DC905 - Scientific Writing for Publication

Introduction

This nine week module supports doctoral researchers in developing their ability to communicate research through scientific writing. Using examples drawn from across Science, Engineering and Medicine (SEM), participants explore how research articles are shaped by disciplinary conventions, audience expectations, publication practices and evolving digital technologies.

The module uses the scientific research article as its organising framework, structured around the Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion (IMRaD) model. Students analyse published research writing, compare disciplinary approaches to scientific communication, and reflect on the conventions and expectations of their own research communities.

Throughout the module, participants critically examine writing decisions relating to structure, argumentation, evidence, audience, language and style. The module also explores the role of feedback, revision, publication processes and the responsible use of generative AI in scientific writing. Students work with an authentic piece of their own research writing and use it as the basis for critical analysis and development throughout the course.

Module Aims

• Develop students' ability to communicate research effectively through scientific writing.

• Develop understanding of how disciplinary conventions shape scientific articles and publication practices.

• Develop students' ability to analyse writing decisions in relation to genre, audience and purpose.

• Support students in developing, revising and evaluating authentic research writing from their own disciplinary contexts.

• Develop awareness of publication processes and scholarly communication practices.

• Develop critical awareness of the opportunities and limitations of AI-assisted writing technologies.

Learning outcomes

By the end of the module, students should be able to:

• Analyse the disciplinary conventions that shape scientific research writing in their field.

• Critically evaluate writing decisions in relation to genre, audience and communicative purpose.

• Justify the organisation and development of scientific arguments within a text.

• Critically evaluate the role of feedback and revision in the development of scientific writing.

• Critically evaluate the role of AI-assisted writing tools within the planning, drafting, revision and publication processes of scientific writing.

• Identify strategies for the continued development and dissemination of their research writing.

Weekly Programme

Week 1: Scientific writing, disciplinary communication and the research article
The scientific article as a disciplinary genre. Genre, audience and purpose in scientific communication. Understanding writing as a process and evaluating the role of AI-assisted writing tools in planning, drafting and revision. Claim strength, hedging, boosting and disciplinary style.

 Week 2: Introduction I: establishing significance and creating a research space

Creating research significance and identifying a research niche. The CARS model and audience expectations. Positioning research and using AI to support literature exploration and idea generation. Noun phrase complexity, information density, precision and concision.

Week 3: Introduction II: literature positioning and author voice
Using the literature to establish relevance and develop a research argument. Citation as a rhetorical resource and the development of authorial voice. Maintaining authorial responsibility when working with AI-generated content. Reporting verbs, citation practices, evaluation and stance.

Week 4: Methods I: transparency, reproducibility and disciplinary expectations
Communicating methodological decisions effectively. Research integrity, reproducibility and disciplinary variation in methods sections. Writing for reader needs and documenting research procedures clearly. Active and passive voice, agency and procedural language.

 Week 5: Methods II: communicating complexity and procedural knowledge

Presenting technical and procedural information effectively for specialist audiences. Reader-centred approaches to methods writing. Critically evaluating the use of AI for drafting, editing and refining methodological descriptions. Sentence structure, sequencing, clarity and precision.

Week 6: Results: presenting and communicating evidence
Communicating findings through text, tables and figures. Relationships between evidence, interpretation and audience understanding. Critically evaluating AI-generated summaries of data and findings.

 Week 7: Discussion I: interpretation, argument and claims-making

Moving from evidence to interpretation. Scientific argumentation and the development of knowledge claims. Developing a critical authorial position in relation to findings. Hedging, boosting, certainty and uncertainty.

 Week 8: Discussion II: contribution, limitations and disciplinary positioning

Articulating contribution to knowledge and acknowledging limitations. Disciplinary expectations surrounding significance and impact. Developing author identity and publication goals. Concession, contrast, evaluation and positioning.

 Week 9: Revision, peer review, publication and AI-assisted writing

Responding to feedback and preparing writing for dissemination. Feedback literacy, peer review and publication practices. Cohesion, coherence, and editing for publication.

Core Texts:

• Alley, M. (2018). The Craft of Scientific Writing.
• Cargill, M., & O'Connor, P. (2021). Writing Scientific Research Articles (3rd ed.).
• Swales, J., & Feak, C. Academic Writing for Graduate Students.
• Ascheron, C. (2023). Scientific Publishing and Presentation.

Discipline specific:

• Kuile, B. T. (2024). Life sciences research and scientific writing. Springer.
• Robinson, M. S., & Stoller, F. L. (2023). Write Like a Chemist: A Guide and Resource (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Doctoral Writing and Publication:

• Aitchison, C., Kamler, B., & Lee, A. (2010). Publishing Pedagogies for the Doctorate and Beyond.
• Gimenez, J., Paterson, R., & Specht, D. (2023). "Doctoral writing through a trajectorial lens".
• Negretti, R., & McGrath, L. (2020). "English for specific playfulness? How doctoral students in STEM manipulate genre".

Scientific Writing Pedagogy:

• Fanguy, M., Wang, H., & Lee, K. (2025). "Critical review of instructional approaches to graduate-level research writing in STEM".
• Deane, M., & O'Neill, P. (2011). Writing in the Disciplines.

Assessment

Essay/coursework (100%)

Students submit: Research Writing Extract (supporting evidence only)

An extract from their own research writing context (e.g. thesis chapter, manuscript section, literature review, conference paper, review article or other substantial research text). The extract is not directly assessed but serves as the focus of analysis.

Critical Author Commentary (100%) 2,000words.

The portfolio requires students to critically analyse and justify writing choices made within their text. Commentary topics may include:

• disciplinary conventions and genre expectations
• audience and communicative purpose
• organisation and argument development
• use of literature and evidence
• language, style and rhetorical choices
• feedback and revision decisions
• use of AI and digital writing tools
• future development and publication intentions

Teaching Methods

The module is taught in interactive seminars, involving a balance between small group discussion and teacher-led input. Group work is expected in certain tasks, and peer review is encouraged, as is collaborative research.

Any queries regarding this module, please contact Transferable.skills@warwick.ac.uk

See the module handbook for the full detail of the course and forms to be completed as you progress through the course.