Good Data Vs Good Writing

Good Data Vs Good Writing

          Before starting of the argument in between these 2 important elements of a scientific paper, there is one thing must be highlighted. This argument is not talking about the comparison between good data but very bad writing and good writing but very terrible data. As no data, a good writing can only be a research question; no good writing, a good data cannot let others understand.

          Good data that can support the researcher’s hypothesis could ease a lot of works, and prevent too much time spending on determination of other possible factors that affect the result. If the data or result could represent the population, it is much more successful and can bring an impact and contribute to current knowledge. Without a data that can stand the conclusion firmly, the scientific paper should not be published, regardless the writing style of the researcher.

However, a good data is merely a bunch of numeric details. A scientific paper emphasizes more on the arguments and the conclusion that being made. A researcher may desperate when the result is antagonistic to his/her hypothesis, but there are more than thousands of possible reasons that account for it. A “bad” data could tell the story in another way: this is not the factor influence it or this is not the correct methodology. In this case, how the researcher argues means a lot.

Therefore, here comes the question. Which one is the determinant that a scientific paper should be accepted, good data or good writing?

Good writing would be more advantageous compared to good data. This is because science is about argumentation and logical reasoning. If the researcher cannot emphasize his/her argument well, it cannot convince others even with firm evidence. Things get even worse if his/her arguments are ambiguous, could misleading others.

Representative data are seldom exist because there is no much dogma (although there is “Central Dogma”), things can behave differently depends on situation, or the actual reason behind is not being identified yet. For example, no one believes that the Earth is round when Columbus told the truth and this story about Columbus is also a myth (Strauss, 2011)!

Communication is meant to act as a bridge to connect each other. It could be through a paper, verbally, a drawing and so forth. Good scientific communication could benefit the researcher to be able to argue and emphasize his/her points of view more concisely and well-understood by others.

In conclusion, although a good writing is important, the data means a lot to a scientific paper too. Without evidence, an argument is weakened. A researcher should enhance his/her scientific communication skill, at the same time, more studies on the research question including methodology and result analysis must be carried out as well.

Reference

Strauss, V. (2011, October 10). Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/busting-a-myth-about-columbus-and-a-flat-earth/2011/10/10/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html

Well, this is actually my answer when I replied my lecturer in an online forum. This has been moved to my blog just because I already deleted this as my answer, submitted another answer which is the same, but with some of the paragraphs removed. Because it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy tooooooo looooooooooong!!!

But it is very hard to simply delete it… kinda spent some time to write these ><

And this is purposely uploaded today as scheduled post.

Written by Lz, at 2016-05-21 22:45