PB2A: Comparing and Contrasting Scientific Papers

For this assignment, I choose to compare and contrast the article “Standardization of a model to study revaccination against Marek’s disease under laboratory conditions”  and the “SCIgen” genre generator program. 

“Standardization of a model to study revaccination against Marek’s disease under laboratory conditions” (referred to as the vaccination article thorough out the post) is an article by veterinary scientists studying the affects of a vaccine on the poultry industry. Between this article and the SCIgen generator, many reoccurring themes pop up that each paper shares. For example, both papers have an abstract, introduction, analysis, and conclusion; these topics are all important components of a research paper. Within the introduction, both of the papers propose a theory or hypothesis. The papers then go into depth about the experiments that were preformed. Multiple paragraphs were used to describe the procedure or methods that were completed in order to make sure that this was a legitimate experiment. Although the SCIgen website generated gibberish papers, the paper’s format made it easy to identify that it was a research paper used for scientific purposes. The authors of these papers have researched and organized data to back up their claims. These papers are then published in their field where then other experts in the field can reply by agreeing or disagreeing on their findings. Within this genre, there is a lot of jargon used that is specific to the field. These research papers are meant for those who already have an in depth knowledge about the subject; therefore, the writing is formal and sophisticated making it difficult for the average person to understand. 

The article I chose to compare to the SCIgen generator had very little differences. However, one of the main one’s I was able to identify was that their was a lack of a publisher for the SCIgen generator. My paper, about vaccines, recognizes its publisher on the top right hand corner of the paper. This is important because the publisher is the company who actually prints the article; without them, the article would not be seen by anyone else. Also, the SCIgen generator includes related works whereas the vaccination article does not. Related works are an important part of papers because it discusses what other scientists have had similar ideas that can help back up the claims made in the paper. Another difference between the two, although insignificant, is the way the vaccination article was configured; using columns rather than a giant body paragraph makes for a more eye appealing arrangement.

The most important conventions of these articles was most definitely the scientific format. The setup of: abstract, introduction, methods (can also known as procedure or implementation), results, discussion, conclusion and references. Although this format can be seen as strict and confining to some, scientists view this is a universal configuration. From all over the world, scientists follow this uniform format. By dividing the paper into sections, it is easy for the average college student, who is writing a research paper, to understand the key points of the article. The objective of this format is to insure key results and conclusions are appreciated. This scientific writing is very different from the writing done within the humanities.

By understanding the conventions and rhetorical features of these genres people will be able to identify what they are reading. For example, because I already had prior knowledge of this genre, I was easily able to identify what I was reading.