Cómo Escribir un Artículo Científico (Humor)

No me preguntéis qué link llevo a otro link que… dando una vueltecilla por internet, me he tropezado con Eric Schulman’s Science Humor Webpage, la página web de un señor que por lo visto se ha dedicado a lo grande a escribir de ciencia, pero en plan cachondeo.

Hoy os cuelgo “How to Write a Scientific Paper“, que no tiene desperdicio

1. Introduction
Scientific papers (e.g., Schulman 1988; Schulman & Fomalont 1992; Schulman, Bregman, & Roberts 1994; Schulman & Bregman 1995; Schulman 1996) are an important–though poorly understood–method of publication. They are important because without them scientists cannot get money from the government or from universities. They are poorly understood because they are not written very well (see, for example, Schulman 1995 and selected references therein). An excellent example of the latter phenomenon occurs in most introductions, which are supposed to introduce the reader to the subject so that the paper will be comprehensible even if the reader has not done any work in the field.
The real purpose of introductions, of course, is to cite your own work (e.g., Schulman et al. 1993a), the work of your advisor (e.g., Bregman, Schulman, & Tomisaka 1995), the work of your spouse (e.g., Cox, Schulman, & Bregman 1993), the work of a friend from college (e.g., Taylor, Morris, & Schulman 1993), or even the work of someone you’ve never met, as long as your name happens to be on the paper (e.g., Richmond et al. 1994). Note that these citations should not be limited to refereed journal articles (e.g., Collura et al. 1994), but should also include conference proceedings (e.g., Schulman et al. 1993b), and other published or unpublished work (e.g., Schulman 1990).
At the end of the introduction you must summarize the paper by reciting the section headings. In this paper, we discuss scientific research (section 2), scientific writing (section 3), scientific publication (section 4), and draw some conclusions (section 5).

2. Scientific Research
The purpose of science is to get paid for doing fun stuff (Schulman et al. 1991). Nominally, science involves discovering something new about the Universe, but this isn’t really necessary. What is really necessary is a grant. In order to obtain a grant, your application must state that the research will discover something incredibly fundamental. The grant agency must also believe that you are the best person to do this particular research, so you should cite yourself both early (Schulman 1994) and often (Schulman et al. 1993c). Feel free to cite other papers as well (e.g., Blakeslee et al. 1993; Levine et al. 1993), so long as you are on the author list.
Once you get the grant, your university, company, or government agency will immediately take 30 to 70% of it so that they can heat the building, pay for Internet connections, and purchase large yachts.
Now it’s time for the actual research. You will quickly find out that (a) your project is not as simple as you thought it would be and (b) you can’t actually solve the problem. However — and this is very important — you must publish anyway (Schulman & Bregman 1994).

3. Scientific Writing
You’ve spent years on a project and have finally discovered that you can’t solve the problem you set out to solve. Nonetheless, you have a responsibility to present your research to the scientific community (Schulman et al. 1993d). Be aware that negative results can be just as important as positive results, and also that if you don’t publish enough you’ll never be able to stay in science.
While writing a scientific paper, the most important thing to remember is that the word “which” should almost never be used. Be sure to spend at least 50% of your time (i.e., 12 hours a day) typesetting the paper so that all the tables look nice (Schulman & Bregman 1992).

4. Scientific Publishing
You’ve written the paper, and now it’s time to submit it to a scientific journal. The journal editor will pick the referee most likely to be offended by your paper, because then at least the referee will read it and get a report back within the lifetime of the editor. Referees who don’t care one way or the other about a paper have a tendency to leave manuscripts under a growing pile of paper until the floor collapses, killing the 27 English graduate students who share the office below (Schulman, Cox, & Williams 1993).
Be aware that every scientific paper contains serious errors. If your errors are not caught before publication, you’ll eventually have to write an erratum to the paper explaining (a) how and why you messed up and (b) that even though your experimental results are now totally different, your conclusions need not be changed. Errata can be good for your career. They are easy to write, and the convention is to reference them as if they were real papers, leading the casual reader–and perhaps also the Science Citation Index–to think that you’ve published more papers than you really have (Schulman et al. 1994).

5. Conclusions
The conclusion section is very easy to write: all you have to do is to take your abstract and change the tense from present to past. It’s considered good form to mention at least one relevant theory only in the abstract and conclusion. By doing this, you don’t have to say why your experiment does (or does not) agree with the theory, you merely have to state that it does (or does not).
We (meaning I) presented observations on the scientific publishing process which (meaning that) are important and timely in that unless I have more published papers soon, I will never get another job. These observations are consistent with the theory that it is difficult to do good science, write good scientific papers, and have enough publications to get future jobs.

Me hubiera gustado tener a mano el artículo científico de Caperucita Roja, pero mira que lo he buscado estos días y me temo que lo he perdido…

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This entry was posted in Ciencia, Mundo Freak. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Cómo Escribir un Artículo Científico (Humor)

  1. Chusa says:

    jaja, muy bueno.

  2. EC-JPR says:

    jejeje Me encanta el critero de elección de árbitro: alguno que se vaya a enervar, porque entonces al menos él se lo leerá :D

  3. Sophie says:

    Plasplasplas, bravoooo xD Qué pechá de reír me he pegado, chiquillo, qué bueno, jajqaja :lol: Por favor, encuentra YA el artículo científico de Caperucita Roja, jajaja :D

  4. sonicando says:

    @Chusa: Pues mira en el link que el tio tiene muchas cosas escritas, igual o más salás, supongo.

    @EC-JPR: Para mí es el mejor punto de todo el texto xD

    @Sophie: A ver si lo encuentro, que es cojonudo. La hipótesis de trabajo era demostrar si el lobo feroz ataba a caperucita roja por la vía clásica o la vía alternativa ;) imaginate…

  5. EC-JPR says:

    JAJAJAJA ¡¡Encuéntralo, encuéntralo!! :mrgreen:

  6. Ex Boyfriend says:

    Not that I’m totally impressed, but this is a lot more than I expected for when I stumpled upon a link on Digg telling that the info here is quite decent. Thanks.

  7. After reading the article, I just feel that I need more info. Could you suggest some more resources please?

  8. nhrztojtyt says:

    3zARc5 wwgwfioiuuaz, [url=http://avqitdkwhsem.com/]avqitdkwhsem[/url], [link=http://ekwtpwhvgauo.com/]ekwtpwhvgauo[/link], http://szaeefzcbtef.com/

  9. Sebastian Ewoldt says:

    Saludos.
    Mi nombre es Sebastian Ewoldt, y creo que el trabajo de Caperucita al que se refieren es “Lobo feroz induce a Caperucita por la vía larga, mientras éste se transporta a través de la vía corta, produciendo fagocitosis de abuelita y caperucita, las cuales son rescatadas de este destino por cazador.”, un trabajo que escribí hace algunos años y que no tengo muy claro cómo llegó a hacerse conocido.
    Una prueba más de que los hombres de ciencia tuvimos una infancia feliz.
    El sitio oficial del paper es http://escuela.med.puc.cl/alumnos/segundo/ewoldtetal.pdf

    Muchísimas gracias por el interés despertado.
    Un saludo desde Chie.

  10. JallDiagith says:

    Sick and tired of getting low numbers of useless visitors to your website? Well i want to let you know about a fresh underground tactic that makes myself $900 on a daily basis on 100% AUTOPILOT. I could be here all day and going into detail but why dont you simply check their site out? There is a great video that explains everything. So if your serious about making effortless money this is the website for you. http://www.autotraffic-avalanche.org

  11. lupita says:

    quien me pasa el cuento este de caperucita roja en reporte cientifico??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>