Science, publication and scientific writing

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Volpato, Gilson Luiz
Data de Publicação: 2011
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
eng
spa
Título da fonte: Revista Eletrônica de Enfermagem
Texto Completo: https://revistas.ufg.br/fen/article/view/13452
Resumo: Every finding released by a scientific publication is expected to provide an area of study with new solutions and insights. In this task, the role of the scientist is of the utmost importance, as science is a vehicle through which humans interpret the world, and the scientific knowledge is a construct based on convincing empirical evidence. Scientists focus observations on empirical data (accessible to our sensory modalities), and they construct explanations so as to better understand aspects of the natural world. Such explanations, while based on empirical findings, are simply theoretical proposals that ultimately need the acceptance of a significant percentage of experts in the respective field. Without this acknowledgement, the proposed explanation remains obscure. This reality signifies that science only provides us with abstract discourses (interpretations) even that based on empirical evidences. Considering this context, scientists must communicate their conclusions (their explanations based on empirical findings) to their academic peers, a task that is achieved by publication in a scientific journal. The text submitted for publication, however, must undergo an editorial review by anonymous members of academia. If the text is ultimately accepted for publication, the challenge to construct scientific knowledge has only started. In the scientific academia, the primary objective of a scientist is to convince his or her peers of the validity of their conclusions. The utilization of strong empirical evidences and the esteemed academic authority of the journal in which the study is published facilitate this discourse. Once these requisites are met, the paper still must be downloaded and read, and its conclusion must be accepted by experts in its specific field. Such acceptance by experts is the most challenging task for a scientist. If the empirical findings presented in a paper are not convincing to its reader, the paper could be quickly disregarded. The academic status of the journal, the paper’s title, its abstract, its figures and tables, and its quality of writing also can result in the rejection of the author’s published conclusions by the reader. These are the most significant challenges that a scientist must overcome. Scientific writing is a mode of communication that enables scientists to present conclusions effectively. However, this issue has only been treated with linguistic technicality worldwide. Practical rules have been imposed to ensure that scientists write concisely and with clarity, objectivity and logic. The understanding of these rules, however, is the least important aspect of the problem. Scientific discourse is straightforward: the reasoning behind an objective is established, from which methodological steps are dictated to ultimately yield results to describe variables or to test hypotheses; these results and conclusions are supported by published knowledge and new general conclusions are expected to be constructed. Although seemingly simple, this process is complex and supported by philosophical bases. Errors in writing are errors in reasoning. In the specific context of Brazil, many cultural attitudes and linguistic tendencies hinder us in achieving the simplicity required for effective scientific writing. Brazilian people appreciates long texts, complex communication, excessive results, verbose expressions and ideas that confirm previously acquired knowledge, among other communicative tendencies. Brazilian scientists urgently need a revolution in thinking. Our graduate courses have not been successful to overcome these barriers of thought. We must be enterprising in envisioning the evolution of knowledge and we must venture to innovative thinking without fear. With a change in mindset, scientific development will become a reality in our country, and our progress may ultimately be acknowledged with a Nobel Prize. With these changes, we will possess the necessary means to move in the direction of an improved society.
id UFG-13_1715f255f78d84c0a834704ba8e4ba2b
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.revistas.ufg.br:article/13452
network_acronym_str UFG-13
network_name_str Revista Eletrônica de Enfermagem
repository_id_str
spelling Science, publication and scientific writingCiencia, publicación y redacción científicaCiência, publicação e redação científicaEvery finding released by a scientific publication is expected to provide an area of study with new solutions and insights. In this task, the role of the scientist is of the utmost importance, as science is a vehicle through which humans interpret the world, and the scientific knowledge is a construct based on convincing empirical evidence. Scientists focus observations on empirical data (accessible to our sensory modalities), and they construct explanations so as to better understand aspects of the natural world. Such explanations, while based on empirical findings, are simply theoretical proposals that ultimately need the acceptance of a significant percentage of experts in the respective field. Without this acknowledgement, the proposed explanation remains obscure. This reality signifies that science only provides us with abstract discourses (interpretations) even that based on empirical evidences. Considering this context, scientists must communicate their conclusions (their explanations based on empirical findings) to their academic peers, a task that is achieved by publication in a scientific journal. The text submitted for publication, however, must undergo an editorial review by anonymous members of academia. If the text is ultimately accepted for publication, the challenge to construct scientific knowledge has only started. In the scientific academia, the primary objective of a scientist is to convince his or her peers of the validity of their conclusions. The utilization of strong empirical evidences and the esteemed academic authority of the journal in which the study is published facilitate this discourse. Once these requisites are met, the paper still must be downloaded and read, and its conclusion must be accepted by experts in its specific field. Such acceptance by experts is the most challenging task for a scientist. If the empirical findings presented in a paper are not convincing to its reader, the paper could be quickly disregarded. The academic status of the journal, the paper’s title, its abstract, its figures and tables, and its quality of writing also can result in the rejection of the author’s published conclusions by the reader. These are the most significant challenges that a scientist must overcome. Scientific writing is a mode of communication that enables scientists to present conclusions effectively. However, this issue has only been treated with linguistic technicality worldwide. Practical rules have been imposed to ensure that scientists write concisely and with clarity, objectivity and logic. The understanding of these rules, however, is the least important aspect of the problem. Scientific discourse is straightforward: the reasoning behind an objective is established, from which methodological steps are dictated to ultimately yield results to describe variables or to test hypotheses; these results and conclusions are supported by published knowledge and new general conclusions are expected to be constructed. Although seemingly simple, this process is complex and supported by philosophical bases. Errors in writing are errors in reasoning. In the specific context of Brazil, many cultural attitudes and linguistic tendencies hinder us in achieving the simplicity required for effective scientific writing. Brazilian people appreciates long texts, complex communication, excessive results, verbose expressions and ideas that confirm previously acquired knowledge, among other communicative tendencies. Brazilian scientists urgently need a revolution in thinking. Our graduate courses have not been successful to overcome these barriers of thought. We must be enterprising in envisioning the evolution of knowledge and we must venture to innovative thinking without fear. With a change in mindset, scientific development will become a reality in our country, and our progress may ultimately be acknowledged with a Nobel Prize. With these changes, we will possess the necessary means to move in the direction of an improved society.Esperase que cada resultado divulgado por una publicación científica puede llevar nuevas soluciones y insights a un campo de estudio. En esta tarea, la función del científico es de extrema importancia, una vez que la ciencia es un instrumento por medio de cual interpretamos el mundo y el conocimiento científico es un constructo basado en evidencias empíricas convincentes. Los científicos centran en las observaciones en datos empíricos (accesibles a nuestras modalidades sensoriales) y construyen explicaciones con finalidad de mejor comprensión de los aspectos del mundo natural. Aunque basadas en resultados empíricos, tales explicaciones son apenas proposiciones teóricas que, en última instancia, requiere la aceptación por un porcentaje significativo de especialistas en las respectiva área. Sin esto reconocimiento, la explicación propuesta permanece oculta. Esta realidad significa que la ciencia nos proporciona sólo enunciados abstractos (interpretaciones), aunque basadas en evidencias empíricas. En esto contexto, los científicos deben comunicar sus resultados (sus explicaciones basadas en resultados empíricos) a sus pares académicos, una tarea que se logra mediante la publicación en un periódico científico. El texto presentado para publicación, sin embargo, debe pasar por una revisión editorial por los miembros anónimos da academia. Si el texto es finalmente aceptado par su publicación, el desafío de construir conocimiento científico acaba de comenzar. En la academia científica, el principal objetivo de un científico es convencer a sus pares sobre la validad de sus conclusiones. La utilización de evidencias empíricas solidas y la estimada autoridad académica del periódico en cual el estudio es publicado facilitan este discurso. Una vez que estos requisitos sean cumplidos, el artigo aún necesita ser descargado y leído, y sus conclusiones aceptadas por los expertos de su respetiva área. Tal aceptación por los expertos es la tarea más desafiante para uno científico. Si los resultados empíricos presentados no son convincentes para sus lectores, el artículo puede ser rápidamente descartado. El status académico del periódico, el título del artículo, su resumen, sus figuras y tablas y su calidad de redacción también pueden hacer con que los lectores rechacen las conclusiones publicadas por el autor. Estos son los más importantes desafíos que un científico debe superar. La redacción científica es una manera de comunicación que permite los científicos a efectivamente presentaren conclusiones. Sin embargo esto tema ha sido expuesto sólo por técnicas lingüísticas en todo el mondo. Reglas  practicas tienen sido impuestas para asegurar que los científicos escriban de modo consiso y con claridad, objetividad y lógica. La comprensión de estas reglas, sin embargo, es el aspecto menos importante del problema. El discurso científico es directo y simples: se establece el razonamiento subyacente a un objetivo, del cual derivase etapas metodológicas para finalmente construir resultados para describir variables o probar hipótesis; estos resultados y conclusiones son sustentados por conocimiento publicado y esperase que sean construidas nuevas conclusiones generales. Mientras aparentemente simples, esto proceso es complejo y apoyado en bases filosóficas. Los errores en la redacción son errores en el razonamiento. En el contexto especifico de Brasil, muchas actitudes culturales y tendencias de languaje impéndenos de alcanzar la simplicidad necesaria a una redacción científico eficiente. Los brasileños aprecian textos extensos, comunicación compleja, resultados excesivos, expresiones prolijas y ideas que atestan conocimiento adquirido anteriormente, entre otras tendencias de la comunicación. Los científicos brasileños necesitan urgentemente de una revolución en el pensamiento. Nuestros cursos de postgrado no han tenido éxito en la superación de estas barreras de pensamiento. Debemos ser emprendedores para visualizar la evolución del conocimiento y debemos aventurarnos sin temor en pensamientos innovadores. Con un cambio de mentalidad, el desarrollo científico será una realidad en nuestro país e nuestro progreso podrá ser reconocido con un Premio Nobel. Con eses cambios, alcanzaremos los medios necesarios para movernos en dirección a una sociedad mejor.Espera-se que cada achado divulgado por uma publicação científica traga a uma área de estudo novas soluções e insights. Nessa tarefa, o papel do cientista é de extrema importância, uma vez que a ciência é um veículo por meio do qual interpretamos o mundo e o conhecimento científico é um constructo baseado em evidência empírica convincente. Os cientistas focam as observações em dados empíricos (acessíveis às nossas modalidades sensoriais) e constroem explicações de modo a melhor compreendermos aspectos do mundo natural. Tais explicações, ainda que baseadas em achados empíricos, são apenas proposições teóricas que, em última análise, necessitam aceitação por uma porcentagem significativa de especialistas na respectiva área. Sem esse reconhecimento, a explicação proposta permanece escondida. Essa realidade significa que a ciência apenas nos fornece discursos abstratos (interpretações), mesmo que baseadas em evidências empíricas. Nesse contexto, os cientistas devem comunicar suas conclusões (suas explicações baseadas em achados empíricos) aos seus pares acadêmicos, uma tarefa que é atingida pela publicação em uma revista científica. O texto submetido para publicação, no entanto, deve passar por uma revisão editorial feita por membros anônimos da academia. Se o texto é finalmente aceito para publicação, o desafio para construir conhecimento científico apenas começou. Na academia científica, o objetivo principal de um cientista é convencer seus pares sobre a validade de suas conclusões. A utilização de evidências empíricas fortes e a autoridade acadêmica estimada da revista na qual o estudo é publicado facilitam esse discurso. Uma vez atingido esses requisitos, o artigo ainda precisa ser baixado e lido e sua conclusão deve ser aceita pelos especialistas na respectiva área. Tal aceitação pelos especialistas é a tarefa mais desafiante para um cientista. Se os achados empíricos apresentados em um artigo não são convincentes para seus leitores, o artigo pode ser rapidamente descartado. O status acadêmico da revista, o título do artigo, seu resumo, suas figuras e tabelas e sua qualidade da redação também podem fazer com que os leitores rejeitem as conclusões publicadas pelo autor. Esses são os mais importantes desafios que um cientista deve ultrapassar. A redação científica é uma forma de comunicação que habilita os cientistas a apresentarem conclusões efetivamente. No entanto, este assunto tem sido tratado apenas por meio de técnicas linguísticas em todo o mundo. Regras práticas têm sido impostas para assegurar que os cientistas escrevam de forma concisa e com clareza, objetividade e lógica. O entendimento dessas regras, no entanto, é o aspecto menos importante do problema. O discurso científico é direto e simples: estabelece-se o raciocínio subjacente a um objetivo, do qual se derivam passos metodológicos para finalmente construir resultados para descrever variáveis ou testar hipóteses; esses resultados e conclusões são sustentados por conhecimento publicado e espera-se que se construam novas conclusões gerais. Embora aparentemente simples, esse processo é complexo e sustentado por bases filosóficas. Erros na redação são erros no raciocínio. No contexto específico do Brasil, muitas atitudes culturais e tendências linguísticas nos impedem de atingir a simplicidade requerida para uma redação científica eficiente. Os brasileiros apreciam textos longos, comunicação complexa, resultados excessivos, expressões prolixas e ideias que confirmam conhecimento já adquirido, entre outras tendências de comunicação. Os cientistas brasileiros necessitam urgentemente de uma revolução no pensamento. Nossos cursos de pós-graduação não têm sido bem sucedidos na superação dessas barreiras de pensamento. Devemos ser empreendedores ao visualizarmos a evolução do conhecimento e devemos nos aventurar sem medo em pensamentos inovadores. Com uma mudança de mentalidade, o desenvolvimento científico se tornará uma realidade em nosso país e nosso progresso poderá vir a ser reconhecido com um prêmio Nobel. Com essas mudanças, teremos os meios necessários para nos mover em direção a uma sociedade melhor. Faculdade de Enfermagem da UFG2011-09-30info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionArtigo Não Avaliado por Paresapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://revistas.ufg.br/fen/article/view/1345210.5216/ree.v13i3.13452Revista Eletrônica de Enfermagem; Vol. 13 No. 3 (2011); 374-6Revista Eletrônica de Enfermagem; v. 13 n. 3 (2011); 374-61518-1944reponame:Revista Eletrônica de Enfermageminstname:Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG)instacron:UFGporengspahttps://revistas.ufg.br/fen/article/view/13452/9735https://revistas.ufg.br/fen/article/view/13452/9736https://revistas.ufg.br/fen/article/view/13452/9737Volpato, Gilson Luizinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2020-08-11T00:32:01Zoai:ojs.revistas.ufg.br:article/13452Revistahttps://revistas.ufg.br/fenPUBhttps://revistas.ufg.br/fen/oairee.fen@ufg.br1518-19441518-1944opendoar:2020-08-11T00:32:01Revista Eletrônica de Enfermagem - Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Science, publication and scientific writing
Ciencia, publicación y redacción científica
Ciência, publicação e redação científica
title Science, publication and scientific writing
spellingShingle Science, publication and scientific writing
Volpato, Gilson Luiz
title_short Science, publication and scientific writing
title_full Science, publication and scientific writing
title_fullStr Science, publication and scientific writing
title_full_unstemmed Science, publication and scientific writing
title_sort Science, publication and scientific writing
author Volpato, Gilson Luiz
author_facet Volpato, Gilson Luiz
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Volpato, Gilson Luiz
description Every finding released by a scientific publication is expected to provide an area of study with new solutions and insights. In this task, the role of the scientist is of the utmost importance, as science is a vehicle through which humans interpret the world, and the scientific knowledge is a construct based on convincing empirical evidence. Scientists focus observations on empirical data (accessible to our sensory modalities), and they construct explanations so as to better understand aspects of the natural world. Such explanations, while based on empirical findings, are simply theoretical proposals that ultimately need the acceptance of a significant percentage of experts in the respective field. Without this acknowledgement, the proposed explanation remains obscure. This reality signifies that science only provides us with abstract discourses (interpretations) even that based on empirical evidences. Considering this context, scientists must communicate their conclusions (their explanations based on empirical findings) to their academic peers, a task that is achieved by publication in a scientific journal. The text submitted for publication, however, must undergo an editorial review by anonymous members of academia. If the text is ultimately accepted for publication, the challenge to construct scientific knowledge has only started. In the scientific academia, the primary objective of a scientist is to convince his or her peers of the validity of their conclusions. The utilization of strong empirical evidences and the esteemed academic authority of the journal in which the study is published facilitate this discourse. Once these requisites are met, the paper still must be downloaded and read, and its conclusion must be accepted by experts in its specific field. Such acceptance by experts is the most challenging task for a scientist. If the empirical findings presented in a paper are not convincing to its reader, the paper could be quickly disregarded. The academic status of the journal, the paper’s title, its abstract, its figures and tables, and its quality of writing also can result in the rejection of the author’s published conclusions by the reader. These are the most significant challenges that a scientist must overcome. Scientific writing is a mode of communication that enables scientists to present conclusions effectively. However, this issue has only been treated with linguistic technicality worldwide. Practical rules have been imposed to ensure that scientists write concisely and with clarity, objectivity and logic. The understanding of these rules, however, is the least important aspect of the problem. Scientific discourse is straightforward: the reasoning behind an objective is established, from which methodological steps are dictated to ultimately yield results to describe variables or to test hypotheses; these results and conclusions are supported by published knowledge and new general conclusions are expected to be constructed. Although seemingly simple, this process is complex and supported by philosophical bases. Errors in writing are errors in reasoning. In the specific context of Brazil, many cultural attitudes and linguistic tendencies hinder us in achieving the simplicity required for effective scientific writing. Brazilian people appreciates long texts, complex communication, excessive results, verbose expressions and ideas that confirm previously acquired knowledge, among other communicative tendencies. Brazilian scientists urgently need a revolution in thinking. Our graduate courses have not been successful to overcome these barriers of thought. We must be enterprising in envisioning the evolution of knowledge and we must venture to innovative thinking without fear. With a change in mindset, scientific development will become a reality in our country, and our progress may ultimately be acknowledged with a Nobel Prize. With these changes, we will possess the necessary means to move in the direction of an improved society.
publishDate 2011
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2011-09-30
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Artigo Não Avaliado por Pares
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://revistas.ufg.br/fen/article/view/13452
10.5216/ree.v13i3.13452
url https://revistas.ufg.br/fen/article/view/13452
identifier_str_mv 10.5216/ree.v13i3.13452
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
eng
spa
language por
eng
spa
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.ufg.br/fen/article/view/13452/9735
https://revistas.ufg.br/fen/article/view/13452/9736
https://revistas.ufg.br/fen/article/view/13452/9737
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faculdade de Enfermagem da UFG
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faculdade de Enfermagem da UFG
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista Eletrônica de Enfermagem; Vol. 13 No. 3 (2011); 374-6
Revista Eletrônica de Enfermagem; v. 13 n. 3 (2011); 374-6
1518-1944
reponame:Revista Eletrônica de Enfermagem
instname:Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG)
instacron:UFG
instname_str Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG)
instacron_str UFG
institution UFG
reponame_str Revista Eletrônica de Enfermagem
collection Revista Eletrônica de Enfermagem
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista Eletrônica de Enfermagem - Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ree.fen@ufg.br
_version_ 1797049167363702784