Subatomic Writing: Six Fundamental Lessons to Make Language Matter (Johns Hopkins UP, 2023), by Johns Hopkins University instructor Jamie Zvirzdin, is a guide for writing about science—from the subatomic level up! Subatomic Writing teaches that the building blocks of language are like particles in physics. These particles, combined and arranged, form something greater than their parts: all matter in the literary universe. This interdisciplinary approach helps scientists, science writers, and editors improve their writing in fundamental areas as they build from the sounds in a word to the pacing of a paragraph. These areas include: sound and sense; word classes; grammar and syntax; punctuation; rhythm and emphasis; and pacing and coherence. Equally helpful for students needing to learn to write clearly about science and for scientists hoping to create more effective course material, papers, and grant applications, this guide builds confidence in writing abilities. Each lesson provides exercises that build on each other, strengthening readers’ capacity to communicate ideas and data, all while learning basic particle physics along the way.Our guest is: Jamie Zvirzdin, who teaches science writing at Johns Hopkins University and researches ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays for the University of Utah. Her writing has been featured in The Atlantic, Kenyon Review, and Issues in Science and Technology.Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, the producer of the Academic Life podcast. She holds a PhD in history, which she uses to explore what stories we tell and what happens to those we never tell.Playlist about unpacking hidden curriculum of writing books: Before and After the Book Deal Writing Your Book Proposal The Dissertation to Book Workbook A Guide to Getting Unstuck Finding Your Argument Top Ten Struggles in Writing a Book Manuscript and What to Do About It Open Access Publishing Explained Stylish Academic Writing Tips University Press Submissions and the Peer Review Process Do You Need To Hire A Developmental Editor? Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by posting, assigning or sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 200+ Academic Life episodes? You’ll find them all archived here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Jacob Krüger, Assistant Professor for Software Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. We talk about peer review in software engineering — what it is, and what it might be.Jacob Krüger : "When you submit to broad-themed conferences like ICSE or FSE, you cannot assume much background knowledge on individual tools or techniques which are really, let’s say, the standard in your home community. Because, to succeed as such conferences as those, your really need to communicate explicitly to your reviewers what you have done, which steps you have taken, the techniques you have used and for which reasons — so, basically, you have to explain each design decision of your study. Of course, at a small domain conference, many of these things will be obvious — but not to all reviewers at a large conference, because, remember, these are the conferences where many communities gather — here your reviewers are likely to be very diverse in their research. So, it is the authors’ job to explain and justify every move in the study.”Link to the paper where Jacob talks about the process of review Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Carolyn Seaman, Professor of Information Systems, and also, Director of the Center for Women in Technology, at the University of Maryland Baltimore County. We talk about how peer review is conducted at the venues of software engineering.Carolyn Seaman : "English language skills is one thing — but really, the English is just the final layer on your research, because you also need the ability to organize your thoughts, the ability to collaborate with a group of people on a research team — these are all also communication skills that people, of course, have a differing levels — but this communication, and especially in the written form, is just so important and really a key factor for success.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Klaus Schmid, Professor of Software Engineering, Research Group Software Systems Engineering, University of Hildesheim, Germany. We talk about how research cultures influence and shape research outcomes.Klaus Schmid : "Research writing is an act of communication. This means, the writer is responsible for the mental model that the reader develops as a result of what the text provides. It is, of course, true that no writer can entirely predict the mental model being formed in any reader’s mind — and yet, it remains every writer’s responsibility to work toward influencing and steering that formation in a direction which will ultimately enable the picture in the reader’s mind to achieve high commensurability with the picture in the writer’s mind.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Tim Menzies, Editor in Chief, Automated Software Engineering, and also, Full Professor, Computer Science, North Carolina State University. We talk about how disagreement in research brings advancement.Tim Menzies : "In writing your research, you can't belligerently say, 'I want to say something.' The thing that goes wrong with newbies writing papers is that they write, 'I did. I did. I did.' Because, the people who publish very well, they write, 'They did. They did. They did.' So, you have to say something someone else can hear, otherwise there's no point in saying it. And to say something someone else can hear, you have to say it in the patterns they appreciate. You have to study the discourse and the norms of the forums you're targeting, and you have to match to them."Link to Automated Software Engineering, An International JournalLink to stats package Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Leonard Cassuto, a Fordham University professor, champions clear academic writing to enhance reader engagement. He shares insights from his latest book, arguing that many scholars overlook the reader's experience. Topics dive into the detrimental effects of jargon and the need for clarity while retaining complexity. Cassuto reflects on the evolution of writing standards and the responsibility of all educators to teach writing skills, not just specialists. His perspectives challenge the status quo, advocating for a more inclusive and reader-focused approach to scholarly communication.

Listen to this interview of Guilherme Horta Travassos, Systems Engineering and Computer Science Graduate Program, Coppe, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. We talk about the review process, both at Information and Software Technology and also more broadly throughout the software-engineering community.Guilherme Horta Travassos : "The review process is hard, because there is the author’s perspective, and there is the reviewer’s perspective, and these perspectives must become a match. It’s like software inspection: There is the author of the document, and there is the inspector. So, if they do not have the same viewpoint or the same perspectives on working with that artifact, it is going to be hard. And this is true, too, of the reviewing process.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Jo Van Bulck, Assistant Professor in the DistriNet Research Unit, KU Leuven, Belgium. We talk about the paper LVI: Hijacking Transient Execution through Microarchitectural Load Value Injection (S&P 2020).Jo Van Bulck : "For me, this paper is a good example of how just by thinking, we researchers can attain to insights. This is not a paper where we came across something by doing it. No, it was really about thinking, and then coming up with an idea, and then evaluating that idea.”LVI: Hijacking Transient Execution through Microarchitectural Load Value InjectionAbout LVI Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Filling a gap in the literature, Inclusive Cataloging: Histories, Context, and Reparative Approaches (ALA Editions and Core, 2024) provides librarians and catalogers with practical approaches to reparative cataloging as well as a broader understanding of the topic and its place in the technical services landscape. As part of the profession's ongoing EDISJ efforts to redress librarianship’s problematic past, practitioners from across the field are questioning long-held library authorities and standards. They’re undertaking a critical and rigorous re-examination of so-called “best” practices and the decisionmakers behind them, pointing out heretofore unscrutinized injustices within our library systems of organization and making concrete steps towards progressive change. In this conversation, co-editors Billey Albina (Amber Billey), Elizabeth Nelson, and Rebecca Uhl discuss their work to bring together chapters that detail the efforts of librarians who are working to improve our systems and collections, in the process inspiring those who have yet to enact change by demonstrating that this work is scalable, possible, and necessary.From this book, readers will gain an understanding of the theoretical underpinning for the actions that create our history and be challenged to reconsider their perspectives; learn about the important role of the library catalog in real-world EDISJ initiatives through examples ranging from accessibility metadata and gendered information to inclusive comics cataloging and revising LC call numbers for Black people and Indigenous people; discover more than a dozen case studies drawn from a variety of contexts including archives, academic and public libraries, and research institutions; and see ways to incorporate these ideas into their own work, with a variety of sample policies, “how to” documents, and other helpful tools provided in the text. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Paul Ralph, Professor, Dalhousie University, Canada. We talk about what's wrong with peer review — and how to fix it!Paul Ralph : "We don't want reviewers micromanaging style, complaining about the way the study is written. No, what we want — and need — is for reviewers to focus on the methodological details of the study: Was it done well? Are the results likely to be true?"For more, see Empirical Standards. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices