A mineral that gives off heat and stimulates the organ that a scientist is a fool with.
“Still, the newspaper doesn’t matter,” continued the scientist.
News and Comment
Consciousness as a Valid Subject for Scientific Investigation
Okulicz-Kozaryn (Scientometrics 96:679–681, 2013) examined the readability issue in terms of the proportions of adjectives and adverbs in research articles. The results showed that natural scientists used the lowest proportion of adjectives and adverbs, while social scientists employed more adjectives and adverbs than natural scientists. Based on the findings, he argued for killing much of the adjectives and adverbs in academic writing for brevity and conciseness. However, adjectives and adverbs serve different functions in academic writing. Thus, the present study investigated the use of adjectives and adverbs separately with a much larger set of academic writing of various genres and a subsample of only research articles. The results indicated that the proportions of adjectives in natural science and applied science are higher than those in arts and humanities and social science, while the proportions of adverbs in natural science and applied science are lower than those in arts and humanities and social science. The results seemingly complemented Okulicz-Kozaryn’s (2013) findings. It is accordingly suggested that researchers in arts and humanities and social science should use less adverbs in academic writing. Issues concerning readability and impact of articles are also discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.