Customer Reviews

Scientific English

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I'm a technical writer by profession, and taught technical writing for 10 years. I've used this book and Day's "How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper" as textbooks, as well as in the workplace. This is the most succinct, practical, and helpful guide for scientific and technical writing on the market -- and I've looked at an awfully lot of guides! It's easy to use, and often very funny. Also, it's a good example of the clarity and brevity he advocates (this is not, unfortunately, true of many technical writing textbooks). Finally, I heartily concur with Day's belief that "Simplicity of expression is a natural result of profound thought." I've heard many scientists deplore the poor state of scientific education in the U.S. and the rise of "bad science." In my opinion, this is the fault of scientists themselves for not making their methods and results more accessible to the general public. Day's guidelines are an important step in the right direction, and I hope more scientists follow them.

I have worked as a science writer and editor for years and purchased this book with the intention of using it when working with investigators writing papers, grants applications, etc. (especially with those investigators for whom English may be a second language). Overall I think the book is quite good, and provides clear and concise advice and guidance (as well as numerous examples) on proper English language.

Perhaps it is just a pet peeve of mine, but I take issue with Mr. Day's discussion of the use of the words "that" and "which." Although he provides examples of how the meaning of a sentence can change with the alternate use of "that" and "which," his conclusion is that, if it doesn't change the sentence, use either. To quote from the book, Mr. Day says, "Who gives a damn?"

Well, I do. I'm not a "which-hunter," as Mr. Day describes some, but there are specific instances where these words are to be used, even if the meaning of a sentence doesn't change with either use, and he acknowledges this. Advocating a dismissive attitude about the rules is tantamount to propagating poor English in a society already replete with poor speakers and writers.

Despite this, I would recommend this book to anyone wishing to improve his command of the English language.

An excellent aid for scientists whose native tongue is not English, but also a useful aid for any person that wishes to improve their written English skills. I mostly like the witty fashion and simplicity in which is written. In fact, the main message from this textbook is that in simplicity lies the secret to adequately express your ideas, whichever is the language. Furthermore, it provides useful rules and hints for the proper use of expressions, words, adverbs, adjectives, etc. Mandatory!

The Scientific English: A Guide for Scientists and Other Professionals is a complete, clear, concise, and forthright scientific writing book--wisely written even for nonnative-English writers like me. I'm delighted to read the witty epigraphs, the grammatical explanations, and the opportune examples. The authors, themselves, in the book, follow the guiding principles of scientific writing they named: (1) to educate, (2) to inform, (3) to record, and (4) to persuade.

Equally appealing is the authors' tone. Their writing tone has created on me a new opinion for the English grammar. Their nine "pigeonholes"; the "Punctuation"; the "Redundancies and Jargon"; and the "Voice, Person, and Tense" Chapters provide simple explanations and amiable examples. For instance, in the tense usage they wrote the following: "In scientific writing, only two tenses are normally used: present and past. Occasionally, the future tense might be used, in pointing to the need for further experimentation . . . ." This advice and its examples--e.g., "Jones (2010) showed that the first quinone to be reduced is tightly bound," "Figure 1 indicates that . . . ," "Table 4 shows that . . . ," "I found"--clarify how to cite references and report research findings.

Moreover, the book contains important scientific writing details. For example, do you know which dash is appropriate between two numbers? In pages 146-148, you'll find the answer. Why sometimes you have to write commas and periods inside the quotation marks and sometimes outside? Well, that depends of the origin of your selected journal: American or British. In the American system, Dr. Day and Ms. Sakaduski wrote that commas and periods always go inside closing quotation marks (Quotation Rule 1). Similarly, in the "Agreement of Subjects and Verbs" section, the authors explain why "A series of experiments was performed" and "A number of experiments were performed" are correct. Additionally, if you have doubts about the correct usage of "correlated with-correlated to," the proper usage, "correlated with," is in the "Problem Words and Expressions," in Appendix 2.

Finally, if you've been writing for a long time or just started, you'll discover the real meaning of phrases as the following: "It has long been known," "A definite trend is evident," "Typical results are shown," "A statistically oriented projection of the significance of these findings," "According to statistical analysis," and so on. Definitely, reading the Scientific English: A Guide for Scientists and Other Professionals will help you write well.

An excellent book for a scientist whose mother language is not English.

I'm a medical writer, so this book is far too elementary for my use as a writer; however, as a teacher of students of English as a foreign language (EFL), I've come across few books that can match this one. I spend a lot of time in writing books, style guides and the sort, and this one takes the prize for its readability and accuracy of information. For anyone just starting out as a professional writer (you needn't be a science writer or even "professional" to benefit from this text), I say it's a must-have. Or even if you're looking to break into writing, at any level, you'll find it hard to put down. And unlike most books on grammar and writing, it is written in a style that makes for easy, enjoyable reading. So you could actually read it from cover to cover without feeling as if you've just been hit over the head with a textbook. Hands down, it's five stars!

While it serves as a decent english guide, I find this book to be petty in its partisanship. This is all the more nauseating considering the book is supposed to discuss scientific writing. I reluctantly recommend it to my students, but am looking out for a more mature treatment of the subject. The author needs to grow up (and this recommendation is coming from someone still in his twenties).