Writing a sound paragraph is really just amatter of thinking clearly about a topic you have researched and transferring that thinking to the page

any ambiguity in your writing forces your reader towork to understand your meaning.

The goal of good writing is straightforward: tomake your reader’s job as easy as possible. Realizingthis goal, though, is not so simple.

In scientific writing, plagiarism is perhaps the most serious and the most widelyrecognized ethical lapse.

1Created in 2003 First revision, 2006 Second revision, 2015 Please send any questions, comments, or suggestions to Miguel Roig, Ph.D(roigm@stjohns.edu)PREFACEIn recognizing the importance of educating aspiring scientists in the responsibleconduct of research (RCR), the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) began sponsoring the creation of instructional resources to address this pressing need in 2002. The present guide on avoiding plagiarism and other inappropriate writing practices was created to help students, as well as professionals, identify and prevent such malpractices and to develop an awareness of ethical writing and authorship. This guide is one of the many products stemming fromORI’s effort to promote the RCR.Many other writing guides are available to assist scientists in preparing their research reports for publication in scholarly and scientific outlets. Some of these resources focus on matters of scientific style and are written for those who are completing theses and/or dissertations. Other guides target professionals and focus on topics, such as the traditional Introduction, Methods, Results, [and] Discussion (IMRAD) journal article and submission process, along with other elements of scientific publishing. Few writing guides, however, focus solely on issues related to responsible writing, an area that continues to receive increasing attention in part because of rapid changes occurring in science dissemination and globalization within the last few decades. The latter factor has resulted in the addition of increasing numbers of researchers whose primary language is not English, the lingua francaof science, who must struggle to function in a highly competitive research climate. Thechanges in science publishing that have taken place in recent years (e.g., open access movement) have also resulted in many more outlets for the publication of scientific research. At the same time, the emergence of so-called “predatory publishers” is thought to have also contributed to a decline in the quality of science that ultimately becomes part of the scientific record (Beal 2013; Clark & Smith, 2015). Because these and related factors are likely associated with questionable writing and authorship practices, ORI felt that an updated and more detailed treatment of the issues covered in the two previous versions of this guide was necessary. Thus, the current version is herein presented. INTRODUCTIONScientific writing can be a cognitively demanding and arduous process, for it simultaneously demands exceptional degrees of clarity and conciseness, two elementsthat often clash with each other. In addition, accuracy and transparency, fundamentalaspects of the scientific enterprise are also critical components of scientific writing.

Keywords:computer-mediated communication, face-to-face communication

In order to gain a complete understanding of CMC’s true effect on both online and offlinerelationships, it is necessary to conduct a study that examines all aspects of CMC.

280 Chapter 10 • Research on Predatory Algae: From Environmental Event to Environmental Policy A Sea Grant report, "Marine Biotechnology: Competing in the 21st Century," outlines a framework for research in support of marine biotechnology. Its three broad themes-Molecular Frontiers in the Ocean Sci-ences, Applications ?f Marine Biotechnology, and Marine Biotechnology and Society-encompass a range of research, education, and outreach needed to develop this field.

Because of limited funding and widespread interest in marine biotechnology, proposals will be evalu-ated rigorously. Clear and complete proposals that meet the objectives of _the National Sea Grant College Pro-gram as outlined in the enclosed materials will have the best chance of success.

Given the variety of audiences to be addressed and the multiple agea ders at be accomplished, writing the research proposal is one of the most challen~s to and most important-tasks scientists engage in.

As the diagram indicates, peer review plays a critical role in funding decisions, just as it does in decisions about the publication of journal articles.

Infer means to draw a conclusion—the responsibility of the spectroscopist, not the spectrum. One could say that the spectrum implies, but this too is a personification. A better sentence would be “A highly symmetrical structure can be inferred from a simple IR spectrum.”

Poor sentence construction and grammatical solecisms are all too common in both written and oral reports of scientific findings. The English language is the principal tool of modern scientific communication, and its effective use should be a goal of anyone preparing for a career in science.

Any piece of prose, no matter how short, may “mean” in 10 (or more) different ways to 10 different readers. This methodology of reader expectations is founded on the recognition that readers make many of their most important interpretive decisions about the substance of prose based on clues they receive from its structure.

In smaller units of discourse the functional divisions are not so explicitly labeled, but readers have definite expectations all the same, and they search for certain information in particular places. If these structural expectations are continually violated, readers are forced to divert energy from understanding the content of a passage to unraveling its structure. As the complexity of the content increases moderately, the possibility of misinterpretation or noninterpretation increases dramatically.

In so doing, theybuilt their arguments on a rich intellectual tra-dition that, more than any other in our society,is seen as unbiased and credible

To-ward that end, evidenceindicates that scientistsshould engage in moreand ongoing dialoguewith policymakers andthe public to help buildshared understanding and effective policysolutions (1–4, 6).

Warren needed Marshall's clinical knowledge t, 1s v , . . d t 'd how the bacterium he was observmg was related to gastric syrnp-to un ers an . d d (Ch zin 1993· Warren 2005a,b). Marshall needed Warren m or er to un er-toms a ' · · his ti' ts (M h ll d th b·iology of the bacteriun1. he was observmg m pa en ars a stan e · ch 'd th · 005 d) And both Marshall and Warren relied on pnor resear to gm e err 2 a,c,. th lidt t d d needed other scientists and the NIH to fur er test, va a e, accep , an own, an · · h alth t th · ti' t d tl eir work in theory and practice.

To gain the acceptance he thought his theory deserved, Marshall did some-thing that most scientists would-and should-never do. Unable to convince his colleagues that H. pylori caused stomach ulcers, in 1984 Marshall created a potent mixture containing the bacteria and drank it; inducing a case of acute gastritis in himself (Marshall et al. 1985).