scientific writing, hrp 214 grand finale quiz…. scientific writing, hrp 214 weekly quiz a. she...

Scientific Writing, HRP 214

Grand Finale Quiz…

Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Weekly Quiz

A. She eluded to the fight that occurred earlier.

B. She alluded to the the fight that occurred earlier.


A. She eluded to the fight that occurred earlier.

B. B. She She alludedalluded to the the fight that occurred to the the fight that occurred earlier.earlier.


A. She eluded the fight.

B. She alluded the fight.


A. A. She She eludedeluded the fight. the fight.

B. She alluded the fight.


A. The close friendship that existed between them was quickly dissolved.

B. The close friendship that existed among them was quickly dissolved.

Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz

A. A. The close friendship that existed The close friendship that existed betweenbetween them was quickly dissolved.them was quickly dissolved.

B. The close friendship that existed among them was quickly dissolved.


A. She lies out in the sun.

B. She lays out in the sun.


A. She A. She lieslies out in the sun. out in the sun.

B. She lays out in the sun.


A. She is lying out in the sun.

B. She is laying out in the sun.


A. She A. She is lyingis lying out in the sun. out in the sun.

B. She is laying out in the sun.


A. She laid out in the sun yesterday.

B. She lay out in the sun yesterday.


A. She laid out in the sun yesterday.

B. She B. She laylay out in the sun yesterday. out in the sun yesterday.


A. She had laid out in the sun too much as a kid.

B. She had lain out in the sun too much as a kid.


A. She had laid out in the sun too much as a kid.

B. She B. She had lainhad lain out in the sun too much out in the sun too much as a kid.as a kid.


A. She lies the book on the table.

B. She lays the book on the table.


A. She lies the book on the table.

B. She B. She layslays the book on the table. the book on the table.


A. She is lying the book on the table.

B. She is laying the book on the table.


A. She is lying the book on the table.

B. She is B. She is layinglaying the book on the table. the book on the table.


A. She laid the book on the table this morning.

B. She lay the book on the table this morning.


A. She A. She laidlaid the book on the table this the book on the table this morning.morning.

B. She lay the book on the table this morning.


A. She had lain the book on the table.

B. She had laid the book on the table.


A. She had lain the book on the table.

B. She B. She had laidhad laid the book on the table. the book on the table.


A. Now I lay down to sleep.

B. Now I lie down to sleep.


A. Now I lay down to sleep.

B. Now I B. Now I lielie down to sleep. down to sleep.


A. Now I lay me down to sleep.

B. Now I lie me down to sleep.


A. Now I laylay me down to sleep.

B. Now I lie me down to sleep.


A. She commented on the clearly defined mutant traits.

B. She commented on the clearly-defined mutant traits.


A. She commented on the A. She commented on the clearly definedclearly defined mutant traits.mutant traits.



A. We studied the affects of the gene on signaling.

B. We studied the effects of the gene on signaling.


A. We studied the affects of the gene on signaling.

B. We studied B. We studied the effectsthe effects of the gene on of the gene on signaling.signaling.


A. She was the best-read scientist in the lab.

B. She was the best read scientist in the lab.



B. She was the B. She was the best readbest read scientist in the scientist in the lab.lab.


A. The previously-reported data were suspect.

B. The previously reported data were suspect.



B. The B. The previously reportedpreviously reported data were data were suspect.suspect.


A. She was a well-known scientist.

B. She was a well known scientist.


A. She was a A. She was a well-knownwell-known scientist. scientist.



A. He owed over $1000 to the doctor.

B. He owed more than $1000 to the doctor.


A. He owed over $1000 to the doctor.

B. He owed B. He owed more thanmore than $1000 to the doctor. $1000 to the doctor.


A. The negotiators effected an agreement.

B. The negotiators affected an agreement.


A. The negotiators A. The negotiators effectedeffected an agreement. an agreement.



A. D-day was a historic day.

B. D-day was a historical day.


A. D-day was a A. D-day was a historichistoric day. day.

B. D-day was a B. D-day was a historicalhistorical day. day.

Actually both!


A. Your procrastination had an averse effect on your grade.

B. Your procrastination had an adverse effect on your grade.


A. Your procrastination had an averse effect on your grade.

B. Your procrastination had an B. Your procrastination had an adverseadverse effect on your grade.effect on your grade.


A. The bacteria were treated gently.

B. The bacteria was treated gently.


A. The bacteria A. The bacteria werewere treated gently. treated gently.

B. The bacteria was treated gently.


A. Fewer men are in the class than women.

B. Less men are in the class than women.


A. A. FewerFewer men are in the class than women. men are in the class than women.

B. Less men are in the class than women.


A. I’m averse to banana flavor.

B. I’m adverse to banana flavor.


A. I’m A. I’m averseaverse to banana flavor. to banana flavor.

B. I’m adverse to banana flavor.


A. That man and I were talking.

B. That man and me were talking.


A. That A. That man and Iman and I were talking. were talking.

B. That man and me were talking.


A. She told Bob and me that the end was near.

B. She told Bob and I that the end was near.


A. She told A. She told Bob and meBob and me that the end was near. that the end was near.

B. She told Bob and I that the end was near.


A. I always thought it was further to the moon.

B. I always thought it was farther to the moon.


A. I always thought it was further to the moon.

B. I always thought it was B. I always thought it was fartherfarther to the moon. to the moon.


A. That 17th-century pot is a historical piece.

B. That 17th-century pot is a historic piece.


A. That 17A. That 17thth-century pot is a -century pot is a historicalhistorical piece. piece.

B. That 17th-century pot is a historic piece.


A. Between you and I, we should have it done in no time.

B. Between you and me, we should have it done in no time.


A. Between you and I, we should have it done in no time.

B. Between B. Between you and meyou and me, we should have it , we should have it done in no time.done in no time.


A. He died of unknown causes.

B. He died from unknown causes.


A. He A. He died ofdied of unknown causes. unknown causes.

B. He died from unknown causes.


A. Binge drinking causes adverse health effects.

B. Binge drinking causes averse health effects.


A. Binge drinking causes A. Binge drinking causes adverseadverse health health effects.effects.

B. Binge drinking causes averse health effects.


A. To whom did you betray my secret?

B. To who did you betray my secret?


A. A. To whomTo whom did you betray my secret? did you betray my secret?

B. To who did you betray my secret?


A. The person about who you speak is a fool.

B. The person about whom you speak is a fool.


A. The person about who you speak is a fool.

B. The person B. The person about whomabout whom you speak is a you speak is a fool.fool.


A. It’s my head on the line.

B. Its my head on the line.


A. A. It’sIt’s my head on the line. my head on the line.

B. Its my head on the line.


A. The 20-pound weight loss helped his self-confidence.

B. The 20 pound weight loss helped his self-confidence.


A. The A. The 20-pound weight loss20-pound weight loss helped his self- helped his self-confidence. confidence.

B. The 20 pound weight loss helped his self-confidence.


A. Its head was on the chopping block.

B. It’s head was on the chopping block.


A. A. ItsIts head was on the chopping block. head was on the chopping block.

B. It’s head was on the chopping block.


A. The prevalence of autism is 10 out of 1,000 people.

B. The incidence of autism is 10 out of 1,000 people.


A. The A. The prevalenceprevalence of autism is 10 out of 1,000 of autism is 10 out of 1,000 people.people.

B. The incidence of autism is 10 out of 1,000 people.


A. She could have made it further in life.

B. She could have made it farther in life.


A. She could have made it A. She could have made it furtherfurther in life. in life.

B. She could have made it farther in life.


A. She doesn’t take compliments well.

B. She doesn’t take complements well.


A. She doesn’t take A. She doesn’t take complimentscompliments well. well.

B. She doesn’t take complements well.


A. He’s not rational at that time of the day.

B. He’s not rationale at that time of the day.


A. He’s not A. He’s not rationalrational at that time of the day. at that time of the day.

B. He’s not rationale at that time of the day.


A. Her rationale was that the drugs would help alleviate the pain.

B. Her rational was that the drugs would help alleviate the pain.


A. Her A. Her rationalerationale was that the drugs would was that the drugs would help alleviate the pain.help alleviate the pain.

B. Her rational was that the drugs would help alleviate the pain.


A. Bob and I were very fond of the piece.

B. Bob and me were very fond of the piece.


A. A. Bob and IBob and I were very fond of the piece. were very fond of the piece.

B. Bob and me were very fond of the piece.


A. That action violated her principles.

B. That action violated her principals.


A. That action violated her A. That action violated her principlesprinciples..

B. That action violated her principals.


A. Cream and chocolate comprise chocolate sauce.

B. Cream and chocolate compose chocolate sauce.


A. Cream and chocolate comprise chocolate sauce.

B. Cream and chocolate B. Cream and chocolate composecompose chocolate chocolate sauce.sauce.


A. The dessert was comprised of cream and chocolate.

B. The dessert was composed of cream and chocolate.


A. The dessert was comprised of cream and chocolate.

B. The dessert was B. The dessert was composedcomposed of cream and of cream and chocolate.chocolate.


A. Chocolate sauce composes cream and chocolate.

B. Chocolate sauce comprises cream and chocolate.


A. Chocolate sauce composes cream and chocolate.

B. Chocolate sauce B. Chocolate sauce comprisescomprises cream and cream and chocolate.chocolate.


A. Cream and chocolate are comprised in chocolate sauce.

B. Cream and chocolate are composed of

chocolate sauce.


A. Cream and chocolate A. Cream and chocolate are comprised inare comprised in chocolate sauce.chocolate sauce.

B. Cream and chocolate are composed of

chocolate sauce.


A. She accepted the compliment without a word.

B. She accepted the complement without a word.


A. She accepted the A. She accepted the complimentcompliment without a without a word.word.

B. She accepted the complement without a word.


A. You should take some ice cream; it’s complimentary.

B. You should take some ice cream; it’s complementary.


A. You should take some ice cream; it’s A. You should take some ice cream; it’s complimentarycomplimentary. .

B. You should take some ice cream; it’s complementary.


A. Those colors are complementary.

B. Those colors are complimentary.


A. Those colors are A. Those colors are complementarycomplementary..

B. Those colors are complimentary.


A. Each person is responsible for their grade.

B. Each person is responsible for his grade.


A. Each person is responsible for their grade.

B. Each person is responsible for B. Each person is responsible for hishis grade. grade.


A. She commented on the clearly defined mutant traits.



A. She commented on the A. She commented on the clearly definedclearly defined mutant traits.mutant traits.



A. I like books, chocolate, and coffee.

B. I like books, chocolate and coffee.


A. I like books, chocolateA. I like books, chocolate,, and coffee. and coffee.

B. I like books, chocolate and coffee.


A. She was self-employed.

B. She was self employed.


A. She was A. She was self-employedself-employed..

B. She was self employed.



B. She was the best read scientist in the lab.



B. She was the B. She was the best readbest read scientist in the scientist in the lab.lab.



B. The previously reported data were suspect.



B. The B. The previously reportedpreviously reported data were data were suspect.suspect.


A. That was pre-SARS.

B. That was pre SARS.


A. That was A. That was pre-SARSpre-SARS..

B. That was pre SARS.


A. He cited the widely-believed fallacy.

B. He cited the widely believed fallacy.


A. He cited the widely-believed fallacy.

B. He cited the B. He cited the widely believedwidely believed fallacy. fallacy.


A. She was a well-known scientist.



A. She was a A. She was a well-knownwell-known scientist. scientist.



A. She was well-known.

B. She was well known.


A. She was well-known.

B. She was B. She was well knownwell known..


A. He counted six pies.

B. He counted 6 pies.


A. He counted A. He counted sixsix pies. pies.

B. He counted 6 pies.


A. She was affected by the war.

B. She was effected by the war.


A. She A. She was affectedwas affected by the war. by the war.

B. She was effected by the war.


A. The affects of the war were devastating.

B. The effects of the war were devastating.


A. The affects of the war were devastating.

B. B. The effectsThe effects of the war were devastating. of the war were devastating.


A. The bacteria that I was trying to grow died.

B. The bacteria which I was trying to grow died.


A. The bacteria A. The bacteria thatthat I was trying to grow died. I was trying to grow died.

B. The bacteria which I was trying to grow died.


A. The car, which I didn’t particularly like, finally died.

B. The car, that I didn’t particularly like, finally died.


A. The car, A. The car, whichwhich I didn’t particularly like I didn’t particularly like,, finally died.finally died.

B. The car, that I didn’t particularly like, finally died.


A. He displayed a distressing lack of effect.

B. He displayed a distressing lack of affect.


A. He displayed a distressing lack of effect.

B. He displayed a distressing lack of B. He displayed a distressing lack of affectaffect..


A. The negotiators effected an agreement.



A. The negotiators A. The negotiators effectedeffected an agreement. an agreement.



A. ROC curves were developed in the 1950s as a by-product of research into making sense of radio signals contaminated by noise.

B. ROCs were developed in the 1950s as a by-product of research into making sense of radio signals contaminated by noise.


A.A. ROC curvesROC curves were developed in the 1950s were developed in the 1950s as a by-product of research into making as a by-product of research into making sense of radio signals contaminated by sense of radio signals contaminated by noise.noise.

B. ROCs were developed in the 1950s as a by-product of research into making sense of radio signals contaminated by noise.


A. That strain of HIV virus is highly transmissible.

B. That strain of HIV is highly transmissible.


A. A. That strain of HIV virus is highly transmissible.

B. That strain of That strain of HIVHIV is highly transmissible. is highly transmissible.


Two more to part on….


“1900s”

The 1900s were from 1900 to1909 (just as the 1990s were from 1990 to 1999)

Do you mean 1900 to 1999? Use “the twentieth century”


“300% more”DOES NOT EQUAL

“300% as much”

~ AND ~

“Risk was three times greater than” (x + 3x)DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS

“Risk was three times as great as” (3x)


George Orwell on clichés and other frivolities:

“Phrases like a not justifiable assumption, leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one's elbow.”

Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Blaise Pascal on the elegance in brevity:

“I have only made this letter rather long because I have not had time to make it shorter.” (“Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parceque je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.”)

--Lettres provinciales, 16, Dec.14,1656

(though reference also attributed to St. Augustine, and Cicero….)

HRP 214: Scientific Writing

Lecture 9:

Post-publication:

Working with the media

Peer review

The Media

Dealing with the media.Points for discussion.

1. Where do journalists get ideas for stories? From scientific journals and meetings (science journalists) From online collections, such as “Eurekalert”(www.

eurekalert.org) From each other From your institution’s press releases (prepared by PIO

officers) From following trends

http://www.eurekalert.org/



The Media

2. Being interviewed by a journalist.**Points to keep in mind:

1. Assume that you are being recorded.

2. Pretend that you are talking to your grandmother.3. Avoid jargon altogether.4. Try to tell it like a story.5. Always start with the big picture.6. Unless you are being interviewed by a PIO officer or sympathetic intern, you will NOT be given an opportunity to approve the article ahead of time. At most, you may be able to ask to see your direct quotes ahead of time.


Be aware of what journalists are looking for.News stories follows a basic formula (just as

scientific journal articles do)…

Headline Lead Nut Graf First quote (3-6 paragraphs down)—brings in the human element

and overall significance More details and more quotes (inverted pyramid style) Kicker (often a strong quote)

The Media2. Being interviewed by a journalist.

**What the journalist is waiting to hear, and will use in his/her article: big picture ties how your research affects people (i.e., their readers) what’s different or new about your results (the “news hook”) colorful prose (makes a good kicker) interesting stories (anecdotes) (makes a good lead) paradox/irony/surprise (also makes a good lead) people-focused stories historical facts/the development of the idea sweeping comments about the significance of the work (makes a good first quote) controversy/criticism or laudatory praise, if you are being asked to comment on a

peer’s research

The Media

**What journalists do not want to hear and will not quote you on:

experimental details (unless they need specific clarifications, which they will ask for directly)

statistical details nuances, subtleties jargon

The Media

3. Explaining risk to a journalist.

Be careful what you say. Assume that the journalist does not have a good concept of risk,

probability, and statistics. Remember that the journalist is looking for significance, surprise, and news

that affects people– therefore, they may seize upon a fact or figure that is shocking, surprising, or alarming if you give them the opportunity.

Relative risk can be high even if absolute risk is low The risk to public health can be high even if the risk to individual health is

low.

Describing Risk

Example: the women’s health initiative:

Relative risk for invasive breast cancer = 1.26

Relative risk for coronary heart disease = 1.29

Best translation for the public? “Women have a 26% increased risk of breast cancer

and a 29% increased risk of heart disease if they take hormones”?

Baseline risks and percentages

Risk of invasive breast cancer: 37/10,000 person-years for treatment = .0037 30/10,000 person-years for controls = .0030 Absolute risk increases by .07% Risk of heart disease: 38/10,000 person-years for treatment = .0038 30/10,000 person-years for controls = .0030 Absolute risk increases by .08%

Baseline risks and percentages

26% increased risk of breast cancer and 29% increased risk of heart disease sounds impressive and scary.

Better to report: 8 more CHD events per 10,000 women/year 7 more invasive breast cancers 10,000

women/year

Peer Review

If you are the reviewer, a few tips…

Peer Review: Tone

Assume there is some poor graduate student on the other end who did all the work, and whose confidence and career depend on your critique.

Tone matters! E.g. “The authors should delete table 5; not only is it completely

irrelevant, but it also reveals their utter lack of statistical understanding.”

vs. “Table 5 contains unnecessary information (for example…), and a Pearson’s correlation coefficient may not be appropriate here. The authors should consider revising or omitting the table.”

Peer Review: Tone

Avoid criticizing the authors! Criticize the work. Avoid generalizations; point out specific errors. Use positive instead of negative language where

possible: “The paper is poorly written.” vs. “The writing and presentation could be improved. For example…”

Avoid “lecturing” to the authors.

Peer Review: Process

My system.. 1. Scan the abstract. 2. Jump to the data: review the tables and figures first.

Draw your own conclusions. Do the tables and figures stand on their own? Are there any obvious statistical errors? Is there repetitive information?

3. Read the paper once through. Do the authors conclusions match their data? Is the paper clearly written, or did you struggle to get through it?

You should not have to struggle! Is the length of the paper justified given the amount of new

information that the data provide?


4. Read the introduction carefully. Is it three paragraphs long (or close)? Does it roughly follow:

known-->unknown-->research question/hypothesis? Is there detailed information about what was done that belongs

in the methods? Is there information about what was found? If so, it should be

moved to the results. Is there distracting information about previous studies or

mechanisms that are not directly relevant to the hypothesis being tested. If so, it should be moved to the discussion.

Do the authors tell you what gaps in the literature they are trying to fill in?

Peer Review: Process5. Read the methods carefully.

Scan this section to find answers to your questions about the data. Were things measured objectively or subjectively? What instruments were used? Are there flaws in the study design, such as no control group? Read the statistics section carefully.

6. Read the results carefully. Read this section with the tables and figures in front of you. Does each section roughly correspond to one table or figure? Do the authors summarize the main trends and themes from the table, or do they just

repeat what is in the tables? If there are graphs, do the authors give precise numerical values in the text if it is not

given in the graph? Are the authors honest or do they try to draw your eye to what they want you to see?? Do the authors over-interpret statistical significance, by ignoring the fact that the

magnitude is small or by ignoring the fact that they have done multiple subgroup analyses?

Is this section unnecessarily long?

Peer Review: Process7. Look at each table and figure.

Did the authors choose the correct statistics? Is there repetitive information in a single table, such as both p-values and standard

errors? Are there multiple tables or figures that tell the same story? For example, Table 2

gives parameter estimates from a logistic regression model and Table 3 gives odds ratios from the same model and Figure 1 plots the odds ratio confidence intervals. Or Table 1 gives the mean values for two groups and indicates statistical significance from a ttest and Table 2 gives confidence intervals for the differences in means for the same data.

Did the authors adjust for confounding and consider interactions? Is there evidence of data dredging or purposefully omitting data? Are any graphs misleading, e.g. through manipulation of area or axes? Is the “treatment” group always compared with a proper control/placebo group? Are there inconsistencies in the data they present from one table to the next? Did the authors make transcribing errors when going from the data in tables/results

to the abstract?


8. Read the discussion carefully. Does the first paragraph succinctly and clearly tell you what was

found and what is new? Are the authors’ conclusions justified or are they overreaching? Do they clearly distinguish hypothesis-driven conclusions and

exploratory conclusions? Is the writing clear and to the point (active voice!)? Is there some

sense of order and structure or are they just rambling on aimlessly?

Could the discussion be shortened? Did they address the limitations you care about? (as opposed to

any old irrelevant limitations that they threw in just to have some) Are the references that they cite current? Have they omitted key references?

Peer Review: ContentComments to authors: 1. Start with a one-paragraph “general overview.”

State what you think is the major finding and importance of the work Give 2-3 positive, encouraging statements about the work. If the methods

are crap, is the writing nice, for example? Is the research question particularly interesting or novel? (E.g., “This is an interesting manuscript, with several strengths.” “The authors should be commended for …” “The finding that …. is important.)

State 1-2 major limitations (if there are any) to the study design, writing/presentation, or conclusions. (E.g., “The study is limited because there is no control group.” “The overall writing or presentation needs improvement.” “The authors may have over-stated their findings.” “The paper provides only weak evidence for its conclusions.” “The study is exploratory, not hypothesis-driven.”)

Do not tell the authors your overall recommendation (rejection, acceptance).

Peer Review: Content

Comments to authors: 2. In a numbered list, give 5-15 specific

criticisms/suggestions for revision. The number will often correspond to your recommendation (give the most if you are recommending “opportunity for revision.”) Point out specific mistakes. List the issues that you found in your review. Give specific recommendations for revision.

Peer Review: Content

Comments to editors: 1. Fill out journal “grading sheet.”** 2. Choose your recommendation:

Reject (~33%) Reject with opportunity to revise. (~33%) Accept with minor revision (~33%) Accept.

3. Give a succinct overall statement to the editors that justifies your ranking. State the papers major strengths and weakness. (I often borrow material from my comments to the authors.)

REVIEWER EDITOR!!!

Do not be spend your time nit-picking. Focus on big-picture issues.

If the manuscript has a lot of copy-editing errors, point this out in a general way and give one or two examples, e.g. “The manuscript contains typos, such as…”

Peer Review: **grading sheet, example

Impact of ResearchTOP 10% __TOP 25% __Top 50% __Bottom 50% _X_Bottom 25% __Bottom 10% __

Originality of Results…Methodology and Data Quality…OVERALL MANUSCRIPT RANK…

Peer Review: Final comments

The first one you do will take a long time. You will get progressively faster at these as you go along.

Review unto others as you would want to be reviewed!

scientific writing, hrp 214 grand finale quiz…. scientific writing, hrp 214 weekly quiz a. she...

Documents

weekly quiza

close friendship

mutant traits