Answer to: “So what if stats are wrong?” Notice how the intro is: - Educating the reader about the subject - Identifying gaps - Explaining why those gaps matter Every word matters
14. 1. The issue (context and subject) is ‘widely known’ but never ‘explicitly presented’ (gap) 2. Explicit statement “until now” We now know the subject of the paper (catch stats), why we care (fish are food, and there aren’t enough fish), the thing being tested (magnitude of underestimation of catch stats). We MUST KNOW MORE!
15. Specific method identified, along with brief description and citations Primary finding Desired outcome (specific)
16. Intros have a “shape” Broad Specific
17. Lesson: Always read the instructions to authors early on. Why are Results next?? (Usually methods come next. This is a journal-specific thing) Methods “Instructions to authors” for MUN Theses: http://www.mun.ca/sgs/go/guid_policies/Guidelines_Theses_and_Reports.pdf
18. Enough explanation given so that the paper can stand alone. You CAN read more, with attached references, but don’t need to Subheading, for organization This methods section is also telling us why the old methods weren’t good enough
19. This Methods section mixes passive voice… …and active voice (but what do you notice about verb tenses in these methods?) The study happened in the past – methods should be past tense!
20. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/a-scary-easy-way-to-help-you-find-passive-voice/ It’s okay to say “I did X” (sole author) or “we did X” (multi-author)!
22. Sometimes you’ll wonder “why didn’t they just X.” The methods section anticipates such questions. What you did, and WHY you did it, should be clear This is a ‘nested’ methods section. Paper acknowledges some parts are too lengthy to include here. Paper points you directly to source, as well as raw data. Most papers include a section that explains WHAT stats were used, and WHY, with links to source material. BUT: Methods sections are about what you *did*. Avoid temptation to explain at length what you did not do.
23. Follow a best-practices guide when describing statistical methods http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.12577/abstract e.g. We will examine this paper closely in FISH 6003
24. Activity: Active voice, passive voice, and verb tense • Highlight verb tense in methods • Past: Green • Present: Blue • Future: Orange • Underline active voice • Italicize passive voice Time = 10 min Discuss: How much of each tense was used? Was it consistent? Active vs. passive? Time = 5 min https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_v6hEUbz8T8bmNOWifOLt4SUWe GJph5nDb1HIBHn1nM/edit?usp=sharing
25. Results Sub-headings used again to organize Be careful with subjective terms, when a quantitative description is possible. Probably okay here, but be careful (“fairly steady” might mean something different to you than it does to them) Results, in a traditional science paper, are primarily descriptive – not interpretive Notice how text describes a figure, but does not replace it Note how jargon is defined. This makes paper more accessible and demonstrates you know what you’re talking about! If your clarification is wrong, the clarification itself makes it easier for reviewers to point out your flaw – that’s a good thing Consistency in # of decimal places
26. Writing style is not “chatty.” Every word is important Is this interpretation or clarification? The line can blur in modern papers. Be careful making this claim. Here it’s true – but it’s often not true. Be certain you really are first. This paper is very data rich. Note which parts they are choosing to highlight in results. Are they only presenting results that support their argument? (n.b. No, not in this case IMO. But that’s a question you should ask yourself when reading papers) Again, critical findings in the data are highlighted
27. Bad habit Results are presented in generally the same order as methods are described
28. https://blogs.agu.org/mo untainbeltway/2011/10/ 17/words-matter/
29. https://hbr.org/2018/07/if-you-say- something-is-likely-how-likely-do- people-think-it-is
30. Activity: Identify subjective words in results • Take the results section of this paper. When you see a subjective word, write it down (on paper, or in Notepad) Mainly Mostly Majority of (without an associated #) Probably Somewhat Time: 5 min. Then, we will share the words we found
31. The discussion interprets the results. We’re past “what” and “why” – now we’re at “what does all this mean?” Usually fewer references than Intro, but the discussion still invokes comparisons to other literature. Not citing anything in discussion = red flag. Contextualization – what was different about this study? What was the same? Anticipates counter-arguments. Articulates limitations without undermining the study
32. Important point: Balancing focus on limitations with focus on conclusions • There are *always* limitations in every study • Be honest and transparent – but avoid playing up limitations to the point that the study becomes unbelievable… unless it actually IS unbelievable • In other words; be accurate with uncertainty. If you learned something – do not be afraid to say so! • Acknowledge limitations without surrendering the broader points • At the same time, do not cover up limitations. If there was a fatal flaw with your study – disclose it. Maybe that means it never gets published. You have to be okay with that. • There is still value in negative results • If methods were solid, but no result found: You’ve learned something real • If it’s methodological: Future researchers can avoid making the same mistakes
33. Pay careful attention to the strength of “causation words” Suggests, implies, demonstrates. Rarely: proves Interesting points are pulled out and stated clearly The drivers of the primary finding are identified, and implications stated Intersectional issues are identified The discussion defines the conversation post-publication. This is where you shape the narrative, and make it obvious where things need to go from here
34. Topic sentences The first sentence of every paragraph defines what will be talked about for the rest of that paragraph Everything flows from the topic sentence. Divergence from the topic sentence is confusing and hard to read
35. Intro What would this paper look like with only its topic sentences?
36. Results
38. Back to the discussion, skipping ahead a bit… This is a direct policy recommendation in a science paper! Not too long ago, this would have been frowned upon. But expectations are changing (We’ll talk about advocacy in a future class meeting) Here too… Be really careful of opinions, not cited, and stated in a science paper You and I wouldn’t get away without citing something here
39. Discussions have a “shape” Broad Specific Whole paper
40. Starting next week: Goal setting • Teams of 3-4 • These will be your goal setting team for the semester • At every class meeting, you will assemble with your writing team. • Discuss with each of your teammates: • What were your goals last week? • Did you achieve them? Why or why not? • What did you write last week? • What is your goal for THIS week? • Sample template available on FISH 6000 website • Write these down (one entry per class). At the end of the semester, you will receive a completion grade Goal-setting, peer support, reflection Examination, blame, fault, bragging Time ~ 10 minutes
41. From now on, we will include a Power ¼ Hour and a Writing Team Check-in within every class meeting
42. For next week • We will do an exercise related to abstracts. Please find a PDF of a fisheries paper and bring it to class. • Submit your revised proposal to me by end of day Monday, Oct 8. • ** If you are applying for NSERC Ph.D (due 12 Oct) I will return your proposal with feedback by end of day Oct 9.