Collaborative Science Writing Guide IBETMs.

Orser

Now that you have written the Critter Paper and you are ready to gather each team members critter section
into one uber critter section for the teams paper, you will need to work collaboratively for the best outcome
for your team and for the individuals on the team. Furthermore, when your team gets ready to create other
sections of the paper (IV section, DV section, Methods, technology, Discussion, etc.), we expect you to work
and write collaboratively.

BUT, WHY?
1) Ethical rationale: The teams final IBET Paper should reflect all team members research, ideas, and
writing skills. You cannot accomplish this goal without working and writing collaboratively. It is not
everyones paper if everyone did not contribute in equitable ways to the research, ideas, and writing.
2) Educational rationale: We are developing as researchers and writers who can work effectively and
successfully in teams. The more practice each team member gets in research, experimentation, and
writing, the more each team member will develop those skills to a high level of proficiency and
expertise.
3) Performance rationale: When a group works together as a team by proposing ideas (drafts) and then
discussing to build on those ideas, the team is much more likely to be successful in the short and long
term. A team builds on each others ideas; an individual has nothing to build upon.

Cooperation (divide and conquer method) is expedient in the short term but detrimental in the long term;
however, collaboration (working together) is, yes, messier and takes longer, but results in a better process,
better learning, and better product for all involved in our research community. Your end goal is not success in
9
th
grade, right? We hope your goals are to create an excellent product now as well as learn the skills of good
science writing and teaming along the way so that you can bring those superior skills into your future
academic and professional lives. Conscientiously collaborate with this purpose at the forefront.

OKAY, SO HOW? Use the critter section writing we did through English as a loose model for any Background
section:
Begin with individual research gathering



Share research findings



Team members should write drafts of the entire section



Share individual team members drafts and hold revision discussions as a team
(see Discussion Questions attached)



Create the team draft according to the revision discussion agreements
(here is one acceptable time for divide and conquer: 1-2 people on the team may take this role)



Share with the rest of the team for approval and further changes
(here is another: 1-2 other people on the team may take the role of the readers of the revised draft)
OKAY, SO HOW (AGAIN)? Use this modified chart as a model for any section other than the Background
section, like Methods or Discussion, for example:

Begin with a team discussion in which you agree on data, Method implications, etc. that will go in the section.
Each team member should take notes that will then go into the draft writing.



Team members should write drafts of the entire section based on team data



Share individual team members drafts and hold revision discussions as a team
(see Discussion Questions attached)



Create the team draft according to the revision discussion agreements
(here is one acceptable time for divide and conquer: 1-2 people on the team may take this role)



Share with the rest of the team for approval and further changes
(here is another: 1-2 other people on the team may take the role of the readers of the revised draft)





























Collaborative Science Writing IBETMs. Orser
Revision Discussion Guidelines and Questions

DIRECTIONS: Begin by passing out copies of the drafts and have your primary and secondary articles available. Read
the drafts and mark places where you wish to discuss (not corrections, but write questions, star excellent information,
underline well-constructed sentences, put arrows next to descriptive language, etc.) Then, focusing on the standards
and questions below, conduct a discussion on each question, referencing each team members draft. Someone should
record notes during the discussion (you might have a rotating secretary). Use the questions that relate to the section
of the paper you are discussing and revising.

CONTENT AND COMPOSITION STANDARDS AND QUESTIONS:

1) Source Quality (Background sections: Critter, IV, DV sections; Technology section)
Are all sources from peer-reviewed database sources? Do any sources come from internet, open
source, or non-database sources? Are there any anonymous sources? Are only full-text articles cited
(never from abstracts)?

2) Content Relevance, Specificity, and Synthesis (Background and Technology sections)
Is each paragraph synthesized? To what extent? Which paragraphs need more thorough synthesis?
(Count citation author namesdoes each paragraph have at least 3, if not more?)

How clear and thorough are the explanations? Will your audience (a Ms. Orserish entity)
understand them? Has the author done the work necessary to help the reader understand? Are all
explanations ethically paraphrased? Are all indirect quotes put into the authors own words?

Are all scientific terms defined and defined clearly? Are they defined, whenever possible, as part of
the sentence itself? Do authors avoid putting definitions in parentheses? Which terms still need
defining? Underline them.

3) Relevance and Hook (Background Introduction)
Does the introduction paragraph make the case for relevance clearly and persuasively? Has the
project been placed in a current, relevant medical or environmental context? Has the introduction
made good use of description or another compelling technique to get the readers attention? Does the
very first sentence hook the reader, tying directly into the medical or environmental context and
making the reader care about the implications of the project?

4) Descriptive Language (Background, Discussion, and Technology sections)
Look at moments in each draft where the author used description and analogies and metaphors to
make images and concepts clear to the reader. Identify the descriptive language (language that
demonstrates the five senses) and comparisons (what is the metaphor?) in each draft. Which are the
strongest? Discuss the degree of success of each moment. Where is there potential and need for
additional moments of description and comparisons? Where in the current description and
comparisons can the language and connection be stronger?

5) Active Voice (Background, Discussion, and Technology sections)
Locate all passive voice in each draft. Shake your head slowly from side to side while looking the
author in the eye.... Review as a team how to change passive into active. (You may use passive
voice in the Methods section only.)

6) Clear, Concise Syntax (all sections)
Mark places where the language is especially clear and sentences are particularly well constructed.
Also mark places where the language is verbose, convoluted, and pompous or just disorganized.
Where do sentences go on and on? Where do sentences not make sense? Where have authors not
communicated effectively? Where has the author used many words where fewer or one would make
the sentence clearer and cleaner?

7) Varied Sentence Structure and Transition Words (all sections)
Where are examples in each draft of well created paragraphs containing varied sentence structure?
Where are examples in each draft of subject + verb + object sentence constructions, one after the
other? Mark places in each draft where transition words link ideas within paragraphs. Mark places
where transition words are absent.

8) Precise Diction and Strong Verbs (all sections)
Where do you see particularly well chosen language and strong verbs? Mark all dead words for
replacement. Mark all weak verbs (to be, to have, to put, to do, etc.) for revision.

9) Tense (all sections)
If you are looking at a Background section, check to be sure all verbs are in the present tense. If you
are in the Methods or Results section, check to be sure all verbs are in the past tense. Mark all that
need editing.

10) Get rid of (all sections)
Look for each of these elements that do not conform to the conventions of scientific voice:
No 1
st
(I, we, our, my) or 2
nd
person (you, yours, commands, yall )
Do not start sentences with There is, There are, It, and This
Do not use words it and this
Capitalized chemical names (they should be capitalized)
Correctly formatted scientific names (Genus species)
Numbers < 20 should be spelled out (thirteen)
Numbers 20 should be written as Arabic numerals (284)
Do not use ANY contractions
Do not use non words (critter, macro, micro, DV, IV)
Do not use colloquial language and clichs

11) Topic Sentences (Background, Technology, and Discussion sections)
In each Background section and the Discussion, does each paragraph have a strong topic sentence?
Mark where they are missing, do not introduce the topic of the full paragraph, or contains new/should
be cited information.

12) Transition/Conclusion sentences (Background, Technology, and Discussion sections)
In each Background section and the Discussion, does each paragraph have a strong
transition/conclusion sentence? Mark where they are missing, do not conclude the topic of the full
paragraph, do not provide a content transition to the next paragraph, or contains new/should be cited
information.

13) Paragraphing (all sections)
Are all paragraphs devoted to one and only one topic? Is there any information that does not belong in
a specific paragraph that needs reorganizing?

14) APA Citation (all sections)
Are all in-text citations correct according to APA guidelines? Are all bibliographic citations correct?
Is the References page properly formatted?