For this 2nd meeting of the writers’ group, please
Read chapters 3-4 in Joshua Schimel’s Writing Science: How to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded.
Complete exercise 2.2, step 2, in which you write an article developed from step 1 (see Schimel page 14). Bring 3 paper copies of your article, and upload the article to Google Drive (or send to me for upload)
Read papers as described in exercise 2.1 (page 14). I suggest the following:
A paper from a specialist journal written by a leader recognized as a strong writer
Assisted Living in the Atheroma: Elderly Macrophages Promote Plaque by Peter Libby http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413116305927
A “normal” paper from a specialist journal
Effects of Sex, Strain, and Energy Intake on Hallmarks of Aging in Mice Kaushik, S. , Cuervo, A. M. & 45 others Jun 14 2016In : Cell Metabolism.23, 6, p. 1093-111220 p.
A paper from Nature or Science
A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolutionhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7646/full/nature21700.html
A review or synthesis paper
Proteostasis and aging Kaushik, S. & Cuervo, A. M. Dec 8 2015In : Nature Medicine.21, 12, p. 1406-141510 p.
If you choose to substitute a different paper than one suggested above, please make sure that at least one other person is reading that same paper.
When we meet, we’ll briefly discuss the two chapters (10min), review the 4 papers (15 min), and will follow up by sharing and critiquing each other’s articles from exercise 2.2, step 2 (30min).
When critiquing another’s work, please keep in mind that sometimes it can be hard to receive feedback, especially negative feedback. If receiving feedback is hard for you, here are a few suggestions:
Initiate feedback. It’s better to ask for feedback than to receive it unwillingly.
Choose your own questions and ask for specific feedback. For example:
“What is one thing I could have done as a writer to make this article more effective?”
“If you could pick one thing from the article to go over again, what would it be?”
Communicate expectations. If you’re comfortable enough with the critic, tell that person how they can best communicate their feedback to you.
Balance positive and negative feedback.
Ask for or give “compliment sandwiches” (one positive, one negative, one positive)
Ask for both types of feedback
Use a feedback translator. Have a fellow writer (or other trusted person in the room) read over all the feedback and give an executive summary. It can be easier to hear “It sounds like most people are following, so you could speed up” than to read several notes all saying, “this is too slow” or “this is boring”.
Finally, be kind to yourself. Mental habits matter: if you’re a self-critical person, it’s OK to remind yourself that:
ERB 1421 26 April 2017 10:30:00 AM
Hi,
For this 2nd meeting of the writers’ group, please
Read chapters 3-4 in Joshua Schimel’s Writing Science: How to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded.
Complete exercise 2.2, step 2, in which you write an article developed from step 1 (see Schimel page 14). Bring 3 paper copies of your article, and upload the article to Google Drive (or send to me for upload)
Read papers as described in exercise 2.1 (page 14). I suggest the following: A paper from a specialist journal written by a leader recognized as a strong writer Assisted Living in the Atheroma: Elderly Macrophages Promote Plaque by Peter Libby http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413116305927 A “normal” paper from a specialist journal Effects of Sex, Strain, and Energy Intake on Hallmarks of Aging in Mice Kaushik, S. , Cuervo, A. M. & 45 others Jun 14 2016In : Cell Metabolism.23, 6, p. 1093-111220 p. A paper from Nature or Science A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolutionhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7646/full/nature21700.html A review or synthesis paper Proteostasis and aging Kaushik, S. & Cuervo, A. M. Dec 8 2015In : Nature Medicine.21, 12, p. 1406-141510 p. If you choose to substitute a different paper than one suggested above, please make sure that at least one other person is reading that same paper.
When we meet, we’ll briefly discuss the two chapters (10min), review the 4 papers (15 min), and will follow up by sharing and critiquing each other’s articles from exercise 2.2, step 2 (30min).
When critiquing another’s work, please keep in mind that sometimes it can be hard to receive feedback, especially negative feedback. If receiving feedback is hard for you, here are a few suggestions: Initiate feedback. It’s better to ask for feedback than to receive it unwillingly.
Choose your own questions and ask for specific feedback. For example:
“What is one thing I could have done as a writer to make this article more effective?” “If you could pick one thing from the article to go over again, what would it be?” Communicate expectations. If you’re comfortable enough with the critic, tell that person how they can best communicate their feedback to you. Balance positive and negative feedback. Ask for or give “compliment sandwiches” (one positive, one negative, one positive) Ask for both types of feedback
Use a feedback translator. Have a fellow writer (or other trusted person in the room) read over all the feedback and give an executive summary. It can be easier to hear “It sounds like most people are following, so you could speed up” than to read several notes all saying, “this is too slow” or “this is boring”. Finally, be kind to yourself. Mental habits matter: if you’re a self-critical person, it’s OK to remind yourself that:
It’s not personal.
Look at the positives along with the negatives.
Etc.