From an interview by Cynthia Dunlop of Simon Willison, co-creator of Django, and prolific blogger and technical writer:

Any lessons learned that you want to share with the community?

My number one tip for blogging is to lower your standards! Aim to hit publish while you are still actively unhappy with what you have written, because the only alternative is a huge folder full of drafts and never publishing anything at all.

Nobody will ever know how perfect the thing you intended to write would have been. The flaws you see in your writing are invisible to everyone else.

Oh, how perfect is this advice, and how much I feel this is pointing exactly towards me!

I’ve been blogging, off-and-on, since 2007, and I have the drafts and half-formed ideas to show for it. You’ll find, if you go through the history and pace of my writing and posting, how much and how little I have actually published over various periods of time. Over the recent years, it’s not that I have had fewer things to say, write, or comment about. Instead, the crunch is in the time I have available to put together pieces, whether small or substantial, that I think are good enough to publish.

For someone like me, Willison’s advice couldn’t have been framed any better. But. Hitting publish while unhappy is all fine and dandy, if I’m at least satisfied I’ve made the point or the contribution I thought I could make. There’s unhappiness, and there are standards, no? I like how John Gruber put it commenting on the same piece — as playing live music rather than recording an album — keeping it professional and high quality but not sweating the occasional wrong note.

I do need to hit publish more often, though. So, here goes — publishing while I’m still actively unhappy with this piece.

∞

I’ve been a student panelist at the Virginia Tech Graduate Honor System (GHS) for a few years now, and by far the most frequent infractions students are accused of involve some form of plagiarism. In some cases, alas, the students seem perfectly aware of what they’re upto, but very often, it seems that they just didn’t realize that what they were doing was anything wrong, or indeed, anything out of the ordinary.

Unfortunately, whether you knew and understood or not, if you did it, well, you did it. On that note, here are some pointers on avoiding plagiarism.

Let me focus on writing in particular, even though this applies equally well to any other creative task. If I had to summarize the concept in one sentence, I’d put it this way: when you’re writing something, there should be no ambiguity in the reader’s mind as to who actually composed the words in different portions of your document. If the document header contains your name, the assumption is that you wrote it, unless you specify otherwise. You’re perfectly fine using material from other sources and authors—as long you make it explicitly clear as to the authorship of that material.

Let’s say you’re referring to Wikipedia to understand a particular terminology or concept to include in a paper. You have one of two options:

• Cite Wikipedia as a source, and use the words from Wikipedia within quotation marks.

• Or, read and understand the material (but don’t memorize it word-for-word), and then close the webpage. Now try writing about the concept that you just read about. Or better yet, come back in an hour and write about it. Chances are the words you write are your own words and your own understanding, even though you read about it on Wikipedia. You should still cite Wikipedia as the source of your information, of course.

  If, while writing, you find yourself having to refer to the Wikipedia article to “refresh” your memory of the language used, you’d better cite the article and include the relevant portions verbatim, and within quotation marks.

The quotation marks are important in addition to including citations. This is because, as I mentioned above, citations are a must as sources of information, even if the words and compositions are your very own. If you don’t use quotation marks, it appears, of course, that the words are your own. If they aren’t, guess what you’re guilty of!

Also, remember to be sparing in using material verbatim from sources. A couple of sentences at most, and in rare occasions, perhaps a paragraph or two. If you’re using a paragraph, enclose the entire paragraph in quotation marks, and/or consider italicizing or indenting the paragraph to distinguish from your other paragraphs. Remember, your article is your own, and should almost entirely comprise your sentences. (This seems like a no-brainer, but I’ve seen instances where almost the entirety of a write-up has been “compiled” from various sources.)

There are some excellent resource on the internet about avoiding plagiarism. Here’s one: http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism.

To repeat once again, there should be no ambiguity as to the authorship of any portion of your work. Make it clear and cite the source, and you’ll be fine. Please, don’t get caught in embarrassing situations only because you didn’t know better. :)

I was forwarded a PDF of a journal article by friends, and I had a hard time believing when I read it. This has to be the best journal article ever; it even includes comments from a reviewer (which is not common at all, at least in my area of research).

Here’s the link to the article listing at nih.gov, and here’s a link to the PDF itself.

Enjoy.

I am not fond of MS-Word. Correction: I cannot really tolerate MS-Word, and the only times I really use it are for work, where documents must be shared, modified, commented upon, and tracked for changes between multiple authors, contributors and edit cycles. For those particular circumstances there really isn’t another viable alternative to MS-Word, is there.

But of course, the criteria for my own scientific writing are very different. The only sharing and discussion is with my dissertation adviser, and I can easily handle one other contributor without needing MS-Word. So, of course, I’ve moved as far away from that bloated, cranky piece of software as I can—which is to say, completely away.

Instead, here’s what I use.

My word processor of choice on the Mac is Mellel. It’s beautiful, runs smoothly, and is a joy to use. Its listed feature set is vastly inferior to that of Word, but the features it does carry are executed extremely well. After all, what use are a plethora of features that really make the program bloated and difficult to use? (Please, go read that article; it’s cathartic for frustrated Word-users.) Plus, these features are more than sufficient to meet my needs (and, I think, that of most other scientic writers). I have not felt the need—yet—to incorporate the math rendering excellence of LaTeX, and for all other purposes, Mellel works great.

But here’s the thing. I don’t like writing in word processors. Even in great ones such as Mellel, you’re distracted every once in a while by the formatting, and how the headings are looking, and whether a paragraph should flow on to the next page, and so on. Plus, I’ve developed a universal distaste for proprietary document formats, and this extends as much to Mellel’s proprietary format as to Word’s. I’d like to read and make sense of my documents irrespective of which software I happen to have available for use.

For another thing, I’ve really taken to John Gruber’s simple text document markup format, Markdown, and since discovering it have started using it for almost everything I write—including blog posts like this one. Well, it turns out, there are a number of extensions to Markdown, among which Fletcher Penney’s Multimarkdown must take pride of place. And what do you know—Multimarkdown even has provisions for including references, cross-references and footnotes! How much more perfect can it get!

A related app that has quickly become indispensable for me is Marked. This nifty tool shows a ‘preview’ of what your markdown (or multimarkdown) document looks like, and directly provides output documents in various formats, including PDF, RTF and HTML. This is excellent for quickly creating an RTF document to send to my adviser for review.

If you’ve been keeping count, the only piece of software necessary for scientific writing that I haven’t mentioned is a citation/bibliography tool. Endnote is a popular choice for many, and I’m sure it’s pretty good, but there’s a couple other excellent Mac apps for this–Bookends and Sente. Based on online reviews and forums, I ended up selecting Bookends a few years ago, and I haven’t regretted the decision. As a bonus, Bookends integrates perfectly with Mellel, making life very easy indeed. (I noticed while writing this post that Sente’s pricing terms seem to have changed quite a bit since I was researching it, and for all I’d heard, Sente is excellent too.)

There’s another Mac writing tool that’s great for writing long documents, especially where the document is divided into chapters and sections. This is Scrivener. Plus, the basic document format for Scrivener is plain text, which straightaway satisfies my wariness for proprietary formats. Scrivener is also excellent, and would have suited my type of scientific writing perfectly, except for one solitary reason. It doesn’t play well with Bookends. To use Bookends, you have to export your document to an RTF file, and then use Bookends. This means you’re once again left with an extra step of having to include formatting. Not good for me, and Mellel wins. (Scrivener, on the other hand, is the only app in my list that is also available for Windows. If you’re a Windows user, this is an excellent app that you should certainly explore.)

So now that we’ve identified the pieces of software that I use, here’s my workflow.

• Choose any text-editor (Sublime Text, BBEdit, Text Wrangler, or even the ever worthy, simple TextEdit), and write the actual text in Multimarkdown format. Include citations as required; for the ‘citation’ portion, use any label of your choice, and for the ‘link’ portion, include the identifier string from Bookends that you must use to finally automatically create the bibliography. This way, when I use Marked to export to RTF, my citations are already automatically shown as citations, even though I haven’t done anything with Bookends yet. The bibliography section at the end looks funky, but that’s not a problem with documents in progress.
• When ready, export the document as RTF, and copy-paste the entire contents into a new Mellel document.
• For each citation, replace the custom label I had chosen with the Bookends identifier. This is a simple matter of doing a ‘Find-Replace-All’ for each citation.
• Use Bookends to add the bibliography!

Here are the advantages to this scheme:

• No use of MS-Word, but you’re able to export to RTF or .doc format, if needed, from Mellel.
• You’re always able to deal with plain text for all your documents, up until the very last stage where page-setting must come into the picture.
• Even for a document in progress, it takes only a moment to create a perfectly readable document, via Multimarkdown, that includes inline citations instead of the ugly Bookends identifier.

If you don’t care about using plain text formats, or are simply not comfortable or don’t want to get used to Markdown, just replace MS-Word with Mellel. You can still do all your document writing in a word processor, just like in Word, and you’ll quickly find that it’s way more efficient to use Mellel. You’ll love it—guaranteed.

I was lamenting on the scarcity of engineering blogs, even though there are a plethora of excellent science and other technical blogs on the internet.

That got me thinking about why relatively so few scientists in general, and engineers in particular, write and publish on the web. Here’s the problem, I think–

• We never receive any proper writing training throughout our careers.

  We learn the other stuff, all the theories and how they work and so on, and even how to publish our work in peer-reviewed journals, but rarely how to competently and forcefully express ourselves and communicate with the world at large. That’s a problem, isn’t it? After all, a scientist is as much a writer as anyone else—what use is my earth shattering research if I can’t explain it to everyone else?

  And no, ‘math does the talking’ is no excuse. Math isn’t for everyone, and it’s very useful to be able to communicate ideas outside of mathematical jargon. Even a brief “Here’s an idea. Now if you really want to know, go learn the math!” is extremely valuable.

  Here’s an example, via an article at Project Wordsworth: the Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki posted four papers on the internet, purporting to prove the ever-enigmatic ABC conjecture. The only problem? No one understands his work:

  The question which quickly bubbled to the top of the forum, encouraged by the community’s “upvotes,” was simple: “Can someone briefly explain the philosophy behind his work and comment on why it might be expected to shed light on questions like the ABC conjecture?” asked Andy Putman, assistant professor at Rice University. Or, in plainer words: I don’t get it. Does anyone?

  Oops! (And remember, we’re talking about the mathematics community here, not the lay public.) Dr. Mochizuki was invited to give lectures on his work, to explain and educate. He refused.

  Of course, his peers are irked:

  “You don’t get to say you’ve proved something if you haven’t explained it,” [former math professor Cathy O’Neil] says. “A proof is a social construct. If the community doesn’t understand it, you haven’t done your job.”

  If you can’t communicate, are you really a great researcher?

  Mochizuki has reported all this progress for years, but where is he going? This “inter-universal geometer,” this possible genius, may have found the key that would redefine number theory as we know it. He has, perhaps, charted a new path into the dark unknown of mathematics. But for now, his footsteps are untraceable. Wherever he is going, he seems to be travelling alone.

  This is, of course, an extreme case, but I think the larger point holds too—that engineers/scientists should be able to competently express themselves and communicate with the larger community, and not only in journal articles.

• We are not trained to be truly internet-savvy.

  I don’t mean this in terms of knowing how to navigate the internet and check email and visit websites and perform Google searches. I mean this in a larger sense—in knowing (and being comfortable with) how to create and maintain blogs, in managing our internet personas and profiles, in creating and designing websites.

  There are ample tools and resources out there, and we don’t all need to be trained in computer science to thrive—but we often rarely know how and where to begin. Some take the time to teach themselves, but what of those of us whose knack is not in internet technologies? We really do need to do more to expose ourselves more to internet publishing.

  We personally and professionally know of many scientists and researchers who are truly great teachers and communicators—but how many of these brilliant people are writing and publishing on the internet for the community at large?

If you’re an engineer or a scientist, and are a good communicator, please do consider writing and publishing on the internet! The rest of us will be the richer in experience for it. :)