2 mg/litre has to be met, the dosing ratio can be lower; 1:1.00 would be a suitable ratio. Th is optimum ratio is much lower than for other precipitants and processes. For example, the use of alum for phosphorus removal in aerated lagoons required a dosing ratio of 2.80:1 (weight ratio AI:P). Th is dose produced a 90% reduction of phosphorus on an average infl uent concentration of 4.80 mg/litre (Narasiah et al., 1991). Th e addition of ferric chloride to the aeration basin of an activated sludge plant rarely achieved 0.5 mg/litre phosphorus concentrations in the effl uent with weight ratios as high as 5.4:1 (Fe:P) (Wurhmann, 1968). Finally, the addition of sodium aluminate to the aeration basin of an activated sludge plant required doses of 1.7:1 (weight ratio AI:P) to produce a fi nal effl uent concentration of 1.5 mg/litre (Barth et al., 1968). In accordance with previous fi ndings (Stensel et al., 1988), chemical dosing had no signifi cant eff ect on headloss during operation of the BAF, even at the higher chemical doses. Further research investigating the eff ects of chemical dosing on full-scale BAFs may be benefi cial. Th e use of ferrous salts for phosphorus removal has produced good results on a pilot-scale plant. Full- scale chemical dosing with these salts has been practised for
Discussion/Conclusion — Writing Task 183 many years in Finland and Switzerland with similarly good results (Bundegaard and Th olander, 1978). Generalized thermodynamic perturbation theory for polyatomic fl uid mixtures. I. Formulation and results for chemical potentials VIII. CONCLUSIONS We have derived (Sec. III) exact results relating certain background pair correlation functions in a mixture to β∆µe. Th is derivation makes contact with earlier results obtained by us,13,14 and clarifi es, makes rigourous, and extends the approach of Stell and Zhou.4–7 Th e results hold for mixtures of arbitrary compositions and for both FHS and non-FHS systems. We have used thermodynamic arguments to develop a general EOS for mixtures of polyatomic molecules and their constituent atoms (Sec. IV), based solely on the ideal-associated solution approximation (IASA). When the exact result for β∆µe from Sec. III is incorporated, this theory can be seen to be a generalization of the fi rst-order thermodynamic perturbation theory of Wertheim,2 originally developed for tangent fused- hard-sphere mixtures. One form of this theory is based upon and requires for its implementation only thermodynamic information for the reference mixture, and the alternative form requires structural information for the reference system in the form of the background correlation function y*(1, 2, ... , m). Since information of the latter kind is very diffi cult to obtain (apart from the diatomic case), we generally advocate use of the former form of the theory. We note that the generalized theory accounts for diff erences in structural isomers of polymeric species, unlike other approaches.17 We have demonstrated that alternative implementations of the generalized EOS for fused-hard-sphere systems produce slightly diff erent results, depending on the way in which certain quantities are calculated (Sec. V). We showed that, for bonded- hard-sphere (BHS) systems, the thermodynamically based
184 Science Research Writing implementation yields results identical to those obtained by using the Boublik–Nezbeda equation of state,8 and the alternative based upon structural information yields similar, but not exact, results. Th is sheds light on the reason for the accuracy of results obtained by previous implementations of TPT1 for diatomic systems.2,9,6 We have derived expressions for the excess chemical potentials, consistent with the generalized EOS, for the components of mixtures of homonuclear polyatomic molecules and their constituent atoms (Sec. VI). Since the TPT and its generalizations have the practical drawback of requiring information concerning the properties of a reference mixture system, approximations implementable requiring only accurate knowledge of pure systems are more feasible. We have tested the results of the Lewis–Randall rule approximation10 against those of other approximations and against some exact and near-exact results. It produces good results overall. We have presented new and more accurate results for the individual βµe and for β∆µe for the system of tangent diatomic FHS molecules with size ratio 0.6 (System B), using both conventional NVT Monte Carlo simulations and the reaction ensemble method.11 For this system, the simulation results show that β∆µe is essentially independent of composition. Th e BN EOS was found to predict that β∆µe is exactly independent of composition. We conjecture that this result holds for all BHS systems. Th is result is in agreement with the fundamental approximation of the IASA. Optimal local discrimination of two multipartite pure states 7. Conclusion We have demonstrated that any two multipartite pure states can be inconclusively discriminated optimally using only local operations. We have also shown that this is possible for certain mixed states and certain regimes of conclusive discrimination. We then turned our attention to fi nding sets of entangled states that can be recreated locally, thus allowing any global discrimination fi gure of merit to be achieved locally. We fi nd that this is true for
Discussion/Conclusion — Writing Task 185 the Schmidt correlated states, and, as a consequence, this is also for any two maximally entangled states. It would be interesting to know if there are many other states which can be locally recreated using other techniques. If this can be shown to apply to any two pure states, then we would know that two pure states can be distinguished optimally under any fi gure of merit using only local operations. Organic vapour phase deposition: a new method for the growth of organic thin fi lms with large optical non-linearities 4. Conclusions In summary, we have presented a new technique, organic vapour phase deposition, for the growth of extremely pure, strongly NLO- active fi lms of DAST via the chemical reaction of two organic vapors in a hot-wall reactor. Analysis of the fi lms by NMR, X-ray diff raction and second harmonic generation effi ciency indicates that they are chemically pure, crystalline, and exist in the monoclinic structure which has previously been shown to exhibit very large second- order non-linear optical eff ects. By using diff erent reactants, and with the appropriate combinations of bubblers and solid sources, OVPD can be applied to yield thin fi lms of many diff erent highly polar, NLP-active organic and organometallic salts, regardless of the high vapour pressures of the materials involved. To our knowledge, growth of such compounds has not previously been possible by established methods of thin fi lm growth. We expect this technique to open up an entirely new range of materials and numerous novel photonic device applications. Now do the same in your target articles. We hope you obtain good confi rmation of the model and can now answer the three questions at the beginning of this section: • How do I start this section? What type of sentence should I begin with?
186 Science Research Writing • What type of information should be in this section, and in what order? • How do I end this section? 4.4 Vocabulary In order to complete the information you need to write this section of your paper you now need to fi nd appropriate vocabulary for each part of the model. Th e vocabulary in this section is taken from over 600 research articles in diff erent fi elds, all of which were written by native speakers and published in science journals. Only words/phrases which appear frequently have been included; this means that the vocabulary lists contain words and phrases which are considered normal and acceptable by both writers and editors. In the next section we will look at vocabulary for the following areas of the model, apart from: 1. REVISITING PREVIOUS SECTIONS 2. SUMMARISING/REVISITING KEY RESULTS 3. REFINING THE IMPLICATION/S Since most of the vocabulary you need for these can be found in previous sections, there is no need here for additional vocabulary input; you can refer back to the vocabulary sections in the units on Introductions, Materials/ Methods and Results to fi nd the appropriate language. When you are REFINING THE IMPLICATIONS, use the appropriate language from the IMPLICATIONS vocabulary in the Results section and avoid conclusions and implications which are not fully supported by your data. 4. MAPPING (RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING RESEARCH) Th is includes ways to show the reader where your contribution fi ts into the general research picture. Phrases like consistent with and provides support for are common here. 5. ACHIEVEMENT/CONTRIBUTION Your achievement/contribution is oft en stated in the Present Perfect, especially when you refer to it in the Conclusion. Sentences which begin We have demonstrated/described/investigated/developed/shown/studied/ focused on etc. are common here.
Discussion/Conclusion — Vocabulary 187 6. LIMITATIONS/CURRENT AND FUTURE WORK Th ese oft en occur very close to each other (sometimes even in the same sentence) because the limitations of the present work provide directions and suggestions for future work. Vocabulary to describe LIMITATIONS can be found in previous sections; vocabulary for FUTURE WORK includes phrases such as should be replicated and further work is needed. 7. APPLICATIONS Your work may not have any direct or even indirect applications, but if it does, they are mentioned here. Relevant phrases include have potential and may eventually lead to. Including APPLICATIONS lets you show the value of your work beyond the narrow aims of your specifi c research questions. Both APPLICATIONS and FUTURE WORK provide an interface between your research article and the rest of the world and are therefore conventional ways of ending the research article. 4.4.1 Vocabulary task Look through the Discussions/Conclusions in this unit and in your target articles. Underline or highlight all the words and phrases that you think could be used in the seven areas above. A full list of useful language can be found on the following pages. Th is includes all the words and phrases you highlighted along with some other common ones. Read through them and check the meaning of any you don't know in the dictionary. Th is list will be useful for many years. 4.4.2 Vocabulary for the Discussion/Conclusion 1. REVISITING PREVIOUS SECTIONS 2. SUMMARISING/REVISITING KEY RESULTS 3. REFINING THE IMPLICATIONS When you revisit these sections, don't change the words in the sentences unnecessarily; your aim is to create an 'echo' that will remind the reader of what you said before, so repeating the same words and phrases is advantageous. If you begin by revisiting the Materials/Methods or the Introduction, you will probably also want to summarise or revisit important results in
188 Science Research Writing the Discussion/Conclusion. Your results are the key evidence in support of your conclusions, and it is helpful to keep these results clearly in your reader's view. 4. MAPPING (RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING RESEARCH) Th e selection of names and studies appearing in the Discussion/Conclusion is very signifi cant to your reader; they need to be able to group research projects together and understand how your study relates to and is diff erent from existing research. You should identify your 'product' in terms of the research 'market'. You may also compare the work/approach of other researchers with yours in order to validate your work — or discredit theirs. Th is/Our study/method/result/ approach is: analogous to comparable to compatible with consistent with identical (to) in contradiction to in contrast to in good agreement (with) in line with signifi cantly diff erent (to/from) the fi rst of its kind (very/remarkably) similar (to) unlike Th is/Our study: broadens challenges compares well (with) confi rms contradicts corresponds to corroborates diff ers (from) extends expands goes against lends support to mirrors modifi es proves provides insight into provides support for refutes supports tends to refute verify
Discussion/Conclusion — Vocabulary 189 Note: Don't forget that a simple comparative (e.g. stronger/more accurate/ quicker etc.) is an eff ective way to highlight the diff erence between your work and other relevant work. • To the knowledge of the authors, the data in Figs. 4–6 is the fi rst of its kind. • Th e results of this simulation therefore challenge Laskay's assumption that percentage porosity increases with increasing Mg levels. • Th e GMD method provides results that are comparable to existing clay hydration processes. • Similar fi lms on gold nanoparticles have also been found to be liquid-like. • Using this multi-grid solver, load information is propagated faster through the mesh. • Our results are in general agreement with previous morphometric and DNA incorporation studies in the rat [2.6]. • Our current fi ndings expand prior work.5 • Th e system described in this paper is far less sensitive to vibration or mechanical path changes than previous systems. • Unlike McGowan, we did not identify 9-cis RA in the mouse lung. 5. ACHIEVEMENT/CONTRIBUTION As you know, science writing does not generally permit the use of the exclamation mark (!), but the vocabulary used to state your achievement or contribution can still communicate that the achievement is exciting. Th e vocabulary list has therefore been divided into two sections; the fi rst is a list of !-substitutes, which can be used when the achievement is very exciting, and the second is a list of slightly 'cooler' — but still positive — language. !-substitutions compelling crucial dramatic excellent exceptional exciting overwhelming perfect powerful remarkable striking surprising
190 Science Research Writing Positive language extraordinary ideal invaluable outstanding undeniable unique unusual unprecedented vital accurate advantage appropriate attractive benefi cial better clear comprehensive convenient convincing correct cost-eff ective easy eff ective effi cient encouraging evident exact feasible fl exible important low-cost novel productive realistic relevant robust Useful verbs: assist compare well with confi rm could lead to enable enhance ensure facilitate help to improve is able to off er an understanding of outperform prove provide a framework provide insight into provide the fi rst evidence remove the need for represent a new approach to reveal rule out solve succeed in support yield
Discussion/Conclusion — Vocabulary 191 • Th e presence of such high levels is a novel fi nding. • We identify dramatically diff erent profi les in adult lungs. • Our results provide compelling evidence that this facilitated infection. • Th ese preliminary results demonstrate the feasibility of using hologram- based RI detectors. • Our data rule out the possibility that this behaviour was a result of neurological abnormality. • Th e system presented here is a cost-eff ective detection protocol. • A straightforward analysis procedure was presented which enables the accurate prediction of column behaviour. • Our study provides the framework for future studies to assess the performance characteristics. • We have made the surprising observation that Bro1-GFP focus accumulation is also pH-dependent. • We have derived exact analytic expressions for the percolation threshold. • Our results provide a clear distinction between the functions of the pathway proteins. 6. LIMITATIONS/CURRENT AND FUTURE RESEARCH You will normally outline the limitations of your own work, but this is not expressed as a problem with your work, rather it provides suggestions for simple stable straightforward strong successful superior undeniable useful valid valuable
192 Science Research Writing future work. Th is invitation to the research community improves the status of your work by communicating that there is much research to be done in this area. Note that using will or the Present Continuous (e.g. we will integrate/we are integrating this technique with the FEM implementations) communicates your own intentions or work in progress; should is used to invite research from others (Th is technique should be integrated with the FEM implementations). • Our results are encouraging and should be validated in a larger cohort of women. • However, the neural mechanisms underlying these eff ects remain to be determined. • Th is fi nding is promising and should be explored with other eukaryotes. • Future work should focus on the effi cacy of ligands synthesised in the Long group. • An important question for future studies is to determine the antidepressant eff ects of such drugs. a/the need for at present encouraging fruitful further investigations further work is needed further work is planned future work/studies should future work/studies will in future, care should be taken in future, it is advised that... holds promise interesting it would be benefi cial/useful possible direction promising recommend remain to be (identifi ed) research opportunities should be explored should be replicated should be validated should be verifi ed starting point the next stage urgent worthwhile
Discussion/Conclusion — Writing a Discussion/Conclusion 193 7. APPLICATIONS/APPLICABILITY/IMPLEMENTATION Research work does not always have a clear application. However, in some cases it is clear how the work can be used, particularly if your project has resulted in a device or product of some kind. In such cases, you should indicate possible applications or applicability, and in many cases this can be derived from points made earlier in the Introduction. Don't forget to use modal verbs such as could, should and may. • Our technique can be applied to a wide range of simulation applications. • Th e PARSEX reactor therefore could be used for the realistic testing of a wide range of control algorithms. • It should be possible, therefore, to integrate the HOE onto a microchip. • Th is approach has potential in areas such as fl uid density measurement. • Th e solution method could be applied without diffi culty to irregularly- shaped slabs. • Our results mean that in dipping reservoirs, compositional gradients can now be produced very quickly. • Th is could eventually lead to the identifi cation of novel biomarkers. 4.5 Writing a Discussion/Conclusion In the next task, you will bring together and use all the information in this unit. You will write a Discussion/Conclusion according to the model, using the grammar and vocabulary you have learned, so make sure that you have eventually in future soon possible apply have potential implement lead to produce use utilise
194 Science Research Writing both the model (Section 4.3.3) and the vocabulary (Section 4.4) in front of you. In this unit you have seen the conventional model of the Discussion/ Conclusion and the vocabulary conventionally used has been collected. Remember that when you write, your sentence patterns should also be conventional, so use the sentence patterns you have seen in the Discussions/ Conclusions in this unit and in your target articles as models for the sentence patterns in your writing. Follow the model exactly this time, and in future, use it to check the Discussion/Conclusion of your work so that you can be sure that the information is in an appropriate order and that you have done what your readers expect you to do in this section. Although a model answer is provided in the Key, you should try to have your own answer checked by a native speaker of English if possible, to make sure that you are using the vocabulary correctly. 4.5.1 Write a Discussion/Conclusion Imagine that you and your team have designed a machine which can remove chewing gum from fl oors and pavements by treating the gum chemically to transform it into powder and then using vacuum suction to remove it. In the Introduction, you began by saying that chewing-gum removal is a signifi cant environmental problem. You then provided factual information about the composition of chewing gum1,2 and the way in which it sticks to the fl oor.6 Aft er that, you looked at existing chewing-gum removal machines3,4 and noted that research has shown they are unable to use suction to remove gum without damaging the fl oor surface.10 You referred to Gumbo et al., who claimed that it was possible to use chemicals to dissolve chewing gum.5 At the end of the Introduction you announced that you and your research team had designed a chewing gum removal machine (CGRM), which you call GumGone. GumGone sprays a non- toxic chemical onto the gum which transforms it to white powder. Th e machine can then remove the gum using suction without damaging the fl oor surface. In the Methodology you described the design and construction of the machine. You compared your CGRM, GumGone, to two existing machines, Gumsucker3 and Vacu-Gum.4 You then gave details of a set of
Discussion/Conclusion — Writing a Discussion/Conclusion 195 trials which you conducted to test the effi ciency of the new CGRM and a further set of trials which showed the eff ect of gum removal on the fl oor surface. In the Results section, you showed results of these trials. You compared the performance of GumGone with Gumsucker and Vacu-Gum. Your results were very good, and they can be seen in the tables below. Now write the Discussion/Conclusion. Discussion Gum removal technology has traditionally faced the problem of achieving eff ective gum removal with minimal damage to fl oor surfaces. Existing CGRMs such as Gumsucker and Vacu-Gum use steam heat and steam injection respectively to remove gum and although both are fairly eff ective, the resulting staining and damage to fl oor surfaces, particularly carpeted fl oors, is oft en signifi cant.10 In this study the design and manufacture of a novel CGRM, GumGone, is presented. GumGone reduces the gum to a dry powder using a non-toxic chemical spray and then vacuums the Table 1: Gum removal as a percentage of total sample
Gumsucker Vacu-gum GumGone Wooden fl oor 77 73 80 Stone fl oor 78 78 82 Carpeted fl oor 56 44 79 Table 2: Floor damage/staining
Gumsucker Vacu-gum GumGone Wooden fl oor none Stone fl oor some none Carpeted fl oor
196 Science Research Writing residue, leaving virtually no stain. In trials, GumGone removed a high percentage of gum from all fl oor surfaces without causing fl oor damage. Th e fl oor surfaces tested included carpeted fl oors, suggesting that this technology is likely to have considerable commercial use. Percentage removal levels achieved using GumGone were consistently higher than for existing CGRMs on all types of fl oor surface. Th is was particularly noticeable in the case of carpeted fl oor, where 79% of gum was removed from a 400 m2 area, as opposed to a maximum of 56% with existing machines. Th is represents a dramatic increase in the percentage amount of gum removed. Our results confi rm the theory of Gumbo et al. that chemicals can be used to dissolve gum into dry powder and make it suitable for vacuuming.5 Th e greatest advantage over existing CGRMs, however, lies in the combination of the two technologies in a single machine. By reducing the delay period between gum treatment and gum removal, the GumGone system resulted in negligible staining of fl oor surfaces. Th is represents a new approach which removes the need for stain treatment or surface repair following gum removal. As noted earlier, only one wattage level (400 watts of vacuum suction power) was available in the GumGone prototype. Further work is needed to determine the power level at which gum removal is maximised and fl oor damage remains negligible.
197 Unit 5 ✏ Writing the Abstract 5.1 Structure Th e structure and content of the Abstract have changed in recent decades. Before on-line publication databases such as the Science Citation Index, the Abstract was printed at the top of a research article and its function was mainly to encourage the reader to continue reading the article and to facilitate that reading by providing a brief preview. Th e reader and the writer didn't consider the Abstract of a research article as an independent unit because it was not normally read without reference to the article itself. Th e Internet has infl uenced the way that science research is communicated and the way that scientists access published research. Abstract databases allow scientists to search and scan the scientifi c literature and then decide which research articles they want to read in detail. Some readers simply want to know what is going on in their research area and may not be interested in the details; others may want to know details but are only interested in research articles which are directly relevant to their own research. However, if readers are going to actually read your research article, the Abstract now needs to persuade them to obtain a copy of it, not just encourage them to keep reading a paper they have already accessed. Abstracts compete for attention in on-line databases. Many more people will read the title than the Abstract, and many more will read the Abstract than the whole paper. Th is means that however 'good' and well- written the Abstract is, it needs to have independent validity. It should make sense as a standalone, self-contained description of the research article, and readers should be able to understand the key points and results of the research even if they never see the whole article. Th e Abstract, in this sense, is a representation of the research article.
198 Science Research Writing Why does the unit on Abstracts come at the end of this book rather than at the beginning? In the fi rst place, the style and the length of the Abstract depend on where you plan to submit it and that decision may be taken late in — or even aft er — the writing process. However, the most important reason for putting this unit on Abstracts at the end of the book is that you are in a better position to create an Abstract aft er you have fi nished writing the other sections of your paper. Th e content of the Abstract is derived from the rest of the article, not the other way around. Although you should not simply cut and paste whole sentences from the body of the article, the Abstract does not contain material which is not already in the paper. Th is means that you don't need to create completely new sentences; once you have decided what should go in the Abstract you can select material, including parts of sentences and phrases, from the relevant sections of the paper and adapt or modify them to meet the demands of an Abstract. Th is also means that the Abstract is easier to write than the rest of the paper! RESULTS (what you found/saw) ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION METHODOLOGY (what you did/used) central report section Fig. 1. Th e shape of a research article or thesis.
Abstract — Structure 199 Does every Abstract follow the same model? No, and the title of the Abstract refl ects this. Some are called Summary, some are called Background, some are called Abstract and others have no title at all. Most Abstracts are results-focused and there are basic similarities in all Abstracts, but there are two quite distinct models. Th e fi rst model is similar to a summary, and is very structured. It deals with all the main subsections of the research article and can even have subtitles such as Background/Method/Results/Conclusions. Th e second model is more common, and focuses primarily on one or two aspect of the study, usually — but not always — the method and the results. Both models will be discussed here. Note that the models for an Abstract described here are appropriate for articles, papers, theses etc. Abstracts for conferences may not follow either of these models. How do I know which model to choose? Th is decision is based on the type of research you have done and the Guide for Authors of the journal where you want to publish your research. Th e decision is normally determined by the journal rather than the author. If the choice is yours, then generally speaking, the more narrow and specifi ed your research topic, the less likely you are to use the summary format. Th is is because in a narrow research fi eld, most readers already know the background. Th e word limit set by each journal also has a signifi cant eff ect on the structure and therefore also on the content of the Abstract. So as you can see, when we come to ask our three questions: • How do I start the Abstract? What type of sentence should I begin with? • What type of information should be in the Abstract, and in what order? • How do I end this section? You already know a lot about what the Abstract should include and in what order. Here are examples of both models. Remember that Model 2 Abstracts are more common than Model 1. Start by reading the Abstract below, which is an example of a structured Abstract using the summary format (Model 1). Th e title of the
200 Science Research Writing paper is: Physical properties of petroleum reservoir fl uids derived from acoustic measurements. Don't worry if you have diffi culty understanding terms such as bubble point. Just try to get a general understanding at this stage and familiarise yourself with the structure. MODEL 1 Abstract: Th e speed of sound in a fl uid is determined by, and therefore an indicator of, the thermodynamic properties of that fl uid. Th e aim of this study was to investigate the use of an ultrasonic cell to determine crude oil properties, in particular oil density. An ultrasonic cell was constructed to measure the speed of sound and tested in a crude oil sample. Th e speed of sound was measured at temperatures between 260 and 411 K at pressures up to 75 MPs.Th e measurements were shown to lead to an accurate determination of the bubble point of the oil. Th is indicates that there is a possibility of obtaining fl uid density from sound speed measurements and suggests that it is possible to measure sound absorption with an ultrasonic cell to determine oil viscosity. Now look at an example of the second, more common, type of Abstract. Th e title of this paper is: Eff ect of polymer coatings on drug release. MODEL 2 Abstract: Th is study investigated the use of a novel water-soluble polymer blend as a coating to control drug release. It was found that using a blend of methylcellulose and a water-soluble copolymer signifi cantly slowed the release rate of ibuprofen compounds in vitro and allowed for a more consistent release rate of 10–20% per hour.
Abstract — Grammar and Writing Skills 201 5.2 Grammar and Writing Skills Because the Abstract is derived from the rest of the article, most of the grammar and writing skills have already been covered in previous units. Th e use of VERB TENSE, however, is very important in the Abstract. Th is section also deals with the LENGTH and LANGUAGE of the Abstract. 5.2.1 Verb tense Verb tense is especially important in the Abstract because the strict word limit means that you may need to omit phrases that tell the reader whose work you are referring to, or what you think about your results. In this case, these can be achieved by careful and accurate use of verb tense. Remember that the tense you use in a sentence may be grammatically correct — and therefore no editor or proofreader will notice it or draw your attention to it — but if you have not chosen the appropriate tense the sentence will not mean what you wanted it to mean and it will not have the eff ect you hoped it would have. Th e gap/problem is normally in the Present Simple tense: Th e main problem, however, is... We examine why these models have diffi culty with... However, this assumption is not valid when... Th is is complicated by... However, this assessment cannot be based solely on... Although it is known theoretically that... When you are referring to what the paper itself does or what is actually in the paper itself, use the Present Simple tense, for example: Th is paper presents a new methodology for... In this paper we apply... Th is study reports an improved design for... In this paper we extend an existing approach to... We consider a novel system of... Th e implications for learning algorithms are discussed... New numerical results are presented here for...
202 Science Research Writing When you are referring to your methodology, or what you did during the research period, it is common to use the Past Simple tense, for example: Two catalysts were examined in order to... Samples were prepared for electron microscopy using... A crystalliser was constructed using... Th e eff ect of pH was investigated by means of... Th e data obtained were evaluated using... A permeameter was used to investigate... It is also possible to use the Present Simple tense to talk about your methodology, especially when you are referring to calculations or equations which can be found in the paper itself: Numerical examples are analysed in detail... Th e calculated wavelengths are compared to... Several models are created using... Th e accuracy is evaluated by... A detailed comparison is made between... Th e method is illustrated on blends of homopolymers... Results can be expressed in either the Present Simple tense, for example: We fi nd that oxygen reduction may occur up to 20 microns from the interface... Th e model consistently underpredicts... Th e ratio shift s towards... We show that this theory also applies to... Th e most accurate readings are obtained from... We fi nd that this does not vary... Th ese examples illustrate that overpotential is better described in terms of... Or, more commonly, in the Past Simple tense, for example: Th e Y-type was found to produce... Th e hydrocarbons showed a marked increase in...
Abstract — Grammar and Writing Skills 203 No dilation was observed... Th is was consistent with... Organised fi bers were found aft er 6 weeks... Th ese profi les were aff ected by... Th is fi nding correlated with... but be aware that the sentence may use two diff erent tenses. Even if the fi rst part of the sentence is in the Past Simple tense (We found/It was found etc.) you can decide to put the fi nding/result itself or the implication of the result in the Present Simple tense if you believe it is strong enough to be considered as a fact or truth: Th e experiments demonstrated there are two matrices... It was found that proteins are produced from... Th e results demonstrated that the morphology is diff erent... Th is image suggested that there is a direct relationship between... Some of the reasons behind that choice are discussed in the unit on Introductions (Section 1.2.1) and the unit on Results (Section 3.4.2). In addition to the reasons given there, it is worth noting that the Abstract tends to present the contents of the paper in fairly direct way, not only because of the word limits imposed by editors, but also to engage the attention of the reader. Th is infl uences the decision to use the Present Simple for the results or the implications, even though those implications may have been stated in the Past Simple in the article itself. Achievements can be expressed in the Present Perfect tense, as in the Discussion/Conclusion: We have obtained accurate quantitative LIF measurements... Th is investigation has revealed that... We have devised a strategy which allows... We have demonstrated the feasibility of this approach by... A novel material has been produced which... Th ree-dimensional FE predictions have confi rmed that... Considerable insight has been gained concerning...
204 Science Research Writing and also in the Present Simple tense: Th is process can successfully be combined with... Th e framework described here is both simple and universal... Th e value of our approach lies in... Th is provides a powerful tool for... Th is novel fi lm is mechanically robust and is able to... Th e algorithm presented here ensures that... Applications are normally stated in the Present Simple tense: Th is process is suitable for the production of... Th is framework can be used to evaluate... Th is approach can be applied to... Th is demonstrates potential for general applicability to... Th ese profi les may serve as a predictor for... Th is framework can be used to evaluate... 5.2.2 Length Th e Abstract usually has a strict word limit. Most are between 80–150 words and are written as a single paragraph. Even longer Abstracts (150–250 words) are usually written as a single paragraph. Don't submit an Abstract that is over the word limit or it may be cut by an editor in a way that does not represent your work appropriately. For your fi rst draft , don't worry too much about the word limit. Once you have decided which of the two Abstract models you will use, start by including whatever you think is important, and then gradually remove words, phrases and even sentences that are not essential. 5.2.3 Language Th ink of the search phrases and keywords that people looking for your work might use. Make sure that those exact words or phrases appear in your Abstract, so that they will turn up at the top of a search result listing. Th e Abstract is sometimes written in a slightly less technical way than the article itself in order to attract a wider audience. Th is may mean that some of your readers do not know a particular technical term or acronym
Abstract — Writing Task 205 that you want to include. To solve this problem, you can use the acronym, abbreviation or technical term in the Abstract but you should fi rst say what it means or stands for. For example: Granules of hydroxyapatite (HA) were implanted. 5.3 Writing Task: Build a Model 5.3.1 Building a model You are now ready to build a model of the Abstract by writing a short description of what the writer is doing in each sentence in the space provided below. Th is should be very easy, because all the components of the Abstract have occurred in previous subsections. As before, the Key is on the next page. GUIDELINES Th is time you will need to build two models, to cover the two types of Abstracts. You should only need to spend 10–20 minutes on this task, because the sentence types are familiar to you from previous units. Don't forget that your models are only useful if they can be transferred to other Abstracts, so don't include content words or you won't be able to use the models to generate your own Abstract. Remember that one way to fi nd out what the writer is doing in a sentence, rather than what s/he is saying, is to imagine that your computer has accidentally deleted it. What changes for you, as a reader, when it disappears? If you press another key on the computer and the sentence comes back, how does that aff ect the way you respond to the information? As mentioned in previous sections, another way to fi gure out what the writer is doing is to look at the grammar and vocabulary clues. What is the tense of the main verb? What is that tense normally used for? Is it the same tense as in the previous sentence? If not, why has the writer changed the tense? What words has the writer chosen to use? Th is time, you may fi nd that you produce perfect models, but you will still probably modify them — especially the second type — when you compare them to the way Abstracts are written in your target articles.
206 Science Research Writing MODEL 1 Physical properties of crude oil from acoustic measurements Abstract