Quality and integrity in scientific writing: Prerequisites for quality in science communication

Journal of Science Communication

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2009, Pages

  Roland, Marie Claude ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952914007     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18242049     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.22323/2.08020204     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. J. Gregory and S. Miller. (1998), Science in Public, Basic Books (1998), page 26.
2. M.C. Roland. (2007), Publish and Perish: hedging and fraud in scientific discourse, EMBO reports vol. 8 n. 5.
3. th Century to the Present, Oxford University Press.
4. See note 2
5. European Commission (2008), EUR 23334 - Public Engagement in Science, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 60 pp
6. Directorate-General for Research, European Commission (2007), Scientific research in the Media, Special Eurobarometer282/Wave67.2, TNS Opinion & Social.
7. M.C. Roland. (1995), Analysis of researchers' writing practices, PhD Thesis, University of Grenoble III, France (the thesis can be accessed at www.reflexives-lpr.org).
8. L.P. Schmelkin. (2003), Peer review: Standard or delusion?, Division 5 Presidential Address delivered at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Aug. 2003.
9. American National Standard Institute (1979), American National Standard for Writing abstracts, ANSI Z 39, 14-1979; American National Standard for the Preparation of Scientific Papers for written and oral presentation, ANSI Z 39, 16-1979
10. Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR) (2001), Démarche Qualité en recherche: principes généraux et recommandations, Indice de classement X50-550
11. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (1978), Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication, Updated October 2007, http://www.icmje.org/.
12. S.L. Montgomery. (2003), The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science, The University of Chicago Press.
13. rd edition, Cambridge University Press.
14. See note 9
15. See note 9
16. See note 12
17. M. Young. (1991), The Technical Writer's Handbook, University Science Books, Mill Valley CA.
18. G. Pérec. (1980), Experimental Demonstration of the tomatotopic organization in the soprano (Cantatrix sopranica L.), first published in Banana Split n°2, June 1980, available in SubStance 9(29), No. 4: 37-45, University of Wisconsin Press.
19. See note 7
20. See note 7
21. M.C. Roland. (2006), The Changing Paradigm of Science Communication: Challenges for researchers, From a "deficit" model to a "democratic" model in Claessens M (under the direction of) CER 2005 Proceedings, Springer.
22. See note 2
23. K. Hyland. (1998), Hedging in Scientific Articles, Pragmatic & Beyond New Series, John Bejamins Publishing Company.
24. See note 3, chapter 8
25. See note 3, pp 166-169
26. See note 12
27. See note 2
28. See note 8
29. R. Agarwal, R. Echambadi, A.M. Franco and M.B. Sarkhar. (2006), Reap rewards: maximising benefits from reviewer comments, Academy of Management Journal 49(2): 191-195.
30. S.E. Seibert. (2006), Anatomy of an R&R (or, Reviewers are an Author's Best Friends...), Academy of Management Journal 49(2): 203-207.
31. See note 30, page 205
32. F. Davidoff. (1998), Masking, blinding, and peer review: The blind leading the blinded, Ann Intern Med, 128: 66-8.
33. See note 13
34. See note 21
35. See note 7
36. See note 13
37. P.A. Lawrence and M. Locke. (1997), A man for our season, Nature 386, 757.