Since the beginning of my internship with the DU Quark, I’ve been focusing mainly on participating in peer-review and revising an article that I wrote for publication. Compared to the standard English writing conventions that I’m used to, scientific writing continues to surprise me in terms of its collaborative nature. The peer-review process alone has multiple rounds of consideration, each with its own set of suggestions, praise, and criticism. By the time of the final round, a scientific article has had multiple changes and has become more of a living document than a dedication of the author’s mind. I’ve noticed that both scientific writing and English journal articles enter into conversation with the field as a whole. Besides helping to establish a contemporary canon of research, both types of writing create an active flow of discourse that help shape and define the current knowledge base. The writer’s responsibility then transitions from that of the author of a document to that of a facilitator or interpreter of the field.
In revising my own scientific article on current graphene research, I’ve become especially aware of the need to accurately portray the research I’m citing. Since research developments happen all the time, figures and statistics don’t remain accurate forever. Though I only wrote the article six months ago, I’m constantly researching and checking definitions and terms to ensure that they’re still current with the field. Luckily, no major graphene innovation has occurred since last April. I’ve also been working on researching material for my article series on scientific literacy that I’ll start drafting in the next month. My tentative goal is to focus on the level of scientific understanding and critical thinking found in non-scientific careers and education.
Building Bridges 