Writing in Science

Abstract

Scientific knowledge entails rigour and control, both as a process of creating a reasoned view of reality and also as the product of results that shape the dissemination of science. The publication is critical for the development of science and the career of the academic/scientist. This article discusses some aspects of writing in science, in a stance that starts from the authors’ scientific area – Sociology/Social Sciences –, using the scientific publication in specialized journals as a paradigmatic case. The results allow concluding that writing in science does not provide the indication of principles to be pursued and that it is shaped as more than rigid self-sufficient rules for the production of a scientific-type text. This topic is particularly relevant in the current context, in which the process of scientific publication is undergoing a profound reformulation.

Can Artificial Intelligence Only be a Helper Writer for Science?

“…Scientists' interpretations and analyses have a significant impact on policies, decision-making, and the adoption of evidence-based approaches in several fields. Policymakers depend on empirical data to develop rules, educators modify instructional methods, and healthcare professionals apply evidence-based therapies (17). The interpretation of data by scientists plays a vital role and has extensive effects on society.…”

Artificial Intelligence as Author of Scientific Publications

“…Given that any scientific publication must express problematization, conceptualization, and argumentation (17), to what extent is the use of IA in scientific publications not worthy of recognition as authorship?…”

Sociology and Education in an Academic Career

“…In the latter case, research and publication are vital. Publication entails the systematization of current knowledge (4).…”

“…In this reflection, which necessarily has a strong personal brand (3), I hope not to "be breaking open doors" (2), in the sense that it may be too obvious, simplistic or uninteresting. I hope to articulate discursive rigor (4,5) with the presentation of some of my personal stances (6), but always without mixing judgments of fact with judgments of value in the classical and, to some extent, timeless Weberian sense (7,8): "[…] after the quality and relevance of personal argumentation is assessed, should take place even without respecting the replication of the research model" (6) (pp.1).…”