Artwork

Inhalt bereitgestellt von Unimelb SciComm. Alle Podcast-Inhalte, einschließlich Episoden, Grafiken und Podcast-Beschreibungen, werden direkt von Unimelb SciComm oder seinem Podcast-Plattformpartner hochgeladen und bereitgestellt. Wenn Sie glauben, dass jemand Ihr urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk ohne Ihre Erlaubnis nutzt, können Sie dem hier beschriebenen Verfahren folgen https://de.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast-App
Gehen Sie mit der App Player FM offline!

53. Top 6 ‘Best of’ episodes: How to improve your science writing

36:52
 
Teilen
 

Manage episode 364639795 series 3285962
Inhalt bereitgestellt von Unimelb SciComm. Alle Podcast-Inhalte, einschließlich Episoden, Grafiken und Podcast-Beschreibungen, werden direkt von Unimelb SciComm oder seinem Podcast-Plattformpartner hochgeladen und bereitgestellt. Wenn Sie glauben, dass jemand Ihr urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk ohne Ihre Erlaubnis nutzt, können Sie dem hier beschriebenen Verfahren folgen https://de.player.fm/legal.

We’re continuing our countdown of our most listened-to episodes and this week we’ve made it to number two. It came as no surprise to us that science writing is a topic so many of our listeners want to learn more about – being able to write clearly is such an essential skill!

In 2014, Steven Pinker published a piece in The Chronicle of Higher Education titled ‘Why academic writing stinks’. While we might take offence at the notion that our writing ‘stinks’, there’s no question that the way many of us have been taught to write as researchers and scientists can be difficult for our readers to make sense of. In this episode, Michael and Jen revisit our conversation about why science writing can be so hard to read. They talk about a number of different approaches to improve the clarity and readability of our writing and chat about the style of writing that is most effective for communicating about science with non-scientific audiences.

Listen for our thoughts and advice on how to improve your writing plus tips from two of our UniMelb SciComm students, Randy Mann and Steven Tang.

Here are the papers we mentioned in the podcast:

Medical Obfuscation: Structure and Function. It’s really worth reading this short but pointed piece by Michael Crichton published back in 1975.

Specialized terminology reduces the number of citations of scientific papers. Research to suggest that if we want other scientists to cite our work, we should be avoiding using jargon – especially in the title and abstract.

UN climate reports are increasingly unreadable. Jeff Tollefson’s research into the readability of ICC climate reports.

The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. More research highlighting that science writing is getting harder to read. And this has important implications for research reproducibility.

The growth of acronyms in the scientific literature. Research into the staggering increase in the use of acronyms in science papers since 1950.

And if you’re looking for some great science to read, some of our favourites are Belinda Smith, Dyani Lewis, Ed Yong and Carl Zimmer.

  continue reading

89 Episoden

Artwork
iconTeilen
 
Manage episode 364639795 series 3285962
Inhalt bereitgestellt von Unimelb SciComm. Alle Podcast-Inhalte, einschließlich Episoden, Grafiken und Podcast-Beschreibungen, werden direkt von Unimelb SciComm oder seinem Podcast-Plattformpartner hochgeladen und bereitgestellt. Wenn Sie glauben, dass jemand Ihr urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk ohne Ihre Erlaubnis nutzt, können Sie dem hier beschriebenen Verfahren folgen https://de.player.fm/legal.

We’re continuing our countdown of our most listened-to episodes and this week we’ve made it to number two. It came as no surprise to us that science writing is a topic so many of our listeners want to learn more about – being able to write clearly is such an essential skill!

In 2014, Steven Pinker published a piece in The Chronicle of Higher Education titled ‘Why academic writing stinks’. While we might take offence at the notion that our writing ‘stinks’, there’s no question that the way many of us have been taught to write as researchers and scientists can be difficult for our readers to make sense of. In this episode, Michael and Jen revisit our conversation about why science writing can be so hard to read. They talk about a number of different approaches to improve the clarity and readability of our writing and chat about the style of writing that is most effective for communicating about science with non-scientific audiences.

Listen for our thoughts and advice on how to improve your writing plus tips from two of our UniMelb SciComm students, Randy Mann and Steven Tang.

Here are the papers we mentioned in the podcast:

Medical Obfuscation: Structure and Function. It’s really worth reading this short but pointed piece by Michael Crichton published back in 1975.

Specialized terminology reduces the number of citations of scientific papers. Research to suggest that if we want other scientists to cite our work, we should be avoiding using jargon – especially in the title and abstract.

UN climate reports are increasingly unreadable. Jeff Tollefson’s research into the readability of ICC climate reports.

The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. More research highlighting that science writing is getting harder to read. And this has important implications for research reproducibility.

The growth of acronyms in the scientific literature. Research into the staggering increase in the use of acronyms in science papers since 1950.

And if you’re looking for some great science to read, some of our favourites are Belinda Smith, Dyani Lewis, Ed Yong and Carl Zimmer.

  continue reading

89 Episoden

모든 에피소드

×
 
Loading …

Willkommen auf Player FM!

Player FM scannt gerade das Web nach Podcasts mit hoher Qualität, die du genießen kannst. Es ist die beste Podcast-App und funktioniert auf Android, iPhone und im Web. Melde dich an, um Abos geräteübergreifend zu synchronisieren.

 

Kurzanleitung