Common Problems in Writing Geology Research Papers

1. Following instructions:  You must follow the instructions on the handout.  You will be graded on your introduction of the topic, correct grammar, spelling, and format, presentation of technical information, development of the topic, and selection and effective use of appropriate references and illustrations. 

2. Organization:  It is always good to have some!  Even a brief paper should have at least 2 orders of subheadings when you are organizing your information.  You can always eliminate headings if you feel they are not warranted in the final version.

3. Incorrect spelling and grammar:  In these days of word processing programs that check spelling, tense, usage, etc., there are few reasons to submit a paper with these sorts of problems.  However, you should recognize that these programs seldom have many technical terms, and even the best of programs is not without its flaws.

4. Problems with citation of sources:

• source not cited at all (remember figures, tables, etc.)

• references cited in text, but not in bibliography

• sources in bibliography that are not cited in the text 

         SHOULD CROSS-CHECK ALL SOURCES AND CITATIONS!

Some additional suggestions to improve writing

1. Avoid "throw-away" sentences, i.e. those that do not make efficient use of your words, e.g.

• "Figure 2 is a geologic map of the study area.  The outcrop pattern is controlled by a major       syncline that . . . "  (20 words)

      • instead, "The outcrop pattern in the study area is controlled by a major syncline that . . . (Fig.       2)."  (16 words)

2. Avoid use of time terms (sometimes, often, frequently, occasionally, etc.) to describe geologic relationships because they are vague and imprecise (at the minimum).  Better terms are locally, commonly, generally, etc., or even better, state exactly what you mean!  Likewise, do not use since when you mean because.

      Some examples:

      • "The Cretaceous volcaniclastic unit often is overlain by a limestone . . ."

      • instead, "The Cretaceous volcaniclastic unit locally is overlain by a limestone . . ."

        • "Formation waters in sedimentary basins are saline since halite dissolves . . ."

      • instead, "Formation waters in sedimentary basins are saline because halite dissolves . . ."

3. Avoid use of present tense to describe geologic relationships that are the result of processes that happened in the past, e.g., "the pluton intrudes the strata . . .", implies that it is happening as you are observing it!  It is acceptable to use present tense in a discussion of an evolving geologic history; otherwise use past tense.

4. Avoid use of terms that refer to processes when referring to the products of those processes

      e.g., intrusive to mean intrusion; mineralization to mean mineral concentration; etc.

5. Avoid use of terms that refer to objects when referring to actions,

      e.g., outcrop refers to a body of rock exposed at the surface; therefore rocks do not outcrop,

      they "crop out" (it is best to use other terms, e.g. are exposed, etc.)

6. Always use past tense for citations (within text) in which the source is used as the subject

      e. g., Smith and Jones (1962) believed, stated, mapped, established, etc.  . . .

7. Avoid having both mixed English system and metric system units in your text (which generally occurs because of different sources).  Convert all units to one system, preferably using SI units.      

Professor Barker's thirteen deadly sins of technical writing, in no particular order

1. Confusing the contraction "it's" (it is, with an apostrophe) with the possessive pronoun "its" (without an apostrophe). 

2. Crossed conjunctions; "between 6 to 20",  "from 8 and 12".  This indicates sloppy thinking and proof reading.

3. Confusing "affect" (the verb, meaning to influence) with "effect" (either the noun, meaning a result, or the verb, meaning to cause something).

4. Confusing "further" meaning to a greater degree, as in "to investigate this further", with "farther", meaning a greater distance, as in "walk farther up the valley".

5. Incorrect punctuation of "et al."  This is the abbreviation for the Latin "et alii", meaning "and others", and is used when there are three or more authors and space considerations prevent you from listing them all.  There is nothing wrong with substituting "and others" for "et al." unless the publisher is so old-fashioned as to require the Latin.

6. Using "in close proximity" when "in proximity" means the same thing, and so does "near"; use "near".

7. Incorrect punctuation of citations;  a correct form is "... after the eruption" (Brown, 1973).  Two wrong forms are "... after the eruption (Brown, 1973)."  and  "... after the eruption". (Brown, 1973)

8. Hyphen abuse.  Use hyphens to connect similar modifiers, as in "a right-angle bend", "the blue-gray rock", a 73-year period", and "the caldera-collapse zone".

9. Useless qualifiers, such as "the rock is brown in color" (how else could it be brown?).

10. Attributing emotions to people you don't know or didn't observe at the time, as in "Smith and Jones (1987) felt that the lava was going to..."  or "Fearing that the eruption would become more explosive, Smith and Jones (1987) recommended that the village be evacuated."

11.  Beginning a sentence with "It is interesting that..." is unnecessary and presumptuous.

12.  Trivializing the word "theory", by substituting it for hypothesis, idea, or speculation, as in "Smith and Jones had a theory that the lava would flow down the northeast flank."  The word "theory" should be used only for an idea that has been demonstrated to be both plausible and of general importance.

13.  Lack of section headings that tell the reader "and now for something completely different" or "here is what it all means."