You are here

Structure of scientific Literature

Submitted by mpetracchi on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 22:23

The scientific articles Smart behavior of true slime mold in a labyrinth and Monophagous leaf‐mining larvae of Stigmella (Lepidoptera: Nepticulidae) on birch: patterns and differentiation in exploitation of the host have many similarities and difference in their written styles. Both articles use a level 1 header and have some text before the introduction which give background information on the study. Both of the articles use level 2 headers for their sub-sections and both articles have sub-sections. These subsections explain what the following section will be about. In the Smart behavior of true slime mold article, the subsections give a basic description of what the section will be on. The Monophagous leaf‐mining article uses a traditional sub-section style consisting of an introduction, methods, etc. Both achieve a similar premise of describing what the following section is about. The sections in Smart behavior of true slime mold usually begin with an introductory sentence which gives the reader a basic overview of what will be discussed, while the Monophagous leaf‐mining article begins each section by jumping straight into the content and skipping the 'fluff'. In both articles, the sub-sections are used to introduce the new content to continue the flow of the paper. Again They both contain figures and descriptions of those figures. At the end of the articles, both papers have a reference section written in a similar fashion in alphabetical order. The way the informative paragraphs are written, in the introduction, are similar as well. Both articles begin fairly broad in the beginning and give basic information that leads the reader toward a more in-depth understanding of the subject and what the article is ultimately about. However, each article approaches this task differently. The Smart behavior of true slime mold is written in more colloquial terms and is easier to read for someone who may not be very scientifically oriented. Examples of this are the uses of the first person 'we' and how a question was asked open-endedly 'What sort of behavior could be expected?'. This style is not very common in scientific writing and not present in the Monophagous leaf‐mining article. However, this is not to say that the final product of one or the other doesn't achieve what it set out to do. They both follow logical flow schemes which lead the reader to a conclusion and are organized in their own ways from broad to precise. The Monophagous leaf‐mining article does this in a writing style many consider proper scientific writing.