[quote]Attention researchers and graduate students:
Do you know that many manuscript submissions from Asian countries are rejected immediately because they are poorly written?
By submitting better quality English manuscripts you can improve your chances of being published in internationally-recognized journals.
This can broaden the exposure and ultimate impact of your work.
Our [color=red]scientifically-trained staff [/color]can help by analyzing and improving all aspects of your English draft, including structure, language, grammar, flow, conciseness, punctuation and graphical elements.
Call for more information and a free assessment:
09-1659-8843[/quote]
I’m glad the staff is trained using a scientific method (as per the above ad…) but do they know anything about science? Sheesh, you’d think someone advertising to provide high-level editing services would know how to use adverbs…
I don’t really see where this is coming from. There are a lot of hits on a “scientifically-trained” search on Yahoo! Most seem to be from creationists, the medical field, or from psychologists. I tried to think of a clearer way to use descriptive terms to describe a science education:
Our _____________________ staff can help by analyzing and improving all aspects of your English draft, including structure, language, grammar, flow, conciseness, punctuation and graphical elements.
science wise
scientific minded
technologically oriented
science savvy
Our staff _____________________ can help by analyzing and improving all aspects of your English draft, including structure, language, grammar, flow, conciseness, punctuation and graphical elements.
is hip to the science world and
comes from science backgrounds
knows about science
I know there’s a better way to describe the staff who knows how to edit scientific papers. It’s important that the staff know what they are doing - an English major who doesn’t know physics from physiques is going to be a waste of money. We should be able to say something like “scientifically-trained” and be understood by our community.
Exactly. If you can’t write a simple sentence to describe what you’re going to do, I would hardly expect you to do it well when what you’re proposing to do is “improve” people’s English writing…in a very exacting field.
I understand your point, but I agree with twocs–although you don’t need a hyphen between “scientifically” and trained." “Scientifically trained” is simple and direct and is not confusing. It communicates. Not much different from “medically trained.”
It communicates poorly, becuase it is (at best) ambiguous. This is precisely the sort of thing (well, besides bad grammar, wrong wordings and no control of the word ‘the’) that Taiwanese scientists and researchers have problems with in English to begin with.
I wouldn’t want to learn Chinese from someone whose ad was full of wrong characters, and I wouldn’t want to have someone edit my paper if that person couldn’t write a really top-notch, flawless ad of three or four lines.
Here’s a way to look at the add in a favourable light:
The purpose of the ad was to weed out potential clients who would not be significantly helped by the service.
Thus, any researcher or grad student who wrote the editing service to say “Just one small quibble guys… you do realize that your adverb usage is a bit ambiguous do you not?” would be sent a polite reply saying:
[color=blue]“Dear Dr. ______, Thank you for your reply. Given that you have discovered our subtle (but intentional) error, we have concluded that your English is sufficiently advanced that our service would not be of use to you. Good luck in your future endeavours!”[/color]
Not only a clever editing service, but a commendably ethical one as well! :bravo:
as an ex-scientist and now an editor and writer, i am appalled that people now know our secret. the best modern scientific training methods have been employed to ensure the most believable product for the consumer, the crispest white starched coats and the craziest bouffant comb-overs have been cunningly deployed for maximum effect. it’s so easy, anyone can do it…
Technically speaking, I suppose you’re right. Okay, technically I’m not speaking, I’m typing. And I’m definitely not technically typing or doing technical writing or anything else you might be thinking. But you know what I mean
My point is that “scientifically trained,” “medically trained,” etc are idomatic. I note from the suggested revisions that none of you were confused about what was meant, so it doesn’t communicate too poorly. Hopefully–wait, can’t use “hopefully” like that. Undoubtedly–is that one okay here? Give me a minute…I know! Surely (Did you know Leslie Nielson just turned 79) you don’t think that the intended audience will misunderstand. Granted, “biologically trained,” “historically trained,” and many other similar constructions would cause some consternation because they aren’t, well, idiomatic. I probably would not use the construction in question. But I also would not condemn a fellow editor or writer for doing so.
:bravo:
)