校閲者・コーディネーターの月替わりのコラム(2021)

2021.11.05 Editor: E. L.

Editing to remove similaritym

Back in 2011, a medical journal where I was working was one of the first to introduce a check for similarity to previously published papers. Any paper that was accepted for publication was run through specialist software that rapidly searched ? via the internet ? thousands of articles in journals, books and web publications. The output was a report in which any sentences (whole or partial) that appeared to match previously written text were flagged up, providing an overall “similarity score”. Since then, more or less every science journal has adopted this type of software and articles showing high similarity scores or “plagiarism” are sent back to the author for revision, the idea being that novel research findings should be written in novel words.

Personally, I don’t like the word “plagiarism” because it suggests that the author has deliberately copied their own or others’ past work and so are cheating in some way. The reality is that for many researchers working in established fields and reporting findings that build on multiple previous data, it may be difficult not to repeat descriptions, especially in the introductory and methods section. In this case, it can help to use an editing service that checks and removes similarity by simple rephrasing. As well as saving time, this service may provide fresh ideas for writing, particularly for scientists who are looking to rephrase text from their own publications.

I think the similarity software used by journals is here to stay, but I often wonder whether eventually we will exhaust all new ways to express ourselves and it will be impossible to avoid at a least a little overlap with previous publications, especially in popular fields.

日本語訳は次へ↓

2021.10.23 Editor: L. J.

Plagiarism

Accusations of plagiarism are a really serious problem; to have it suggested that an author has stolen and violated another person’s work is a serious ethical offence in academia. When scientists write papers, however, they must include previously published work and it is very difficult to take a perfectly written, concise sentence and write it in a different format, retaining all of the information. Even when someone writes in their own language, rearranging sentences to say the same thing but in a different way is very complex, but the complexity is taken to a whole new level when writing in a foreign language. At NAI, we can check for similarity with previously published manuscripts, identify particular problem sentences and phrases and re-write them. We are aware of how crucial it is to retain the correct information when re-writing, so editors work closely with the authors to ensure the changes have not changed the meaning of the sentence. Reducing similarity can increase the likelihood of being accepted for publication and reduce the workload in getting the final draft of the manuscript ready.

The paragraph below is exactly the same as the first paragraph, except that the opening sentence has been removed ? just in case you think the plagiarism sentence is a bit over the top.

When scientists write papers they must include previously published work and comment on how this relates to their work. It is very difficult to take a perfectly written, concise sentence and write it in a different format, retaining all of the information. Even when someone writes in their own language, rearranging sentences to say the same thing but in a different way is very complex, but the complexity is taken to a whole new level when writing in a foreign language. At NAI, we can check for similarity with previously published manuscripts, identify particular problem sentences and phrases and re-write them. We are aware of how crucial it is to retain the correct information when re-writing, so editors work closely with the authors to ensure the changes have not changed the meaning of the sentence. Reducing similarity can increase the likelihood of being accepted for publication and reduce the workload in getting the final draft of the manuscript ready.

日本語訳は次へ↓

2021.06.02 Editor: G. M.

Choosing a Journal

Considering the large number of journals on offer in a given subject area, the selection of a target journal for an author is a daunting task. Several things need to be considered:

1. Impact factor: Choose a journal with an impact factor (IF) a bit higher than what an author thinks will accept their manuscript. If unsuccessful, an author can always submit to a journal with a lower IF. This allows the author to publish at the highest IF possible.
2. Existing relationship: If an author has had success in the past with publishing in a particular journal, they might consider continuing to send their articles to that journal (and ideally to the same handling editor).
3. Common journals: Authors should be aware of the journals colleagues publish in. They should take note of the names of journals that regularly come up in their reading of their subject area. These are the journals they should aim to submit to.
4. Journal lists: Several lists of journal names can be found online ranked by categories such as subject area, IF, and open access status, and are handy for choosing a journal. Scimago Journal & Country Rank is an example.
5. Ethics: Once chosen, each journal should be vetted for ethical standards. Check that a publisher belongs to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which defines best practice in the ethics of scholarly publishing. Some open-access scholarly publishers are predatory in that they behave unethically by not using impartial reviewers. Beall’s List should be consulted online to ensure a chosen publisher and journal are ethical.

日本語訳は次へ↓

2021.05.06 Editor: R. G.

The use of conjunctions in academic writing

Greetings. The subject of this column is the use of conjunctions in academic writing. So, what are conjunctions?

Coordinating conjunctions enable the writer to join words, phrases, and clauses of equal grammatical rank in a sentence. The most common coordinating conjunctions include for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so. These coordinative conjunctions can easily be remembered using the well-known mnemonic FANBOYS. An example of their use:

The oxidized compound was green. The reduced compound was red.

The oxidized compound was green, but the reduced compound was red.

The oxidized compound was green, and the reduced compound was red.

Note that the coordinating conjunction is often accompanied by a comma.

As an Editor for NAI, I am sometimes asked by authors whether it is acceptable to start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction. And, but and or are three of the most common such conjunctions used to start a sentence in informal writing (e.g. novels, newspaper articles etc.). However, informal writing is not always understood in the same way by every reader. Scientific papers are written in a formal style to avoid ambiguity. As such, I would not recommend using coordinating conjunctions at the start of a sentence when writing a scientific publication.

Correlative conjunctions are pairs of conjunctions that work together such as either/or, not only/but, neither/nor, both/and.

The enzyme was neither stable nor highly active.

The enzyme was both stable and highly active.

The enzyme was not only stable but highly active.

The choice of correlative conjunctions is often shaped by the precise point that the author wishes to emphasize together with writing style.

Subordinating conjunctions join a main clause and a subordinate clause. There are many subordinating conjunctions. Examples of subordinating conjunctions include as, that, whether, although, because, though, whenever and whereas.

The cells failed to divide because the drug was activated.

The cells failed to divide although the drug was activated.

The cells failed to divide whenever the drug was activated.

Compound conjunctions are conjunctions made up of several words, often ending with as, or that. A few examples are given here.

The reaction was quenched as soon as the solvent was added.

The pH must be maintained within a narrow range so that the cells survive.

Transesterification proceeded as long as the water activity remained low.

Although acceptable in English, for formal writing I would recommend avoiding compound conjunctions where a more concise phrasing can be used.

日本語訳は次へ↓

2021.04.02 Editor: K. K.

Tips for improving your manuscript

Greetings. I have been an NAI editor for the past 20 years. My specialties are the editing of chemistry publications and the recording of presentations for scientists to practice their English pronunciation and timing. For my first decade with NAI, I was a part-time college professor and tutor, but now I am a tenured full-time college faculty member. Here are a few grammar and style notes I often provide to NAI customers as well as my students. English is a truly challenging language, filled with rules and exceptions. I often remind my students and NAI Clients that their English is far better than my Japanese, and writing a scientific paper, in English, is very challenging!

While it is becoming more accepted to write in a less formal style, I am a traditionalist and remove all first-person statements (“I,” “we,” “the authors,” etc.) to improve the level of professionalism of the paper. While some view writing in third person as awkward, and I agree, in most instances it is obvious to the reader that the work is that of the authors. That is, there is no compelling reason to state that “the authors (or “we”) added 10 mL of acid to the flask” when the authors names are at the top of the article! It is far more professional to simply use the passive voice and state that “10 mL of acid were added to the flask.” The only exception to this rule is when the authors are discussing their own previously-published work. In that case, an article by Dr. Smith saying “we previously reported” is better than the third person statement “Smith, et al. previously reported.”

In English, the adjective typically precedes the noun (it is an attributive adjective; e.g.- a “blue shirt” is a “shirt which is blue”). There are cases where the past participle of a verb is used as an adjective, and it then follows the noun (it is a predicative adjective; e.g.- “the collected data” is used often, but is awkward/incorrect... “the data collected” implies “the data which was collected” and is far better? there is no compelling reason to use the awkward version.)

Compound words are hyphenated when used as adjectives (“temperature-dependent behavior”) but not when used as nouns (“the temperature dependence of the behavior”).

I provide my students with a checklist of common things to look for that can increase (or decrease!) the quality of their work, and these are the same issues I commonly see in NAI papers. Here is that list:

• Is your report your own work? Have you copied any of it from any other source? If so, is it properly referenced?
• Have you spell-checked your work?
• Have you grammar-checked your work?
• Have you read your work out loud? If it doesn’t make sense to you when you hear yourself say it, it won’t make sense to your reader!
• Have you verified the proper use of capitalization in your work?
• Does your work contain all of the sections required by your target journal’s “advice to authors?”
• Have you verified the correct verb tense in each section of your work?
• Have you verified the correct use of superscripts & subscripts in all formulas, equations, etc.?
• Is there redundancy, either within or between sections, in your work? Your goal is to tell a clear and concise story.
• Does your work contain the words “I,” “we,” “our,” “my,” “the authors,” “one,” etc.? Change those sentences to passive voice if at all possible unless you are referring to your own previously published work.
• Does your work contain possessives, contractions, or colloquialisms? Remove them.
• Does your work use correct abbreviations and symbols (“mL” not “ml,” “mol” not “mols,” etc.)?
• Does your work use the word “mass” or “weight” or “weighted” as a verb? Do not do so.
• Does your work use the word “machine” for “instrument” or the word “scale” for “balance?” Use the proper jargon.
• Does your work contain the words “in this experiment” or any equivalent thereof? This phrase is usually indicative of a new writer. It is the equivalent of saying “the subject of my book report is...” You can do better.
• Does your work state that an experiment was “done” or that a product was “made?” Again, while writing with a thesaurus to use unnecessarily complex words is not advised, you can do better.
• Is there redundancy, either within or between sections, in your work? (Annoying, isn’t it!)
• Does your work contain the word “create?” Keep in mind that in chemistry, nothing is created or destroyed. It’s a law. Change it to a more appropriate word.
• Does your work contain the word “aforementioned” or the phrase “previously prepared?” Your writing is either redundant or unnecessarily wordy.
• Does your work contain the phrases “cool down” or “pH level?” Neither of these is acceptable.
• Does your work contain the words “within” or “cleanse?” I don’t know why, but these are often misused. (Solutes are “in solution,” not “within the solution.” Glassware is “cleaned,” not “cleansed.”)
• Does your work contain a predicative adjective awkwardly used as an attributive adjective? (e.g., “examined the samples obtained” is correct, while “examined the obtained samples” is incorrect.)
• Does your work have all numbers expressed in correct scientific notation for modern typesetting? (e.g., 103 not 10E3 or 10^3)

By using these tips, I’ve seen students and authors whose work I’ve edited repeatedly over the years improve greatly.

日本語訳は次へ↓

2021.03.09 Editor: K. K.

Experience with remote classes during COVID-19.

Greetings. I have been an NAI editor for the past 20 years. My specialties are the editing of chemistry publications and the recording of presentations for scientists to practice their English pronunciation and timing.

For my first decade with NAI, I was a part-time college professor and tutor, but now I am a tenured full-time college faculty member. To say that the events of 2020 were unique would be an understatement.

Because I was the only member of my department to teach any classes online prior to March 2020, I provided a lot of technical support to my colleagues and helped our information technology department train faculty to quickly move their courses online. I was able to provide existing lecture videos, PowerPoint files, and other supplementary learning materials for more than two thirds of the classes we offer for my colleagues to use with their students during the rapid transition to online learning. As the Chairperson of my college’s eLearning Committee for 5 years, I reminded my colleagues (in and beyond my department), as well as the administrators of the college, that we were providing emergency distance education, not purposefully-designed online courses. Unfortunately, at my school and elsewhere, class sizes were maintained or increased versus the in-person size for the subsequent summer, fall, and this spring semester, and the faculty courseload was held constant while fundamentally all courses remained remote. It is well known that online course sizes and the number of online hours a faculty member teaches should be limited in order to ensure course quality. I published some of this information in a special issue of the Journal of Chemical Education.

While we have just begun to resume some in-person laboratory courses and research, until recently, all in-person research at our institution was put on hold. While my current research is strictly pedagogical, my colleagues involved in laboratory chemical research either had to devise literature or theoretical projects for their students, or suspend their programs. For faculty in the midst of the tenure and promotion process, this was yet another stressor added in the midst of the pandemic. (At my university, faculty have been allowed an extension on the review process at their request.) Finally, my campus is located in Queens, New York City, which for quite some time was the epicenter of the pandemic. The actions and inaction of our federal government was fodder for news outlets around the world, unfortunately. Our already underserved students were especially hard hit, and taking this into account (while at the same time dealing with distressing academic integrity issues) was quite challenging.

We are hopeful that we will have more in-person laboratory courses taught on campus in the fall semester, as there is no substitute for the psychomotor learning that comes from actually being in the lab. Current plans, which rely on vaccine distribution and testing statistics, are for us to have students return to some of our upper-level labs on alternate weeks to maintain only 50% occupancy in the labs. Lectures will remain online. We also hope that faculty who are willing and able to return to campus can resume their research programs. More than anything else, we hope for some semblance of a return to normalcy, and I’m sure that desire is shared by everyone.

日本語訳は次へ↓

2021.02.03 Editor: F.J.

Verb Tense in English Scientific Writing

As an NAI Editor for the past 20 years, I have encountered many instances of verb tense errors in manuscripts written by scientists whose native language is not English. While these errors may not seem critical, they can introduce imprecise interpretations of the author's intent by the readers.

The proper use of verb tense in English scientific writing is critical to convey detailed information in a clear and organized fashion. Verb tense varies between standard scientific manuscript sections as the methods were used and the results were obtained, but the results are interpreted.

In the methods section, the author describes procedures and reagents that were used to obtain the results (e.g., "We used the following primers...").

Similarly, in the Results section, the author describes the outcomes of those experiments that were performed (e.g., "PCR analysis showed that...").

In both of these sections, the author is dealing with events that were performed in the past and that have been completed.

In contrast, the Discussion section outlines interpretations and conclusions that result from the experiments.

The interpretation and conclusions are written in the present tense because they continue to be valid regardless of time (e.g., "Our results suggest...." rather than "Our results suggested...").

While verb tense in the English language can become complex with its different forms (i.e., Future Perfect, etc.), the basic pattern observed in the scientific literature, as described, above can help organize all types of scientific manuscripts from reviews to original reports.

The American Medical Association Manual of Style (11th Edition) provides a concise explanation of verb tense and its usage.

日本語訳は次へ↓