· Web viewREU Physics Writing Workshop. Department of Physics, UF. PRESENTED BY. Dr. Mickey S Schafer. University Writing Program. Welcome to the REU Writing Workshop . Why a

REU Physics Writing Workshop

Department of Physics, UF

PRESENTED BY

Dr. Mickey S Schafer

University Writing Program

REU Physics Writing Workshop 1

Welcome to the REU Writing Workshop

Why a workshop on scientific writing? Consider the following from F. Peter Woodford:

Some of the worst [articles] are produced by the kind of author who consciously pretends to a "scientific scholarly" style. He takes what should be lively, inspiring, and beautiful and, in an attempt to make it seem dignified, chokes it to death with stately abstract nouns; next, in the name of scientific impartiality, he fits it with a complete set of passive constructions to drain away any remaining life's blood or excitement; then he embalms the remains in molasses of polysyllable, wraps the corpse in an impenetrable veil of vogue words, and buries the stiff old mummy with much pomp and circumstance in the most distinguished journal that will take it. Considered either as a piece of scholarly work or as a vehicle of communication, the product is appalling. (Science, Vol. 156, No. 3776 (May 12, 1967), pp. 743-745)

Woodford finishes the paragraph with the question: "Does it matter?" Nearly 45 years after his complaint, we are still asking the same question, and still answering "Yes, it matters". It matters because scientific progress depends on evidence and consensus -- the success of evidence relies on experimental design, but the success of the consensus turns solely on communication. Brigham Young University puts it this way:

What is real?

The work on your [research report] is perhaps the closest thing to a "real-world" experience that you will have in college. Nobody solves textbook problems or takes exams for a living. Soon, others will judge you primarily by your research initiative and on your ability to communicate; your college grades will be superfluous. For the first time (and far from the last) you will be expected to craft and define a problem which inevitably will be murky in the beginning. You will have to find and explain the context for that problem, including a clear summary of the related works of others. You must justify your choice of problem. The research for a [written report] will require initiative and imagination. You will have the opportunity to develop a clear description of your work and a coherent and concise argument for its conclusions. (http://www.physics.byu.edu/Undergraduate/Thesis.aspx/ [research/written report] are "senior thesis" in orginal)

Good scientific writing is more than a hypothetical concern.

This workshop addresses the immediate need to produce a written research report at the end of your research experience. It will also furnish you with transferable skills -- writing skills that will last the rest of your academic career. Why am I so confident of this? Because writing across the sciences require the same basic pieces of information delivered with the same basic style needs. This workshop will address these needs. You will leave knowing the structure of a scientific report, the template for building that structure, and the process for writing research efficiently and effectively.

The Research Report

Writing is/should be an integral part of research, not a separate activity...It is efficient to focus research on getting the information needed for the paper, rather than on wandering randomly in intellectual phase space. from Writing a Scientific Paper, George M Whitesides

If the research is worth writing, it is worth writing well. Elements of Style, Nature Physics

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n9/full/nphys724.html

http://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1305035664639/Whitesides-ACS-Writing-a-Scientific-Paper.pdf

http://www.physics.byu.edu/Undergraduate/Thesis.aspx/


Scientific research begins with a question and ends with communication. Communication can happen in the lab, in informal conversation, in progress reports to the PI, in conference presentations, but to really get credit for your work, communication ends with a written report, submitted for publication.

What do you expect when you sit down to read a scientific article? You want to know “what happened?” and "why should I care?”. These are the two main questions that any research report has to answer. Historically, scientists themselves created a standardized format through which to answer these questions → this is the “research report”, and while each discipline has a slightly different take on how to write one, all science publication on experimental data is composed of 4 parts, each answering some part of “what happened” and “why should I care”.

What happened: 1) methods section; 2) results sectionWhy should I care: 1) Introduction; 2) Discussion/Conclusion

Fortunately, science report writing has been around a long time, thus has been conventionalized. This is a beautiful thing! Whatever scientific field you read in, you will recognize the basic parts of the research report: they are an idealized form of the scientific method itself.

Each of the functional headings -- Introduction, Methods/Materials, Results, Discussion/Conclusion -- has a template to guide writing; the templates specify the kind of information that should go in each section and suggest an order for the information, too. The template guiding writing is represented in the text through subheadings, titles, abstracts, in-text citations, figures, references, and all the other features that clearly signal that a document is a science research report.The template helps the writer communicate clearly, concisely, and comprehensibly. When the reader encounters the information in the expected order, the writer's credibility increases, too.


Introductions

...Next comes the most important paragraph of the whole paper: the first one. Even if it is a work of expositional genius, few among a broad audience are likely to read beyond it. So it is vital that this paragraph tells the central story of the paper, and makes clear why this story deserves to be told. Don't launch into technical details, or merely list what you did. Set the scene, explain the background — that will give the non-specialist reader a context in which to understand the significance of the work, but fellow specialists will also appreciate your telling them what you consider to be the relevant questions in the field. Elements of Style, Nature Physics

6 steps to Writing the Introduction

1. Establish Topic2. Provide significance3. Review the relevant literature4. Point out the gap5. Reveal the research question/statement 6. Discuss primary Results and central Conclusion

The first 5 steps include information that is found solely in the Introduction -- they tell the "story" (in scientific terms) of how the experimental information (Methods, Results, Discussion) came to be. The introduction is also the only place where the researcher explains the motivation for the work.

We'll use a recent publication to exemplify each of these steps.

Single domain to multi-domain transition due to in-plane magnetic anisotropy in phase separated (La0.4Pr0.6)0.67Ca0.33MnO3 thin films

Hyoungjeen Jeen and Amlan Biswas*Department of Physics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA

(Received 25 October 2010; published 11 February 2011) (pre-print version in Arxiv)

Note: Physics writers have the tendency to write in very long paragraphs...at this stage of writing, use shorter paragraphs. You can always remove paragraph breaks for publication, but the short paragraph style will make the paper easier to assess. Here are two options for the Introduction.

Option #1 (if long lit review): paragraph 1 -- topic, significance; paragraph 2 -- lit review; paragraph 3 -- gap, research question, results + conclusion

Option #2 (if short lit review): paragraph 1 -- topic, significance, lit review; paragraph 2 -- gap, research question, results + conclusion

Establish TopicYou might have noticed while reading in the research literature that research reports tend to start immediately – there’s very little “warm up” material involved. Nevertheless, we are so used to writing this way that it may not be possible to just start at the beginning. If this is the case, go back and cross out the first couple of lines.

http://arxiv.org/

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1010/1010.5482v1.pdf

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/msscha/reuphysics/magnetic_anisotropy_inthinfilms.pdf






The coupling between structure, transport, and magnetism in hole-doped manganites leads to phenomena such as, colossal magnetoresistance (CMR), colossal electroresistance (CER), photo-induced metal-insulator transition, and colossal piezoresistance (CPR)1–5.

Provide SignificanceThe second step to the introduction is to offer the first bit of persuasion to the reader: show the importance of the topic by offering something of practical or research significance. Significance comes from the research literature, too, and is usually established in terms of practical application or research significance.

While these properties could lead to future applications in devices such as bolometers and cryogenic memories, manganites are already providing a unique insight into the effect of competing phases on the physical properties of materials6,7.

Review the Literature

Following the first paragraph which introduces the topic and provides significance, the writer must now review the literature for the reader. The literature review (hereafter, “lit review,” the short phrase used by research writers everywhere) accomplishes many objectives at once.

First, the lit review informs the reader of the most important research needed to understand the research question.

Second, the lit review gives credibility to the writer as someone who knows what they are talking about.

Third, the lit review is organized so that the research question is validated; in other words, the review leads the reader to a “gap” or “conflict” in the literature.

It is now widely accepted that phenomena such as CMR are consequences of the competition among different phases with similar free energy. Such competition leads to phase coexistence among three distinct phases, viz. cubic ferromagnetic metallic (FMM), pseudo-tetragonal (more precisely orthorhombic) antiferromagnetic charge ordered insulating (AFM-COI), and pseudo-cubic paramagnetic insulating (PMI) phases, in materials such as (La1−yPry)1−xCaxMnO3 8–10. In addition to well-known effects such as CMR and CER, the coexistence of the three magnetic phases also leads to unique phenomena such as temperature dependent magnetic domain transition and ellipsoidal growth of the FMM phase, which have been observed using Lorentz microscopy in very narrow temperature ranges11. Due to the same coupling between crystal structure, transport, and magnetism, manganite thin films have shown properties distinct from bulk behavior such as substrate strain induced metal-insulator transition and anisotropic transport due to strain fields from substrates12,13. The effect of strain on the transport properties of manganites has been widely studied and it is accepted that multiphase coexistence and percolation play a significant role2,9,10.

Point out the Gap

The “gap” in the literature is a conflict or missing piece of information that your research question will answer. If the research has already been done, then why waste your time and the reader’s time with all


this work? The gap also explicitly identifies the contribution a piece of research makes. It’s as though the writer is saying “See, Scientific Community, this is what we know but this is what we do not know.” The reader needs to be shown that this gap exists in order to believe that the research is valid. Providing the gap is part of the writer’s job.

Note: The "gap" is the only place where the writer/researcher should draw attention to possible unanswered questions. Unlike Review papers where the writer points out unresolved issues as part of the critique, in a research report of any kind, ALL questions posed in the Introduction are supposed to be addressed via the experiment. Limit questions to only those your research is set up to answer. (The other questions still left may be taken up in the Discussion section.)

However, the effect of strain on the magnetism of phase separated manganites is more subtle and is still being debated. One such problem is the distinction between intrinsic magnetic properties and extrinsic effects on magnetic properties of manganite thin films. For example, when La0.77Ca0.33MnO3 thin films were grown on single crystalline NdGaO3 substrates, Mathur et al. concluded that the in-plane magnetic anisotropy originated not from stress anisotropy but from magnetocrystalline anisotropy14.

Reveal the Research Question

The final non-experimental part of the Introduction is the Research Question – this is the part that everything else has been leading to. This is where the writer presents the question that will answer the gap as revealed by the literature to be a missing piece of the topic’s research puzzle! The RQ may be expressed as either an actual question or a declarative sentence. Some journals seem to prefer that research writer’s express the RQ as a question; some prefer the RQ is expressed as statement. Following the research question may be a hint of method, hypotheses, or nothing at all.

Here, we report that substrate induced stress plays an integral role in determining the magnetic properties of manganite thin films.

Discuss Primary Results and Central Conclusion

The introduction ends with a brief statement of the primary result (which demonstrates why you bothered writing all of this up in the first place!) and the main concluding thought the researcher/s want the reader to understand.

We observe that in-plane stress anisotropy leads to an in-plane magnetic anisotropy and a magnetic domain transition as a function of temperature in phase separated (La1−yPry)1−xCaxMnO3 (x = 0.33 and y = 0.6) thin films grown on (110) NdGaO3 substrates with anisotropic in-plane strain. Our data show that while anisotropic stress has a profound effect on the magnetism, the in-plane resistivity of the films remains virtually isotropic. / By comparing our results for the films on anisotropic NGO to those grown on isotropic (001) SrLaGaO4 (SLGO) substrates, we conclude that anisotropic strain can be used to control the magnetic “hardness” i.e. the coercive field in a mixed phase manganite. Such control could play an important role in the design of nanomagnetic devices.


Methods -- Experimental Details

This is the "how" section of your research report. Precision and exact details are key to this section, but do not include irrelevant material. This concrete infomation is usually presented in simple past tense, either active voice ("We collected water samples every three days") or passive voice ("Samples were collected every three days"). The ultimate test of a well-written Methods section is in replicability -- could someone else reproduce the study given what you wrote?

Include enough information about materials and methods to enable another suitably qualified person to repeat your experiments. Relegate tedious but necessary details to an Appendix, so that there are no breaks in the flow of ideas in your presentation. from "How to Write a Thesis"

Interestingly, most of the sources on how to write a research report don't have much to say about the methods section. I believe this is because most scientists find this section the easiest to write. The researcher is most familiar with this activity; after all, s/he experienced it! The Experimental Details are written much how they are performed: materials followed by procedure in chronological order. Precision and accuracy are critical -- use an outline to help you keep track of all the information you need to write.

Materials -- write everything you used, making sure to specify specific types or versions where necessary; machines and tools should include version information whenever possible.

(La1−yPry )1−xCaxMnO3 (LPCMO, x = 0.33 and y = 0.6) thin films of two different thicknesses (30 and 20 nm) were grown on orthorhombic (110) NGO substrates by pulsed laser deposition (PLD) (KrF, λ = 248 nm). The substrate temperature during growth was 780 ◦C, the O2 partial pressure was 130 mTorr, the laser energy density was about 0.5 J/cm2, and the growth rate was kept at about 0.4 °A/s. Step flow growth has been consistently observed under these conditions in the LPCMO thin films up to 60 nm thickness. The magnetic response reported in this paper was observed in four different films.The thicknesswas controlled by deposition time and then confirmed by atomic force microscopy.15

The structure of the films was characterized by conventional θ − 2θ x-ray diffraction using a Philips APD 3720

diffractometer.Magnetic propertiesweremeasured using a Quantum Design 5 T superconducting quantum

interference device (SQUID)magnetometer

Procedures -- procedure includes preparation AND experimentation.

Two different methods were used to remove the background paramagnetic signal from the NGO substrates and obtain the magnetic moments of LPCMO films. The first method was direct subtraction for which, magnetic moment as a function of applied field [M(H)]measurements,was carried out at different temperatures for the bare NGO substrates before film deposition. M(T ) was also measured for the same substrates in a field of 100 Oe. After deposition of the LPCMO films on the substrates, M(H) and M(T ) curves were acquired under the same conditions as the background measurements. The M(H) and M(T ) curves of the substrates were then subtracted from the corresponding M(H) and M(T ) curves of the film plus substrate to obtain the magnetic moments of the LPCMO thin films. The second method was based on linear background fitting. The raw M(H) data

http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/msscha/Readings/HowToWriteAThesis.pdf


of LPCMO films have signals both from the ferromagnetic films and the paramagnetic NGO substrates.

Results

Explain, don't hype. The object is not to find fine words or turns of phrase that will convince the reader to care if normally they wouldn't; nor is it to push the boundaries of what is clearly supported by the evidence presented. If claims matter, they will be scrutinized, and if they're not robustly supported by the results, no amount of hyperbole will convince anyone — editor, referee or reader — otherwise. Elements of Style, Nature Physics

Results are the heart of research -- they are what you spent your time achieving and what you want to be most influential in writing. Here are some guidelines for writing results successfully.

Report, do not interpret

In a traditional Results section -- that is, one that is communicating only data -- make certain that you only report results and do not include interpretation. Interpretation, speculation, claims, and arguments are saved for the Discussion section. Results should be only the data generated by the research. Because science believes in replicability as its standard for credible research, the results of a particular experiment should be the same regardless of how often or by whom the experiment is run. For this reason, experimental results are considered "eternal", and in English, timeless entities are expressed in the present tense.

Resistivity measurements of the LPCMO//NGO films show sharp transitions at the insulator-metal transition temperature (TIM, obtained while cooling) and metal-insulator transition temperature (TMI , obtained while warming) whereas, the LPCMO//SLGO thin films show a more gradual transition and narrower thermal hysteresis (Fig. 1(b))19.

If you refer to the experimental method while discussing results, use the present tense when writing about the results and the past tense when writing about the experimental method.

− 2 x-ray diffraction pattern of the 30-nm-thick LPCMO//NGO film did not show any individual LPCMO peaks due to the similar lattice parameters of LPCMO and (110) NGO in the out-of- plane direction, while the x-ray diffraction pattern of the LPCMO//SLGO film clearly shows sharp LPCMO peaks (Fig. 2). Thus, all the LPCMO films were grown with a single chemical phase and were highly ordered along perpendicular direction to the substrate surface. The films are smooth on an atomic scale and show sharp resistivity transitions at TIM and TMI .

Sometimes, the Results and Discussion sections are combined; in this case, the final section of the paper will be called "Conclusion". This option will be discussed in the next section on Discussion sections.




Do you need subheadings?

Some results sections do not need subheadings -- if you ran a single experiment with clear, logical progression from beginning to end, then you may not need subheadings. If you ran an experiment with several parts or that produced several different kinds of outcomes (for example, examining different properties of the same material), then it makes sense to use subheadings. Use this clue: If you find yourself getting confused writing the results, then try using subheadings to organize -- if that helps, then use them in the paper because likely the reader will get confused, too!

Subheadings are likely necessary if you are writing a combined Results-Discussion section. Also, if you are running a "methods project" -- a piece of research testing a variety of methods, often on the same material or with the same goal -- then you should use subheadings for each of the experimental methods. In this case, it is more common to discuss method and outcome together, a sort of combined Methods-Results section. This is perfectly acceptable! The variety of motivations and outcomes in Physics necessitates broad variation in format...this is why the AIP Manual and Physics Review Style Guide do not have much to say about what to write in Methods and Results. Instead, style guides specify how to use formulas correctly and create clear, informative figures.

What order should results be in?

Organize information from strongest to weakest results. If using subheadings, organize within each heading in the same manner. If writing a combination Methods-Results section, order either strongest to weakest results or in chronological order.

What about using Figures?

Yes, you will need to use figures, images, tables, etc. Physics definitely makes good use of figures. Figures are part of the story and provide critical evidence answering the "what happened?" question. But figures cannot be stranded, sitting alone in isolation, with only a caption for company. The text of the Results section is explaining "what happened," so must communicate the main result while pointing to the figure for further detail. Figures are important enough to merit their own page, so scroll down to get to that information.

Fig. 3 shows M(T ) curves of a 30 nm-thick LPCMO//NGO thin film, taken under field cooling (FC) and field cooled warming (FCW) in a field of 100 Oe applied parallel to the [1¯10] NGO direction.


Discussions/Conclusions

This is the last opportunity to tell the reader why the research matters. In the Introduction, you started with the topic and expert literature to narrow to your specific research focus. In the Discussion and Conclusion, you begin with the results of your research and widen back out to demonstrate what it means for the field of study.

What is the difference between a Discussion and Conclusion?

The Discussion section of a research report makes use of the published literature to create a “dialogue” between the results of your research and the results of other people’s research. It is NOT mere speculation! Instead, Discussion is where you substantiate claims about your results by referring to what other experts have found and suggesting what research should come next.

The relationships between results come in three flavors:

Corroborate -- your results agree with, support or extend other results The M(T ) behavior is similar to previous results obtained for bulk LPCMO (x =

0.375 and y = 0.600).20

Clarify -- your results make other results more specific or narrow in scope Previous studies have shown that in-plane anisotropic strain leads to uniaxial

magnetic anisotropy in the plane of the thin film.14,22 However, these studies were performed on purely ferromagnetic manganites. In a phase-separated manganite, we expect that the magnetic anisotropy may lead to anomalous behavior of the submicrometer-sized ferromagnetic regions.10

Conflict -- your results are in conflict with or in contrast to other published results Thus, we believe that anisotropic in-plane properties due to substrate-induced

strain can be clearly observed in magnetic measurements, but not in transport


measurements. Our observation is in contrast to Ward et al. who suggested that the difference in TIM and maximum ρ observed along two perpendicular in-plane directions of LPCMO thin films grown on NGO substrates was due to anisotropic strain and was maximized as themagnetic field was lowered.13

The Discussion also suggests further research; suggestions are most credible when closely related to the results obtained. While you may foresee years of potential research inspired by a project, be circumspect in your recommendations and stick to only those projects that directly follow the one you are writing about.

While we observed clear in-plane strain-induced magnetic anisotropy, we did not observe any significant in-plane anisotropy in the transport properties [Fig. 7(b)] (we did observe a lower resistivity at low temperatures along the magnetic hard axis but that was due to a higher electric field in that direction since the distance between the voltage leads was shorter along the [001] direction2). In fact, in a linear scale [inset of Fig. 7(b)] the ρ(T ) behavior appears identical in the two in-plane directions. The TIM is 60 K in both directions and at that temperature the resistivity anisotropy(| ρNGO[001]−ρNGO[1¯10] ρNGO[1¯10] | × 100) is ≈15%. Thus, we believe that anisotropic in-plane properties due to substrate-induced strain can be clearly observed in magnetic measurements, but not in transport measurements. Our observation is in contrast to Ward et al. who suggested that the difference in TIM and maximum ρ observed along two perpendicular in-plane directions of LPCMO thin films grown on NGO substrates was due to anisotropic strain and was maximized as the magnetic field was lowered.13 Such a strain-induced resistivity anisotropy has also been predicted theoretically.30 It is possible that such resistivity anisotropy can only be clearly observed when the resistivity measurements are taken at the scale of phase separation, i.e., in the micrometer scale, and requires further investigation.

Combined Discussion and Results

Results are combined with Discussion when the research is too complex to present as a single, whole entity. This is usually because the method included many different experimental procedures, many different materials, or several separate outcomes. Combining Results and Discussion isn't a choice based on whether the research itself was complex; most research is, or feels that way while it's being done. Nor is it simply a matter of the experiment having many steps -- this is pretty normal, too. It's a writing decision that is made because the information will make more sense to the reader when presented as individual "mini-units" within the research report. This is a particularly good strategy when the reader must understand disparate facets of the experiment before putting them together into a whole picture. Think of it like creating a mosaic -- if your work has lots of little pieces, each of which makes a critical contribution, but which then have to be combined to see the overall result, then joining Results and Discussion is useful. It helps the writer organize the text and helps the reader comprehend what it is going on.

I. Introduction

II. Experimental Details


III. Results and Discussion

A. Structure and transport (1 para. + 2 figures)

B. Magnetic properties (1 para. + 1 figure)

C. Variation of coercive field with temperature (4 para. + 3 figures)

D. Strain induced magnetic anistropy (5 para. + 4 figures)

IV. Conclusions

One final note about organization: the order of Results when they are combined with Discussion may be different from what is normally recommended for Results section. Recall that in the Results, you should organize the text from strongest to weakest outcomes. This changes when Results and Discussion are combined because the reader's task is more complicated; there is more information to understand in each unit of text. In this case, you have two options: 1) strongest to weakest if the length of each unit is about the same; 2) shortest to longest in length. Long sections usually happen because there is more to say about the results, often because those results are the "final" outcome -- that is, the main big result the paper is presenting. You have to write all the other points first because they are necessary to understanding that final section.

Conclusions

Finally, a word about concluding paragraphs. It is commonly advised that a paper should begin by stating what will be said, continue by saying what is to be said, and then conclude by summarizing what has been said. This is bad advice that recommends lazy composition. Conclusions are not mandatory, and those that merely summarize the preceding results and discussion are unnecessary (and, for publication in Nature Physics, will be edited out). Rather, the concluding paragraphs should offer something new to the reader. The point is well put by computer scientist Jonathan Shewchuk (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jrs/sins.html):

"Here's a simple test: if somebody reads your conclusions before reading the rest of your paper, will they fully understand them? If the answer is 'yes', there's probably something wrong. A good conclusion says things that become significant after the paper has been read. A good conclusion gives perspective to sights that haven't yet been seen at the introduction. A conclusion is about the implications of what the reader has learned. Elements of Style, Nature Physics (emphasis added)

Conclusions do not serve the same function as Discussions. Discussions discuss -- there is a conversation of sorts, albeit a highly formalized and restricted one! Conclusions offer final thoughts that take the reader through the story again, but only using the main points, and concentrating on the overall findings of the research (in contrast to Results or Discussion, which point out specific data points). Conclusions lead to final thoughts, usually with broad application to the field. Research reports should contain some kind of Discussion, whether as its own section or written with Results. Not all papers will have conclusions, though always check the journal for what is standard. If Results and Discussion are combined, then there is usually a Conclusion to finish the paper.


http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jrs/sins.html


Note: Concluding thoughts are similar to results in that they are written in the present tense to indicate their timeless quality. Speculation is careful, thoughtful, and often applies to the field broadly in terms of research potential or application.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

In-plane anisotropic stress leads to uniaxial magnetic anisotropy in manganite thin films. We have shown that when such magnetic anisotropy is induced in phase-separated manganites, it leads to a single domain to multidomain transition as a function of temperature. The domain transition is similar to that observed in ferromagnetic fine particles as a function of particle size. In phase-separated manganites the size of the ferromagnetic metallic regions embedded in a nonferromagnetic (charge-ordered antiferromagnetic or paramagnetic) matrix increases as the temperature is decreased. Due to the stress-induced uniaxial magnetic anisotropy, the increase in size of the ferromagnetic regions results in the temperature-dependent domain transition. The variation of the coercive field with temperature is a signature of the domain transition. The temperature dependence of the coercive field is a feature which could make it possible to use manganites as cryogenic magnetic memory, since magnetic information can be written at a temperature with low coercive field and stored at a lower temperature with higher coercive field.

Front/End Matter

Research reports have typical material that gets them started and finishes them off: titles and abstracts at the front, and acknowledgments, appendices, and references at the end.

Abstracts

The primary purpose of the abstract is to help readers decide whether to read the rest of the paper. For this reason, abstracts should be complete, with some mention of each of the primary parts of the paper. The abstract should reveal what the research is about and why it is interesting, the research question itself, the method (with more detail here if the method was original), major results, and what you think the results mean for the field.

Abstracts are usually short, though the actual journal-specification will vary. Some journals allow longer abstracts, up to 500 words (which is nearly a whole page single spaced using a 12 pt. font), particularly if it's likely the journal has readers who will not (or cannot) read beyond the abstract. Write the abstract for the widest audience possible because the readership for abstracts is quite broad -- it is where everyone from experts to novices will first encounter your work. Use language that can be widely understood while still using the technical terms of your field. Abstracts are also used for indexing so should contain any major terms that would help the appropriate readers find your work.

Phase-separated perovskite manganites have competing phases with different crystal structures, and magnetic and electronic properties. Hence, strain effects play a critical role in determining the magnetic properties of manganite thin films.[topic/significance] Here we report the effect of anisotropic stress on the magnetic properties of the phase-separated manganite (La0.4Pr0.6)0.67Ca0.33MnO3.[research question] Thin films of (La0.4Pr0.6)0.67Ca0.33MnO3 grown under anisotropic in-


plane stress on (110) NdGaO3 substrates [method] display in-plane magnetic anisotropy and single domain to multidomain transition as a function of temperature. Angle-dependent magnetization measurements also show that the magnetization reversal occurs mainly through the nucleation and propagation mechanism.[results] By comparing the results with (La0.4Pr0.6)0.67Ca0.33MnO3 thin films grown on (001) SrLaGaO4 substrates, we have confirmed that the magnetic anisotropy is mainly due to substrate-induced anisotropic stress.[result + primary conclusion] Our results suggest avenues for storing magnetic information in nanoscale magnetic media. [implication of research for field]

Titles – "A succinct, informative but also tempting title is essential, and is the first of the key features in a manuscript to come under editorial scrutiny" Elements of Style, Nature Physics

Since the title is the first thing the reader sees, it is also the first level of decision making. Titles succeed best at this task when they inform the reader about the topic of study and the major result. This immediately helps the reader find your work, which is the point of writing it in the first place!

Single domain to multidomain transition due to in-plane magnetic anisotropy in phase-separated

(La0.4Pr0.6)0.67Ca0.33MnO3 thin films

Acknowledgments

According to the Physics Review Style Guide: "The acknowledgment section follows the main body ofthe paper and precedes any appendixes. One paragraph is suggested, with acknowledgment of financial support listed at the end. A principal heading [level (1)] is used for this section, but the section is not numbered. Dedications, as contrasted to acknowledgments, are not permitted."

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported by NSF DMR-0804452.

Appendix

Appendices come after the Acknowledgments. They are labeled using primary headings (see the Physics Review Style Guide for how headings should be formatted). Supplemental material should be placed in the appendix -- this includes additional method/experimental details, data, figures, or other material important to getting the research done but not so central to the main story that they should take up space in the body of the paper.

References and Footnotes

References are listed in the order they appear in the text. Use the correct journal abbreviation and remember to bold the volume number of the journal. Physics is interesting in that references contain the



initials + last names of the authors and journal publication information only; there are no titles of articles included: J. M. Smith, Phys. Rev. B 26, 1 (1982) or J. M. Smith and R. Brown, Phys. Rev. B 26, 1 (1982). Note that initials are followed by periods, initials precede the last (family) name, and that the last author in a list with multiple authors is preceded by the word "and". If the paper being cited has more than 4 authors, you may use "et al." following the first author's name, e.g. "J.M. Smith et al., Phys. Rev. B 26, 1 (1982)".

According to the Physics Review Style Guide, footnotes should occur in the references, in the numerical order that they appear in the text -- so they are integrated into the reference list rather than being a separate unit.

11 Y. Murakami, H. Kasai, J. J. Kim, S.Mamishin, D. Shindo, S. Mori, and A. Tonomura, Nat. Nanotechnol. 5, 37 (2010).12 A.Biswas, M. Rajeswari, R. C. Srivastava,Y.H. Li, T. Venkatesan, R. L. Greene, and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B 61, 9665 (2000).13 T. Z. Ward, J. D. Budai, Z. Gai, J. Z. Tischler, L. Yin, and J. Shen, Nat. Phys. 5, 885 (2009).14 N. D. Mathur, M. H. Jo, J. E. Evetts, and M. G. Blamire, J. Appl. Phys. 89, 3388 (2001).15 For thickness measurement, the thin films were partially dipped in the etching solution (H2O + KI + 10% HCl) for 10–40 seconds. And then, the steps, created by the etching solution, were measured with an atomic force microscope.16 J. A. Collado, C. Frontera, J. L. Garc´ıa-Mu˜noz, C. Ritter, M. Brunelli, and M. A. G. Aranda, Chem. Mater. 15, 167 (2003).17 L. Vasylechko, L. Akselrud, W. Morgenroth, U. Bismayer, A. Matkovskii, and D. Savytskii, J. Alloys Compd. 297, 46 (2000).18 P. A. Sharma, S. B. Kim, T. Y. Koo, S. Guha, and S.-W. Cheong, Phys. Rev. B 71, 224416 (2005).19 TIM and TMI were defined as the maximum or minmum change of resistivity as a function of temperature.20L. Ghivelder and F. Parisi, Phys. Rev. B 71, 184425 (2005).

Using Figures

Figures have three parts: 1) the figure itself; 2) the figure's caption; 3) the text reference to the figure.

Creating Figures

The AIP Manual has a lot to say about creating figures -- read here for the whole set of instructions. We'll look at a couple of specific suggestions that are "common sense" when seen from the perspective of the publisher, but may not be so obvious to the researcher creating the figure in the first place.

http://www.aip.org/pubservs/style/4thed/sec5.pdf


These are reasonable suggestions when imagined from the publisher's perspective. They need to get your images into a readable format according to the column width of the journal. But writers do not always think from the publisher's POV. Given that most papers are submitted electronically, it is now required that researchers think this way in order to publish.

For your REU paper, you'll be incorporating the figures into the text in a "camera-ready" fashion. But you still need to use space wisely. Figures that belong together should be close to one another in the text. Figures should be dispersed throughout the Results section, not simply huddled together on one page. Figures should be consistent in size throughout the paper -- do not create 1/8 page figures on one page and 1/2 page figures on another.


Caption and Text for Figures


The caption information and the text information are not exactly the same, although they can have shared information. In the text, you are explaining “what happened,” so you are writing about the result itself and pointing to the figure for more information/detail. In the caption, you are explaining the figure in detail -- the reader should know exactly what the figure is showing, using more detail than is in the body text. While the figure is part of the story in the results, it also needs to stand alone, a kind of self-explanatory particle.

Use a smaller font size for caption text -- 10 pt. serif is good for your paper.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONA. Structure and transport

The surfaces of our LPCMO thin films on both NGO and SLGO substrates are smooth on an atomic scale [insets of Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)]. The rms roughness of the LPCMO//NGO films is about 2 A° . The films on NGO usually show step-flow growth mode with unit-cell step heights as shown for the 20-nm-thick film [inset of Fig. 1(a)]. The step height is about 4 A°...whereas the LPCMO//SLGO thin films show a more gradual transition and narrower thermal hysteresis [Fig. 1(b)].19

Science Style

Style in scientific prose covers a few different areas. First, we'll consider the use of citations and why they are there. Second, we'll examine writing qualities of that readers expect. Finally, we'll cover some basic formatting issues.

Attribution: Part of Science Culture

You have doubtlessly noticed while reading science articles that many of the sentences are followed by in-text citations. In-text citations (hereafter "citations") are how the writer of an article tells the reader where to find the sources the writer used -- citations provide the intellectual history supporting a particular piece of research. In science writing, the credibility and authority of an article is partly established through the use of citations; if there are no citations, then the article is an editorial (though many of those use citations, too) or is plagiarized.

The use of citations in science writing -- how they are actually incorporated into text -- is the first cultural convention governing communication to trip up most young scientific writers. We all know that we are supposed to use sources and to cite them properly, but the humanities-oriented education received in high school did not prepare most of us for how to cite correctly in science. Ideologically, the process is explained as "joining the great scientific conversation" -- this is wonderful, and true, but doesn't help you make the correct choices when having to add citations to text and avoid being accused of plagiarism, intentional or unintentional.

Here's a more practical means of understanding citations in scientific prose:

In science, every sentence has intellectual history.

Intellectual history is tied to each and every claim being made in a sentence.

Citation is the behavior that makes the intellectual history explicit/known.


If every sentence has intellectual history associated with it, then every sentence gets cited. There are only 2 ways that a sentence can end --> either with or without an explicit citation. The presence or absence of an actual citation is the clue that tells the reader about the source. So, a sentence either has a citation written after it or does not:

If the sentence a has citation

• The writer is attributing the information to the source/s indicated in the citation.

• Because intellectual history must be made immediately following the sentence, citations are provided after first mention in a text and for EVERY sentence presenting new information that is not clearly and unambiguously connected to the previous sentence.

If a sentence does NOT have a citation written at the end, then one of 3 conditions are true:

1) the sentence is common knowledge and requires no citation;

2) the sentence is a clear and unambiguous continuation of the previous sentence (common when discussing methods and results of studies);

3) the sentence is an original contribution by the writer, and subsquent to publication, all references to this piece of information must be attributed to the writer of the paper.

How are claims identified? The first way to identify claims is to look for verbs and the nouns they co-occur with. This can include subjects and objects. The second way is to look for modifying words or phrases -- these can include adjectives, adverbs, and sentential modifiers. One of my favorite examples comes from the first sentence of a review paper on headaches: "Headache is a common disorder in the population1-3." Some of the claims in this sentence include headache is a disorder, headache is common disorder, and headache is a disorder in the population. All 3 of those claims could have sources to support them.

Another practical application of attribution is achieving ethical writing -- that is, avoiding plagiarism. Plagiarism in the sciences is a different business from the humanities. For an excellent guide on the topic, see Miguel Roiq's work, Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: a guide to ethical writing. For now, we'll extract just a portion of what Roiq advises and offer specific suggestions to tackle this issue -- Synthesizing Sources.

One more practical concern stymies many beginning writers: where should citations be placed? The default strategy is to put all sources at the end of the sentence. And yes, this does obey the letter of the law, but rather ignores the spirit. Let's look at an example of a sentence with all the sources removed.

In recent years, interest has turned from Kondo physics in single dots to similar phenomena in more complex structures such as double-dot devices where quantum phase transitions (QPTs) have been predicted and possibly observed.

(from Signatures of quantum phase transitions in parallel quantum dots: Crossover from local-moment to underscreened spin-1 Kondo physics -- Arturo Wong, W. Brian Lane, Luis G. G. V. Dias da Silva, Kevin Ingersent, Nancy Sandler, and Sergio E. Ulloa -- ARXIV http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.3696.pdf)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.3696.pdf

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/msscha/reuphysics/Synthesizing_Sources_REUPhysics.pdf

http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/

http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/


The sentence is certainly understandable from a "reading" point of view; even if you don't know the meanings of the words, you recognize that the grammatical structure is correct and that the content probably makes sense to someone. But to a reader of science, the sentence fails in that several claims are made, yet there is no way to trace the intellectual history -- the sources for the claims. Here is a list of the claims that could be potential candidates for citation:

In recent years interest has turned from Kondo physics in single dots to similar

phenomena in more complex structures such as double-dot devices where quantum phase transitions (QPTs) have been predicted and possibly observed

Each of those claims is a candidate for a citation. Imagine that the writers chose solely to list the citations at the end of the sentence -- what problem does the reader have with this approach? Since the claims themselves are distributed throughout the sentence, a single clump of sources at the end does not help the reader distinguish which sources belong to which claim. Thus, when you cite, you should also distribute sources so that the in-text citations occur directly after the information they support.

Of course, the original sentence does provide citations for the above claims. Further, the citations are distributed throughout the sentence and provide the reader very important information about which claims have support in which particular papers.

In recent years, interest has turned from Kondo physics in single dots to similar phenomena in more complex structures such as double-dot devices,2,3 where quantum phase transitions (QPTs) have been predicted4–10 and possibly observed.3

Writing Qualities

Suggestions for writing science well abound -- what these sources have in common are certain approaches to writing with which few scientists readily agree. First is that science is a "narrative". Second is that scientific prose should be clear, concise, and comprehensible (the 3 Cs -- some add a fourth: compelling).

Is science a narrative? Let's start with science as an activity. Most would agree that we experience science while we are conducting it as a kind of story: strings of actions have consequences to which people react some more. This is the basis of a story: something happened --> something was done about it --> more things happened. When a scientist looks back on a project and talks about it, it usually has this narrative form because we humans are largely driven by narrative structure (okay, this is my personal belief based on years of studying language: sentence grammar seems to be a cognitively hard-wired system for communicating strings of actions and consequences).

But is writing a science paper like writing a narrative? At this point, we really must say "NO". Why? Because all the stylistic decisions that make narrative compelling are exactly the decisions that would get a paper rejected immediately! Can you imagine the editors of Nature happily passing the following abstract to reviewers...

It was a dark and stormy day outside, but the lab was alight with the phosphorescent glow of particles XYZ, twinkly merrily from the mashed brains on the slide like tiny LED bulbs on the family Christmas tree. Through weary hours spent mincing maternal mouse


hyppocampi, tortured by months of no-glow-at-all, the lab had finally triumphed! Cool as the plate we'd used to freeze the rats toes, our long hours of drinking alone in the dark, waiting for the hopped-up mamas to do their crazy dance, had rewarded us with positive images of brains gone wild as girls on Spring Break.

Clearly, scientific prose is not a narrative.

So, why the frequent call for writing more narratively? This editorial suggests the reason nicely:

Before you even begin, ask yourself the question, "Why should anyone care to read past the title of my paper?"...it is vital that [the first] paragraph tells the central story of the paper, and makes clear why this story deserves to be told. Don't launch into technical details, or merely list what you did. Set the scene, explain the background — that will give the non-specialist reader a context in which to understand the significance of the work, but fellow specialists will also appreciate your telling them what you consider to be the relevant questions in the field.. (Editorial, Elements of Style, Nature Physics)

Aah -- it isn't that scientific prose is a species of narrative, then, but that readers comprehend better when story elements are used to convey the message. In the case of reporting research, the "story" elements provide the "...context in which to understand the significance of the work". In other words, the structure of the scientific paper creates a mini-world in which a problem is posed (the research topic with its pesky unanswered questions), an action is proposed (your experiment), a consequence is had (the results), new knowledge is formed (results + discussion) and more action is suggested (speculation in discussion). This is not necessarily the story of how the scientist experienced the work; it is the story of how the reader can best experience the research. Perhaps this is why the second person (you, you're, etc) is not used at all in science -- the research is not about the reader and only quietly about the writer.

Scientific prose should be clear, concise, comprehensible (and perhaps, compelling).

The Physics Review Style Guide would like to see the following characteristics in your writing: "Good grammar and clear punctuation are essential to successful technical writing. Clear, simple sentence structure best presents scientific ideas and mathematical formulas." That seems straightforward enough, though some clarification for what defines "good grammar" and "clear, simple sentences" would help. The AIP guide goes a bit further and adds "concise" and "complete".

The 3 Cs is the antidote to edict #1 (that scientific prose should be a narrative construction). Yes, taking advantage of narrative structure will help the reader understand the research, but it is the ideas themselves that have to be written clearly, concisely, and comprehensibly. The best treatment of science prose is found in the Scientific American article "The Science of Scientific Writing". This is not necessarily an easy read, but here is a summary of the main points they recommend to keep the writing clear and successful:

1. Follow a grammatical subject with its verb, as soon as possible. In other words, do not add bunches of words between the subject and verb.2. Place in the position of importance the “new information” you want the reader to emphasize in his or her mind. This is called the "stress position" -- grammatically, this is usually the object of the verb or the latter half of the sentence.3. Place the person or thing whose story is being told at the beginning of a sentencein the topic position. Grammatically, this is the subject of the sentence and usually in the front half, before

http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/msscha/science_science_writing.htm

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/the-science-of-scientific-writing/1



the verb.4. Place appropriate “old information” (material discussed earlier) in the topic positionto provide linkage with what has gone before and context for what is to come later. This is also the grammatical subject of the sentence and in the first half of the sentence.5. Make the verb convey the action of every clause or sentence. Whenever possible, use verbs and adverbs to show actions rather than string together nominalizations connected by vague verbs (especially “be” verbs).6. Provide context for your reader before asking him or her to consider anything new.7. Match the emphasis conveyed by the substance with the emphasis anticipated bythe reader from the structure. This means "do not bury the main idea in a parenthetical statement or hide it in subject clause" -- this works for speaking, but not for writing.

Note: Use these seven steps to REVISE your writing. Do not use them to compose or you may create a colossal case of writer’s block!

A final quote on science style (Editorial, Elements of Style, Nature Physics):

Avoid clichés like the plague. Unless you are an archaeologist, it is unlikely that you've found the Holy Grail. Similarly, avoid hollow generalities. It may be that your work will open up new avenues of exploration in your field — but surely that is the point of most novel research? Instead, you might want to offer specific problems that could be addressed or new capabilities that might be enabled by your work.

Adjectives are best used sparingly and only when justified. Avoid using the word 'very' — it doesn't add information, only syllables. Similarly, it is better to be specific about the scales reached than to invoke vague superlative prefixes, such as 'ultra': with the duration of laser pulses increasingly measured in attoseconds, it's less and less meaningful to describe hundreds of femtoseconds as 'ultrashort'. Neither does the use of 'quantum', 'nano' or 'bio' score points: perhaps the paper does discuss phenomena that involve quantized energy levels, happen at the nanoscale or are seen in molecules that are also found in living organisms, but unless these aspects are at the heart of the reported research such prefixes should not be emphasized.

Formatting Requirements

Your paper needs to include the basic formatting requirements common to your discipline. The two style guides, AIP Style Guide and Physics Review Style Guide, are linked at the left side bar (the pdf is linked for the Physics Review Style Guide); you should use these. The links in the previous sentence will take you to the web pages for each. Become accustomed to using the online versions as they are accessible everywhere you have a web connection and have the most updated information for your field. If you stay in physics, then it's worth downloading the pdfs, since you will make frequent reference to them.

For the REU research report, you can use bracketed in-text citations or superscripts, e.g. [1-5] or 1-5. Please double-space the paper. Also, the title, authors, affiliation, and abstract may be on the same page.

https://authors.aps.org/STYLE/

http://www.aip.org/pubservs/style/4thed/toc.html



SCIENTIFIC WRITINGADAPTED IN PART FROM THE REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS STYLE GUIDE

and the AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS STYLE MANUAL

Report Format The report should be roughly five to ten pages long (when printed in double-spaced format). For

general guidance on style and format, please refer to the AIP Style Manual and the Physics Review Style Guide, both of which can be found linked to the workshop website: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/msscha/reuphysics/reuphysics_main.html. In addition, refer to the handouts distributed during the written communications workshop.

Your final report should be prepared in an electronic format that is readily converted to PDF (Microsoft Word or LaTeX, for instance) so that it can be archived on the REU Web pages. The review draft of your work (the one you submit to Dr. Schafer) should be in Word or Open Office format so that it can be edited electronically.

The report should contain the conventional front matter: a title, the authors and their affiliations, and an abstract.

The main body of the text should begin with an introduction (perhaps 20% to 35% of the total text) which outlines the "big picture": why your research area is interesting and important, and how your specific project fits into the larger scheme of things.

The bulk of the report should focus on your research project. What did you actually do? What were your results—both successes and failures? If you were to continue with the project, what would the next steps be?

Citations to the appropriate literature should be included throughout the report. Follow the citation format in Table II of the AIP Style Manual with the following exceptions: (1) items which would be underlined in a typed manuscript should be italicised in your word-processed document; (2) journal volume numbers should be in bold face.

You should feel free to document technical details (computer codes, circuit designs, data, etc.) in appendices. The appendices will not count towards the 5-10 page length guidelines.

One of the major traps to avoid is writing at a level suitable only for the experts in your research area. If you do this, the majority of your readers will quickly be lost. As a general principle, you should target the greater part of your report to the least expert members of your potential audience. In this case, you should aim to be understood by one of your peers (an intelligent undergraduate physics major) who has no specialist knowledge of your project.


GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR WRITING IN THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES

1. Be clear. Don’t discount the efficiency of the simple declarative sentence as a medium for communicating scientific information. Use it freely, but not exclusively. Simple sentences are especially effective for communicating your major points.

Avoid long, meandering sentences in which the meaning may be obscured by complicated or unclear constructions.

2. Be concise. Avoid vague and inexact word usage. Be as quantitative as possible in your descriptions. Avoid unnecessary words; make every word count.

3. Be complete. Do not assume that your reader has all the background information that you have on your subject matter. Make sure your argument is complete, logical, and continuous.

Define all nonstandard symbols and abbreviations when you introduce them. On the other hand, omit information unnecessary for a complete understanding of your message.

4. Put yourself constantly in the place of your reader. Be rigorously self-critical as you review your first drafts, and ask yourself, “Is there any way in which this passage could be misunderstood by anyone reading it for the first time?”

Your target audience for your REU project description is a non-expert peer. (An undergraduate physics major who has no specialist knowledge of your topic.)

ELEMENTS OF GOOD STYLE IN SCIENTIFIC WRITING

1. Use active rather than passive voice when it makes sense to do so.

Using active voice means that the subject of the sentence does the action described by the verb. The sentence, “Science is done by people,” is an example of passive voice. The active equivalent is “People do science.”

In the example,

“It was thought that the magnetoresistance could provide an answer,”

there is no actor doing the action. This passive construction is grammatically weak. Furthermore, it shields the writer from the critical gaze of his or her audience and is vague enough to spread credit or blame, implying that the writer was not alone in having this idea.


By naming an actor in the example above, the author eliminates confusion about who had the thought. By rewriting the sentence as follows:

“McCray believed that magnetoresistance could provide an answer,”

the reader knows who had the idea, and the writer sets the work within the context of human endeavor. This creates a stronger grammatical construction which more clearly communicates the information.

Furthermore, the active voice is always more concise (less wordy) than its passive counterpart, thereby supporting one of the characteristics of effective writing: economy.

Passive Voice is also Necessary

Occasionally, passive voice is appropriate, for example when there is no particular actor:

“This problem has been the subject of intensive study since 1968.”

In other cases, use of first person (I, we) doesn’t make sense, so passive must be used. Also, some journals discourage the use of first person in certain parts of research articles, though in general, neither the AIP or Physics Review Style Guide discourage use of the first person.

Finally, the passive is used quite regularly when repeating the actor over and over again would be intrusive, such as in procedural sections. Also, passive is the norm when the object of the activity is the main topic of the paragraph – again, this is common in procedural sections:

“Since the substrate-induced strain on LPCMO//SLGO thin films is negligible due to well-matched in-plane lattice parameters of SLGO (d = 3.842 A° ), the films grown on the two different substrates can be used to isolate the effect of anisotropic strain on the magnetism and transport of LPCMO. The structure of the films was characterized by conventional θ − 2θ x-ray diffraction using a Philips APD 3720 diffractometer. Magnetic properties were measured using a Quantum Design 5 T superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometer.”

In this example, the text is about the thin films and properties of thin films (signaled by the dotted underline) – it is not about who is coming up with the measurements. In fact, the meaning of this sentence changes if the active voice is used – rather than being facts or processes belonging to physics as a field, the sentence becomes about novel processes created by the researchers: “Since we found the substrate-induced strain on LPCMO//SLGO thin films to be negligible due to well-matched in-plane lattice parameters of SLGO (d = 3.842 A° ), we grew the films on the two different substrates which we used to isolate the effect of anisotropic strain on the magnetism and transport of LPCMO.”

Thus, the choice between passive and active voice is also one of accuracy as well as clear writing.

2. Be economical: Eliminate wordiness.

Replace verb-noun phrases with simple verbs:

make a decision decideexperience a failure failplace under consideration consider


perform an experiment experimentpresent a discussion discussmake an attempt attempt (or try)

Avoid “the fact that” phrases:

due to the fact that becausedespite the fact that althoughhe was unaware of the fact that he was unaware that

Avoid “the reason. . . .is that” and variants of this pattern:

The reason for solving the Cauchy problem first is that. . .

becomes

We solve the Couchy problem first because. . .

The main theme of this section is to tell why we have chosen to generalize.

becomes

This section presents our reason for generalizing.

Combine ideas to achieve conciseness:

The physicist’s report contained 50 pages, and it was carefully illustrated.

becomes

The physicist carefully illustrated her 50-page report.

Use strong verbs rather than “There is” and ”There are” constructions:

There are clear advantages to our mapping regarding the strong-coupling regime.

becomes

Clear advantages to our mapping exist regarding the strong-coupling regime.

3. Provide forward momentum.

A. Consider order and use repetition.


Place general information before specific information, and old (familiar) information before new (unfamiliar) information. Readers use information they’ve already encountered to project forward and begin to process new information as they encounter it. Therefore, by placing old information before new, you’re providing readers with a familiar context first before you move them into the unknown.

Example:

The development of nanofabrication techniques for thin metallic wires has renewed interest in one-dimensional electron systems. Such systems differ fundamentally from those in three dimensions, where electron-electron interactions can be absorbed into a local Fermi-liquid description of weakly interacting quasiparticles.

In this example, the general, more familiar, idea in the first sentence is followed by more specific and perhaps unfamiliar information in the second sentence.

Also, the repetition of the word “systems” in the second sentence provides continuity and forward momentum for the reader.

The repetition of a word or the use of a synonym (as in the example below) is an effective way to link ideas in a paragraph:

Silicon wafers coated in Shipley 1813 Photoresist (PR) were cleaved in acetone for five minutes. This process ensured that any particles generated by the cleaving did not remain on the silicon surface.

B. Use transitions.

To link ideas, sentences, and paragraphs, use transitional words and phrases (however, first, next, finally, for example, therefore, similarly, in contrast, etc.).

These words show relationships between ideas and can also draw attention and give emphasis.

The following passage contains effective transitions:

A significant disadvantage of the 125-H CRT is its high power consumption. This tube requires substantial power to produce the high voltages and currents that are necessary to drive and deflect the electron beam. In addition, the 125-H is inefficient—only about 10% to 20% of the power used by the tube is converted into visible light at the surface of the screen. Thus, the 125-H is poorly suited for portable display devices that run on batteries, where lower power consumption is necessary. Because of this drawback, we should consider other options before committing to purchase the 125-H.

Note: Scientific writers should be aware that some transition words and phrases can bias readers toward a certain processing of the information (unfortunately, allegedly). Scientific writing should be free of bias.

C. Shorten sentence and paragraph length.


Generally, short sentences quicken the pace, and long ones slow it down. Use a variety of sentence structures in your report (simple, compound, complex), and remember to use the simple sentence for your most important ideas.

Long paragraphs can also slow down the pace for the reader. A paragraph break allows the reader to take a breath and refocus. Provide enough paragraph breaks to keep your audience fresh and keep your reader moving through your report.

REU Peer Review

Your name: ________________________________________________

Writer’s name: _____________________________________________

1. Has the writer identified the topic of the paper in the first few sentences? What is the general topic? Is significance of the topic mentioned?

2. Has the writer given sufficient background information about the general area? If not, what do you suggest? If so, is the information documented correctly?

3. Is the specific purpose of the project clear? What is the specific purpose or focus?

4. Has the writer lead to a gap in the literature that motivates his/her project? What is it? How might the results be used, for example?

5. Is the writing clear, precise, and concise? For example, do you note use of passive constructions where they are unnecessary, overuse of “to be” verbs or empty “there is/there are” phrases? Are sentences confusing?


6. Has the writer adhered to the conventions of AIP and the Physics Review Style Guide?

Planning Outline

Introduction Topic Statement

Significance

Background + Literature (for Attribution)

Research Statement

Major Findings

Experimental Details/Method Materials

Instruments

Procedures

Results (as many results as you need!) Result #1


Result #2

Result #3

Result #4

Figures (brief mention of what figures should be in Results section)

Discussion (Relationship Corroborate, Clarify, or Conflict; Source is from the literature)

Relationship + Source for Result #1




Suggestions for further research

Conclusion Main Outcome/s

Application to Field OR Suggestion for further research


Your paper may have differently labeled subheadings. It may include a Discussion section, combine Results and Discussion, or only have something like Results and a Conclusion.

Notes/Questions

Documents

· Web viewREU Physics Writing Workshop. Department of Physics, UF. PRESENTED BY. Dr. Mickey S Schafer. University Writing Program. Welcome to the REU Writing Workshop . Why a