Advice on writing and publishing

C. Pozrikidis

The colon (:) is often misused.

Some authors write: ''The stretching of a nanotube: An experimental study.'' This should be written as: ''An experimental study of the stretching of a nanotube.''

The colon is fine in the following title: ''Fluid Dynamics: Theory, Computation, and Numerical Simulation.''

Sometimes the semi-colon is appropriate in a title: "Unidirectional flow; velocity/vorticity formulation."
Expressions such as ''because of the fact'', ''the fact that the deformation is small suggests'' ''despite the fact'' ''in spite of the fact'' should be avoided.

Use: ''the theory is deficient in that a compelling argument has not been made,'' or ''Because the deformation is small, the equations can be linearized.''
Do not write ''I grew up in the 1970's.''

Write ''I grew up in the 1970s.''
The word ''implies'' is too soft and often misunderstood.

Use the stronger words: shows, demonstrates, proves, leads to.
Put a comma before an enumerative "and" or "or."

Write: "this, that, and the other," "this, that, or the other," "this, that, or both."
When writing an abstract, use passive voice as much as possible, but not exclusively.

The abstract must concisely state: what, how, and the main findings. Never write "We consider ... or "In this paper, ..."
Instead of writing "We consider the folding of a circular layer of dow into a cannoli, " write "The folding of a circular layer of dow into a cannoli is considered by analytical, computational, and laboratory methods."

Here is a perfect abstact:
Phase Behavior And Microstructure For Colloidal Systems With Attractive/repulsive Interparticle Potentials

M. D. Bybee and J. J. L. Higdon. Chemical and Biomolecular Engr, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, RAL C-3, 600 S Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL 61801
Large scale dynamic simulations with hydrodynamic interactions are presented to study the phase behavior and microstructure of concentrated colloidal suspensions with varying strengths of short range attractive potentials. We document the transitions from fluid like states to crystals to gels and investigate the effects of adding varying strengths of long range repulsive potentials on the phase behavior and microstructure. Dynamic simulations confirm equilibrium predictions on the disappearance of crystalline phases with increasing repulsive forces and show significant changes in the microstructure for gel phases. The strength of the repulsive force affects both the strength and connectedness of the gel (as manifest in number of bonds per particle) as well as characteristic length scales and morphology of the gel microstructure. Comparison is made with experimental results from confocal microscopy and scattering experiments. Simulation results include direct visualizations of suspension microstructure, structure factors and statistical measures of gel morphology.
Do not use "In this paper, ..." at the beginning of an Introduction.
At the end of an Introduction, some authors write: "The paper is structured as follows. In Section ...". The sentence "The paper is structured as follows" is unecessary.
Follow the "Subject - verb - object" structure, put important explanations/reasoning at the beginning,

For example, write: "Because the speed of light cannot be attained, we are all doomed."
Repetitive parallel structure is appealing.

Write: "I will pay ten dollars for an ice cream cone, and my brother will pay five dollars for a cannoli." Note how natural this sounds. A stuggling author would have written: "I will pay ten dollars for an ice cream cone, and my brother five for a cannoli," or "My brother and I will pay five or ten dollars for a cannoli or a cone of ice cream."
Remember and use the "either or" and "neither nor" structures.
Do not use words/concepts that you cannot properly explain or define.

For example, there is no such thing as "surface tension coefficient," only "surface tension." In engineering, everything has precise units.
Do not write while riding on a learning curve, except for the purpose of identifying gaps and weaknesses.

When writing, imagine that you are explaining concepts to a cannoli shop owner.
Do not write: "As explained before, donkeys are delightful."

Write instead: "In Section 3.5, we saw that donkeys are delightful creatures capable of exhibiting a great deal of affection."
Do not write: "The equations above, ... " or "The above equation, ..."

When the paper is published, the equations may no longer be above. If a derivation is based on many previous equations, write: "Combining the preceding equations, we find ... ."
Each paragraph should have a goal.

Concepts can be laid out sequentially or in parallel toward a common goal.
Do not begin a sentence with "And" or "But."
Put the "However" at the beginning of a sentence.

The purpose of the however is to warn of something fishy or antithetical at the outset. For example, we may write: ''However, the tenderness of the night had softened their intentions.'' Contrast this with: ''The tenderness of the night, however, had softened their intentions.''

An exception occurs when emphasis to a person, action, or object is intended: For example, we may write: ''You, however, are a brilliant mathematician.''
Always define acronyms, twice if necessary.

For example, write: "The fast Fourier transport (FFT) was introduced in 1974." Note the capitalization.
Words to avoid: wherein, thereof, leverage, transpires, indeed.

Do not write words that you do not use in everyday conversation. Do not write to impress.
One-word composites include: everyday, straightforward.
The Introduction of a paper should have no or few equations.

The subject should be introduced from a chosen perspective: practical, historical, intellectual, physical, or mathematical. Choose your approach ahead of time.
Do not use meaningless sentences and cliches.

Avoid writing "The [SOMETHING] finds numerous natural, engineering, and biophysical applications [STACK OF REFERENCES]" Prove this instead by example in a few sentences.
Use "indirectly" instead of "in an indirect fashion."

Do not use cliches such as: "In the end of the day,..," "To this end, ...,". "On the other hand, ... ."
Minimize the number of references.

A stack of references following a sentence serve no purpose. Using only a couple of dated references may convey the impression of arrogance.
The Conclusions of a paper should have no or few equations.

General conclusions, unanswered questions, and serious thoughts should be discussed in all honesty and without exaggeration in this section. It is better to use past passive voice. Write "We have seen ..." instead of "We saw ..."
Do not rely on spell-checkers, but check each and every word.

Do not use "insure" when you mean "ensure." Do not use "complimentary" when you mean "complementary." Do not use "respectfull" when you mean "respective."
The common "More importantly, ..." is incorrect.

The correct enrty is "More important, ..." standing for "What is more important, ... ."
Use "Internet" to refer to the world-wide web.

Use "internet" to refer to a generic network.
Do not use caustic remarks.

An example of a caustic remark is: "The derivation of the equation provided by these authors had a only tenuous relation to mathematics." Caustic remarks only reveal insecurities and bottled-up feelings on behalf of the author.
Avoid superlatives.

Write "It is important to remember that the Universe will end" instead of "It is very important to remember that the Universe will end".
Use simple verbs instead of nouns.

Write "My judgment is sensitive to my perception" instead of "The sensitivity of my mood to my perception is pronounced," or "My judgment exhibits a pronounced sensitivity to my perception."
Do not harshly criticize previous authors for mistakes they might have made, and simply state the facts.

Be kind and considerate, nothing ever published is free of error.
Do not get discouraged if a good paper is rejected, but persist and resubmit. Just get the paper out there.

My most cited paper (about 100 citations ten years after publication) was rejected by two leading journals of fluid mechanics. My only regret is that the irrational rejections despirited a brilliant graduate student who co-authored this paper and drove him away from academia. Reviewers and editors must be aware of collateral damage they may inflict on inoccent bystandards. To add insult to injury, the rejected paper was inclusive of a paper that appeared about a year later in the leading journal of fluid mechanics.
Put definitions at the end of a sentence.

Write: We definine the Horbiger number Ho=UR/Q, where U is the potential, R is the radius of the container, and Q is a given mass of cannoli.
Choose carefully each word.

Use "each other" to compare two objects, use "another another" for pairwise comparisons of multiple objects.
Do not nondimensionalize your writing.

Some authors write: "Let x* be a length, and introduce the dimensionless length x=x*/L, where L is a characteristic length scale." This does not read natural.

Other authors write: "Heretoforth, we nondimensionalize lengths by L. Consider a channel of width h=2, and ..." This is unhelpful and potentially confusing.

Use physical variables instead throughout your document. Thus, write: "Consider a channel of width h=2L, and ..."
When revising a paper to address reviewers' concerns, make a judgement call.
Sometimes, reviewers ask for modifications that verge on the unreasonable and may affect the character on your work. For example, one reviewer may ask for a distracting lengthy bibliographical survey, and a second reviewer may ask for some complementary analysis, computations, or experiments. Do not feel obligated to follow the advice of the reviewers, but politely explain to the editor why you have chosen not to revise.
Do not agree to become a co-author in a paper with more than three other authors; reluctantly agree to be a co-author in a paper with three other authors.
Exceptions are granted to undergraduate students working in a lab, and in cases where a project requires a multitude of expersise.
Do not criticize a prolific author.
Admire instead that they are energetic, imaginative, and creative researchers and writers. It is the duty of journal reviewers and editors to screen out work that is not sufficiently novel or interesting.
Do not underestimate the huge amount of work and committment it takes to write a book.
Professor G.K. Batchelor once explained this in a wonderful essay.
I once unsuccessfuly argued that only published book authors should be allowed to review books.
Do not set as an objective the writing of a paper.

Preoccupy yourself instead with finding answers to interesting questions, and consider a paper as a natural venue for communicating ideas, findings, and thoughts.
As a graduate student, I was once distressed that an interesting project ended up as an ill-posed problem. My wise advisor reminded me that we had learnt a great deal along the way.
It is okay to write papers that are not earth shattering.

Not all papers should be milestones. Most papers make smaller contributions toward a common goal.
Carefully read all papers that you reference in your paper.

Do not rely on what others have written to describe the literature. Make sure that you give credit to where credit is due.
When reviewing someonelse's paper, do not recommend Rejection.

If you think the paper is not good enough, state the reasons and conclude that the minimum standards for acceptance have not been met. Remember that progress is made by many people making small contributions.
The most important decision to be made is what problem to solve or what line of research to pursue.

Identifying a specific problem or research area is much more difficult than actually solving the problem or carrying out the research. You should spend much more time learning and identifying research problems than actually solving the problems. Do not simply duplicate someone else's research program, including your advisor's.
In evaluating your work or research project, or someone else's work or research program, you should look for good ideas.

Mundane work that lacks a novel idea may serve a purpose, but may not cross the publication threshold set by good-quality journals. As a graduate student, look for an advisor with a good record of new ideas.
Learn how to compose and compile a document in Latex.

Your writing skills will considerably improve, and you will get used to delaying instant gratification.
Read good journalism and literature.

Carefully and frequently read documents written by good writers.
Write a few paragraphs every day.

Work on a paper, class notes, research notes, personal notes, or anything else you enjoy.
If you encounter a word whose meaning you do not completely understand, immediately look it up or make a note of it on a post-it.

Test: What is the meaning of the word ''pejorative''?
Do not write bad sentences thinking that you will return to "fix them" later.

You can rarely fix a badly-written paragraph. You will end up rewriting the paragraph, and perhaps many other sentences, thus wasting the initial effort.
Avoid hyphenation as much as possible.

Write "nonlinear" instead of "non-linear," and "centerline" instead of "center-line." Composite words are upgraded in the following order: "straight forward" -> "straight-forward" --> "straightforward." Make a judgment call on the maturity level of your word.
Typeset in single dash or double dash, as appropriate.

Example: Equation (4.5.6) implements a high-order Cauchy--Born rule.

Plain and improved:

Plain	Improved
Consider a periodic flow cell, as illustrated in figure 1.	A periodic flow cell is illustrated in figure 1.
Figure 1 presents results for the baking time to illustrate the effect of olive oil.	To illustrate the effect of olive oil, measurements of the baking time are presented in figure 1.
The equation takes the simplified form ab=c.	The equation simplifies to ab=c.

Exercises:

What is the difference, if any, between: "I might have said it" and "I may have said it" ?
What is the difference, if any, between: "This is not natural" and "this is unnatural" ?

Advice on writing and publishing

C. Pozrikidis

The colon (:) is often misused.

Expressions such as ''because of the fact'', ''the fact that the deformation is small suggests'' ''despite the fact'' ''in spite of the fact'' should be avoided.

Do not write ''I grew up in the 1970's.''

The word ''implies'' is too soft and often misunderstood.

Put a comma before an enumerative "and" or "or."

When writing an abstract, use passive voice as much as possible, but not exclusively.

Do not use "In this paper, ..." at the beginning of an Introduction.

At the end of an Introduction, some authors write: "The paper is structured as follows. In Section ...". The sentence "The paper is structured as follows" is unecessary.

Follow the "Subject - verb - object" structure, put important explanations/reasoning at the beginning,

Repetitive parallel structure is appealing.

Remember and use the "either or" and "neither nor" structures.

Do not use words/concepts that you cannot properly explain or define.

Do not write while riding on a learning curve, except for the purpose of identifying gaps and weaknesses.

Do not write: "As explained before, donkeys are delightful."

Do not write: "The equations above, ... " or "The above equation, ..."

Each paragraph should have a goal.

Do not begin a sentence with "And" or "But."

Put the "However" at the beginning of a sentence.

Always define acronyms, twice if necessary.

Words to avoid: wherein, thereof, leverage, transpires, indeed.

One-word composites include: everyday, straightforward.

The Introduction of a paper should have no or few equations.

Do not use meaningless sentences and cliches.

Minimize the number of references.

The Conclusions of a paper should have no or few equations.

Do not rely on spell-checkers, but check each and every word.

The common "More importantly, ..." is incorrect.

Use "Internet" to refer to the world-wide web.

Do not use caustic remarks.

Avoid superlatives.

Use simple verbs instead of nouns.

Do not harshly criticize previous authors for mistakes they might have made, and simply state the facts.

Do not get discouraged if a good paper is rejected, but persist and resubmit. Just get the paper out there.

Put definitions at the end of a sentence.

Choose carefully each word.

Do not nondimensionalize your writing.

When revising a paper to address reviewers' concerns, make a judgement call.

Do not agree to become a co-author in a paper with more than three other authors; reluctantly agree to be a co-author in a paper with three other authors.

Do not criticize a prolific author.

Do not underestimate the huge amount of work and committment it takes to write a book.

Do not set as an objective the writing of a paper.

It is okay to write papers that are not earth shattering.

Carefully read all papers that you reference in your paper.

When reviewing someonelse's paper, do not recommend Rejection.

The most important decision to be made is what problem to solve or what line of research to pursue.

In evaluating your work or research project, or someone else's work or research program, you should look for good ideas.

Learn how to compose and compile a document in Latex.

Read good journalism and literature.

Write a few paragraphs every day.

If you encounter a word whose meaning you do not completely understand, immediately look it up or make a note of it on a post-it.

Do not write bad sentences thinking that you will return to "fix them" later.

Avoid hyphenation as much as possible.

Typeset in single dash or double dash, as appropriate.

Plain and improved:

Exercises:

What is the difference, if any, between: "I might have said it" and "I may have said it" ?

What is the difference, if any, between: "This is not natural" and "this is unnatural" ?

Page visited 1,778 times