See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259781893

Writing for Science and Engineering

Conference Paper · October 2009

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14493.31209

CITATIONS READS
4 5,488

1 author:

James Cusick
Ritsumeikan University
166 PUBLICATIONS 479 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by James Cusick on 20 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Writing for Science and Engineering: A personal account
of methods and approaches

James Cusick1
[email protected]

Abstract

S
cience and engineering develop based on the emergence, dispersal, and
confirmation of ideas and the experimental confirmation of those ideas.
Throughout the history of Science major works have been published that
essentially changed the understanding of humankind’s place in the cosmos
including the works of Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton. Today more
Scientists are currently alive and researching than all the Scientists that ever
lived in prior generations combined. Their ongoing work must be written down
and communicated within the technical community and to the population at large.
Recently the author was invited to present regarding writing methods for
Scientific and engineering topics at a writer’s conference in Japan. This paper is
based on that presentation and describes the types of technical writing supporting
Scientific and engineering publications. A description of the motivation and
purpose of technical publishing, the source of inspiration, content, and common
formats will be provided. Special emphasis will be placed on the style of technical
writing as well as the community of engineering writers and how they build on
each other’s work. As a working example the author’s own experiences in
publishing applied research findings and the methods and approaches followed in
doing so will be instructive guidance.2

1
The author is currently Director IT at Wolters Kluwer in New York.
2
Version 1.2; Issued 23 January 2010

1 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

 Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 3
Impact of Science Writing ............................................................................................................................. 4
Science, Engineering, and Technology .......................................................................................................... 5
Forms and Process of Technical Publications................................................................................................ 7
Elements of Science and Technology Writing ............................................................................................... 8
Major Types of Technical Papers ................................................................................................................13
What to Put In a Paper ................................................................................................................................14
A Specific Archetype Example .....................................................................................................................15
A Sample Career in Writing .........................................................................................................................18
Reading as a Base ....................................................................................................................................18
Starting Points and Progress ...................................................................................................................19
Citations ..................................................................................................................................................21
More Reading and Some Reviewing .......................................................................................................23
Why Write? .............................................................................................................................................24
A Writer’s Mentorship Program ..................................................................................................................25
Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................................26
Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................26
References ...................................................................................................................................................26

2 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

 Writing for Science and Engineering: A personal account
of methods and approaches

Introduction

athered within the 19th century walls of a private Kyoto university, writers shared

G thoughts on their craft. I was to speak on writing for Science and engineering. I could not
understand the context of these poets and novelists anymore than they could understand
my topic. While held in the ancient capital of Japan, the conference was conducted in English so
at least on one level the possibility of communication was enabled.

I was invited to speak on engineering research writing approaches after my initial topic covering
the introduction of Western Science into Japan was rejected. The conference was not about Japan
really, it was more about the writing craft as practiced by people, mostly foreigners, in Japan.
When challenged with this topic it made sense to me to develop a talk around the classical
impact of Science writing and an outline of my own experiences in being an author of numerous
technical papers.

Many engineers have trouble writing and still more are not native speakers of English and often
times deliver repeated errors in their works. My first job in technology involved technical writing
of user manuals, proposals, and other software documents. Since then I have always been
required to write internal memos, plans, reports, and analysis. Once started on publishing results
from my applied research in software engineering I continued at a fairly steady pace of about two
external publications per year. This has continued for about 25 years up until now resulting in
nearly 50 papers and talks3.
Through all these efforts, I have developed a personal and perhaps idiosyncratic methods and
approaches for writing and publishing for both technical documents and engineering or Scientific
articles, papers, and talks. Other authors have covered this topic, e.g., Perelman [PERE01];

3
See author’s publications at: www.mendeley.com/profiles/james-cusick/

3 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

however, it was clear from both the expert and the not so expert presenters at this writing
conference that writing itself is a skill that is always evolving. Following this recent conference
based attempt at communicating these skills, I believe that what I have learned about creating
technical publications is sufficient to warrant a paper of its own.

In this paper I will cover the background of the impact of Science writing, my own experiences
in writing and publishing, a listing of technical article types, and a detailed description of one
standard paper format that is often used and remains highly valuable to engineers and Scientists
both. It is anticipated that this discussion will at minimum provide a general guide to the
approach to constructing, formatting, and publishing works of similar type. I cannot discuss
writing of full length books as the longest publications I have worked on were book chapters. I
did attempt to write a full length text on software engineering once but abandoned the project.
Nevertheless, much of the material in this paper can be used as a base for developing longer
length publications.

Impact of Science Writing

F rom the Greeks to the Renaissance to the massive steps of the 19th and 20th century, the
written word from the Scientific community has had deep and far flung impacts on
philosophy, society, and technology. The works of Plato and Aristotle and of the entire
“Greek miracle” which formulated not only ideas but methods to discover still further ideas set a
foundation for Western Science. Prolific thinkers and writers in China and India independently
developed both concepts and technologies which built up human understanding and capabilities
[CUSI08]. Later Arabic scholars translated, preserved, and improved on both the Asian and
Greek thinking in their own language and in countless books and articles. Eventually this written
material was translated back into Latin for its reintroduction to Europe in the late Middle Ages
primarily in Moorish Spain.

At this time a spark was lit. An outstanding example of the impact of

Science writing is the case of Copernicus [ARMI47]. Born in Poland,
educated in Italy, and trained in medicine and cannon law, he pursued
astronomy for decades. Early on he saw that his observations did not
match the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic model of the cosmos. He released
a couple short articles hinting at his thoughts so as to gauge Scientific
reaction but not attract the ire of the Church. He became convinced
that an Earth centric universe was not supported by his decades of
observational data.

Near the end of his life an apprentice came to work with him named
Rheticus. This student convinced Copernicus that he should publish his
findings and conclusions. Together they wrote De Revolutionibus
Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres).

4 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

This book was only published when Copernicus was on his death bed. He did not feel safe
releasing his work until dying in 1543 when he could no longer be in danger of persecution by
the Church. This proved rather prudent as others who followed were harshly treated. In the case
of one Italian astronomer, Giordano Bruno, who lectured on the Copernican helio-centric
universe, being burned at the stake was in fact his fate.

The revolutionary impact of this single Scientific writing cannot be over-emphasized and its
significance is generally difficult to imagine today. By putting the Earth into motion, Copernicus
threw out eons of belief in the centrality and divine supremacy of humans. All of Church
doctrine had to be reconsidered and rethought. This has been the pattern of the impact of
Scientific writing since this time. From Kepler to Newton to Darwin to Einstein modern humans
have had their centrality, stability, and ascendancy in Natures world continually attacked,
reordered, and often psychologically diminished or at least fully restacked. Science writing can
have colossal impacts.

In the case of Newton, his early work in his 20’s cemented an understanding of the physical
motion of the universe including the concept of gravity. Later in life he defined the field of optics
and in an appendix laid out the modern field of calculus. Such documents remain critical in our
modern understanding of nature, light, and how to engineer technologies which have variable
rates of change. Darwin, like Copernicus, delayed publishing his work on evolution as he feared
the social backlash that might come with such claims [NYU08]. It was not until another
researcher submitted similar ideas for publication in a journal he was editing that he sat down to
write On the Origin of Species which was eventually published in 1859 [DARW59].

Victorian English society revolted at the concept that humans might have descended from apes
and Darwin was widely criticized and mocked. Nevertheless, his ideas prevailed in the Scientific
community and today the only 19th century book on biology that is researched for new ideas is
this one. Finally, in 1905, Einstein published 5 papers [EINS98]. These introduced among other
ideas concepts of relativity, the properties of light, and the famous E=mc2. These papers
introduced a wholly new physics which led to a revolution in understanding and wide ranging
new research possibilities as well as practical applications including nuclear power. The relevant
conclusion of this work was that it came from an anonymous patent clerk and the Scientific
vetting process allowed the ideas to succeed and revolutionize physics due to its clarity,
correctness, creativity, and impact. Once again, the impact on Science was tremendous and, as
the history of the 20th century illuminates, these short papers within the genre of Science writing
were tremendous in import.

Science, Engineering, and Technology

A
nyone attempting to write within this domain should first consider the differences and
relationships between three key categories: 1) Science; 2) Engineering; and 3)
Technology (see Figure 1). In basic terms Science is the pursuit of knowledge regarding

5 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

the empirical understanding of Nature. This pursuit is governed by the application of the
Scientific Method. The basics of the Scientific Method are listed below. This method relies on
observable evidentiary conclusions which are repeatable and can be independently verified.
Thus, the method itself calls for writing down the approach, theory, experimentation technique,
results, and then publishing those results. I have highlighted step number 7 as it directly relates to
the topic of this paper.

Figure 1 – Relationship between Science, Engineering, and Technology

Basics of the Scientific Method:

1. Define the question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other Scientists)

6 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

Engineering is focused on solving real world problems using skill, knowledge, Scientific
understanding and both experiential and Scientific approaches. The fundamental engineering
disciplines like irrigation and building typically grew out of trial and error. Eventually, the
interplay between Scientific discovery and experience helped developed models, rules, and
approaches to successful design, construction, and operations for structures, machines,
electronics, and all other manufactured and processed goods and materials. In some cases
engineering ran ahead of Science (such as early aircraft designs) and in other cases Science ran
sometimes many years ahead of engineering [TOMA00]. Thus, writing became of vital link
between the worlds of Scientific exploration and discovery and the practical applications of ideas
through engineering.

Finally, technology represents human produced artifacts driven by Science, engineering,

craftsmanship, art, and design. Technology can be an end product, a device, a method, or a tool
to create new technology (like a microscope). Technology is typically produced by Scientific,
engineering, or craft like processes. The Hubble Space Telescope is a piece of technology just
like a dugout canoe is also a technology artifact. Knowledge about technology can be passed on
from master to apprentice through demonstration and teaching but in our modern world much
knowledge must be passed on through written formats. The exploration of some of these formats
will be the focus of the remainder of this paper.

Forms and Process of Technical Publications

L ong ago I took a college course on art history. It focused on the role of art in reflecting the
rhythms of society and culture. One diagram that has stuck with me is the triangle model
of the relationship of artist to observer. This relationship is only possible through the
medium of their work. I have modified this diagram to help illustrate my point around the
communication between author and reader through the medium of the printed word. One
modification I made to this model is the dashed line back to the author from the reader (see
Figure 2). I do not recall this feedback loop being present in the artist’s communication model.
Perhaps it was there but in any case I see it as a critical connection in the model for the technical
author.

The author’s job is to conceptualize a piece of writing, construct it, edit it, and publish it. The
purpose in Science writing is to share ideas and experimental results, achieve peer acceptance of
those ideas, and contribute to the expansion of Scientific and engineering knowledge. Thus the
feedback loop from reader to author is critical. If the paper is produced and no feedback is gained
then it is difficult to determine if any positive contribution has been made. Negative feedback
can be just as important as positive feedback as that it might may correct an unproductive line of
thought and set the research down a more fruitful path.

7 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

 Figure 2 – The Author’s Triangle

There are several components to Scientific writing. Naturally the form and style of the document,
the writing style itself, and the content all contribute to the end result. A beautifully written
article which contains only fluff or a set of obvious or even incorrect assumptions will not be
welcomed. Instead a successful writer is one who captures useful findings, structures them
within applicable research, draws specific conclusions, and all the time presents the work in a
flowing text pleasing to the reader. This is not a small task.

“All writers are vain, selfish, and lazy.”

- George Orwell, “Why I Write” (1947)

Elements of Science and Technology Writing

T
here are some very specific peculiarities involved in writing for Science. In fiction one
might need character development, plots, and imagery. In poetry there is phrasing and
balance. In Science writing the goal is to persuade the reader based on facts that a
particular observation is a valid representation of nature. Below are some essential
characteristics of Science writing:

Fact based: The entire document must provide factual evidence. This means that even with a
theoretical treatment the matter must be presented based on known facts and that conclusions
must bear towards the reasonable conjecture. In an experimental report the paper must move
8 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010
 from elementary fact through a discernable path of logic, evidence, and deduction to a set of
conclusions that can be tested empirically. This is not the job of an opinion writer but
naturally if opinion is provided it should be defined as opinion.

Expository but provable: The Science paper must naturally tell a story. The story may be of
a given problem, an approach to solve it, and the results. There is a story to tell but it must be
provable, observable. Sufficient details need to be provided so that any educated individual
can understand and if required reproduce the logical trace of discourse.

Data driven: All technical papers have their basis in an hypothesis, an empirical set of data,
and their repercussions. The data might be quantitative or qualitative. It might cover a wide
area or very specific measurements related to the subject or particular area in question. There
is an old saying that “In God we trust. All others bring data”.

Independently verifiable: At the most basic, any technical paper should be reproducible
given the same environment and approach. Thus the technical paper must contain the
definition of the required environment, precursors, test approach, tools, and methods needed
to demonstrate the effect being discussed. It is not enough to simply claim victory. The writer
must equip the reader with the method of validation. It was Einstein who famously predicted
that gravity could bend light and space time itself. This was not validated for several decades
but was in fact eventually shown with experimental observation of parallax of distant stars in
line of sight with the massiveness of the sun [MCPH08].

Peer reviewed: For the most part, technical papers need peer review. This is the best known
system for verifying (not validating) technical and engineering writings. In this process
several pre-identified expert level individuals independently, autonomously, and
anonymously review a given paper and provide questions and commentary as well as a
recommended editorial approach such as acceptance for publication, rejection, or revisions
required. Without a peer review process anyone might inject half baked ideas into the
literature. It is not the job of the reviewer to reproduce the experiment, that is the job of the
Scientific community. However, the review does stand guard over the introduction of
reasonable theory, logic, and findings.

These fundamental precepts regarding Science writing leads to the basic workflow of thought in
the technical community. In Figure 3 below we begin at primary research and communicate our
findings. Once submitted and vetted via peer review (as just described) the accepted ideas are
published, disseminated, and cited if they are found to be useful. This provides a “virtuous cycle”
most famously mentioned by Sir Isaac Newtown4 as: “If I have seen further it is only by standing
on the shoulders of giants”. Simply put, the scientist first reads the works of their predecessors
and begins defining experiments and explorations. Observations are then put into context. This is
known as the literature search and review which is the basis of any useful paper. Failing to do so
might cause a researcher to re-invent something, draw inappropriate conclusions, or simply

4
Letter to Robert Hooke (15 February 1676), via Wikiquote.

9 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

waste people’s time reviewing redundant work. Of course in some cases working in a vacuum
might produce breakthroughs as the scientist is not in this case encumbered by earlier false leads
or blind alleys. It is possible that by ignoring prior work once might find new discoveries but in
the end the prior work must be acknowledged.

Figure 3 – Lifecycle of technical and research writing

Thus, from this generic wheel of Science the development which covers the essential research
and development flow comes the basic mechanics of Scientific publication as listed here:

1. Idea generation: Where do ideas come from? Inspiration? Observation?

Experimentation? Or all of the above and more? It is clear that there is no monopoly on
good ideas and all Scientists differ in how they bloom. It was Thomas Edison, the prolific
inventor, who famously said5 that: “Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine
percent perspiration”. For most technical authors they work on multiple lines of inquiry
at the same time, thus, they may have several papers in the works or even larger projects
like book chapters, books, or lengthy dissertations. Often necessity is the true mother of
invention. In my career roughly 75% of my work has been directly related to some
commercial or industry project. That is, an engineering solution was required typically by
a business and once completed there was an experience with substantial data to share

5
Spoken statement (c. 1903); published in Harper's Monthly (September 1932) via Wikiquote.

10 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

 with the technical community. In other cases this work has been driven by improvements
to existing tools or processes again following practical usage requirements.

2. Development: The conversion of ideas into working principals is where the bulk of the
work must be carried out by both Scientists and engineers. With the spark of an idea one
must then develop that idea using painstaking literature searches, lab experiments, field
trials, and more. Typically, a title or an abstract of an idea might be produced as the first
step in the writing process to be expanded gradually over time or the work may come to
the author’s mind all at once and in a burst of creative energy be captured in a rough
draft. Presentations are also useful conduits to creating technical papers. This paper itself
in fact began with a presentation to a writer’s conference [CUSI09]. While the
presentation itself may be considered a form of publication it is typical that only a paper
or report can fill out all the details related to the topic. It is also in this development phase
that further ideas are generated. Once the researcher has made a foothold in their area of
study and has a framework or a coat hook to place more ideas the fabric of the
consideration can blossom.

3. Targeting: When the ideas are well formed and experimental data is established the
paper should have basic form at least in the author’s mind. Between lab notes, ideas, and
collected data, a paper can come to life. It is now time to consider the targeting of the
paper. If the paper is on theory, then it might take one course. If it is of a practical nature,
then perhaps an industry journal would be best. If funds are available for travel, then one
of the many conferences on the subject might be best. One technique to apply is
searching on keywords from the paper to locate outlets which might prove relevant. Also,
many standard notices are placed in journals or on the web. A great example is Computer
by IEEE which prints a monthly calendar of computing conferences6.

4. Submission: All technical outlets issue Calls for Papers (CFPs) or some alternate means
of collecting submissions. Each one varies in the required format. Templates, font sizes,
heading types, and length are usually all prescribed. Once the targeted venue has been
selected submissions may be attempted. Naturally, in the Scientific community only
original work can be considered and thus one cannot submit to multiple sources at the
same time but this needs to be done sequentially if at first success is not found.

5. Revisions: Based on reviewer feedback one or more revisions may be necessary. This
might include both technical and editorial changes. In some cases professional editors are
involved to get the piece to fit stylistically in the target publication outlet.

6. Publication: Once published, articles can garner feedback. This is sometimes of a critical
nature but more often supportive. In some cases published work leads to additional ideas
or collaborations. The author can state numerous cases of both types of positive outcomes
and only minor negative criticism over 25 years of technical publishing. One might say

6
Computer by IEEE: http://www.computer.org/portal/web/computer/home

11 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

 that in that case the work is not controversial enough or perhaps readers were not
sufficiently moved to provide feedback. Circulation also matters. If a good paper is not
seen or noticed ideas may be missed.

7. Citation: For the better papers, other authors will reference the work in new studies to
build their base on sound shoulders. It is a great honor to see the cycle come all the way
around and have your work cited by other researchers in the field. Interestingly, once a
substrate of ideas has been documented, new work can be built on this base by the
authors themselves. For example, I published my first paper on software reliability and
since then have published another half dozen related papers building on the first one. This
is how a research agenda can emerge and years of fruitful investigation can flourish.
Some people may plan a research path. In my case multiple threads of investigation
developed and branched more organically due to the applied project problem domains I
was exposed to over the years.

This seven step model is depicted in Figure 4 below. Predictably, in an engineer’s mind the
publication model is yet another process flow. This flow begins with ideas, project
experiences, topic research, or observation as just described. Abstracts become drafts and
drafts become papers for submission. Based on reviewer comments submissions are
published, rejected, or reworked. This cycle can take as little as a few months or as long as 1-
2 years to complete based on numerous factors.

Figure 4 – The Publication Cycle

12 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

Major Types of Technical Papers

T here are several kinds of papers that a scientist or engineer might write. The type of paper
is determined by the content and the intended message of the paper. That is, if a research
project was completed and there are results to share then the paper will take a certain
shape. If on the other hand new concepts are to be introduced the paper structure will match that
content instead.

The most common paper types include:

1. Theory: These papers introduce new ideas without necessarily providing supporting data
but are typically based on data and observation. Theory typically takes existing
knowledge and explains it in a new form or introduces purely new knowledge via
deduction or abstraction. Obviously, this type of paper is both extremely challenging to
write and potentially very impactful as well. Einstein’s five papers of 1905 mentioned
earlier are classic examples. Format will be dictated by the topic in question.

2. Researched opinion and exposition: Differing from theory the author may have
extensive research on a topic and choose to weave this together as an informed opinion as
opposed to a new theory. This kind of paper might take a position and argue its merits
without introducing new data.

3. Experience report: This type of paper is the author’s own mainstay. Using project
experiences in commercial software development settings I have published numerous
papers which share technical experience as gained fraom commercial software
engineering efforts. This kind of paper will be described in detail below. Essentially, this
approach presents a problem, an experimental framework, and a set of results. This is a
classic Scientific lab notebook readout in essence delivered in precise and clear terms.

4. Survey papers: There is a high volume of papers published on many technical topics.
The survey paper attempts to summarize and synthesize the work of many authors into
one compact report. Recently in my role on an editorial board I read a fantastic survey of
inspection techniques by Sami Kollanus and Jussi Koskinen [KOLL09]. This paper was
deep and broad at the same time. It was very well written, clear and concise, but covered
the entire field. It was a solid contribution to the Scientific knowledge base by
consolidating results of over 150 existing publications.

5. Journalistic reports: There are many events that occur in the Science, engineering, and
technical fields. These could be product or process introductions, accounts of inventions,
and related topics. This kind of writing places and emphasis on the “now”. I have no
experience in this area but reading any trade journal or even a newspaper section on

13 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

 Science advances (as opposed to a technical journal) will give one the sense for what
goes into these articles and what they typically cover.

6. Technology reviews: Similar to journalistic writing is the technology review. This genre
is well developed in the software and computing field. Essentially, the author takes a
piece of technology, tries it out, and reports the results in the form of an opinion. I am
familiar with this type of work due to spending about two years evaluating software tools.
My work was considered proprietary and never published but I am aware of other
individuals who did similar work and published in various technical magazines. A
prototypical example is Rich Dragan7 of CUNY and formerly a Contributing Editor of
PC Magazine. Rich published literally hundreds of technology reviews in this role.

7. Technical History: Over the last couple of years I have become more interested in
Computing History and the History of Science and Technology. As such I have published
a couple of papers in this area. The format of such a report is fully based on the subject.
The paper might be a report or in one case I conducted a series of interviews with the
founding figure in a particular technical field [CUSI09].

What to Put In a Paper

W
hen it comes to actually writing, the author must find a voice. It helps to have good
notes, a basic outline to start with, and a theme to approach. Most authors have their
own style but Scientific and technical writing at a minimum must both catch the
reader’s attention and deliver something of value. Some creativity is required in order to make
some of the dense technical material readable. In my case an introduction typically uses a theme
of some imagery such as a popular movie or a familiar object. Once a link or metaphor is
established it is easier for the reader to follow the sometimes abstract concepts of the paper.

Next the author must place observations in context of prior research. This means at minimum 6-
12 references will be cited helping the reader understand what prior work has been done and how
the new work contributes to the story. Naturally, the content must be compelling to the reader. If
for example the reader has no interest in inspections themselves, they are unlikely to read the
paper even if it is an excellent one. At the same time, the author must have useful information to
share. Further the required data must be presented well both in textual form and in any graphics
or tables. The author must maintain logical consistency and be persuasive. The paper is after all
attempting to convince the reader of the author’s point of view, theory, experimental results, or
new concept. If the author does not write convincingly the reader will not take it seriously.

7
Rich Dragan Bio: http://www.lagcc.cuny.edu/english/about/faculty/bios/fullTime/dragan.htm

14 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

Finally, clear conclusions should be drawn and the author should always discuss new directions
following from the presented facts.

As for style itself engineering publications tend to be factual but they need not be dry.
Unfortunately, a complex vocabulary may be required which may be specific to the domain. It is
a good idea to state the precise technical term and define it or use an analogy. Thus, one might
write something about “multiple-inheritance” which might not be widely understood outside a
narrow technical community or having a prior meaning in lay man’s words. As a result the
author can provide an alternate description or definition like “a software object which takes
attributes from more than one parent object”. This explanation should be understandable by any
reader within the context of the paper.

The writing process has been described by many [LERT96]. For myself I need a concept, some
basic input, and ample time to craft the document. Over the years I have fallen into a certain
pattern of writing and as long as there is adequate structure each sentence can flow out. It is part
motivation, part inspiration, and part drudgery. In terms of construction, the word is the basic
building block, the sentence the key structure, the paragraph the fundamental package, and the
outline the organizing construct. For each building block some expertise is required. One needs
sufficient vocabulary to select the right word and use it properly. Sentence construction should
be both efficient and readable while also providing the desired meaning. Personally I have
always written in passive voice while all my editors have struggled to convert my work into
active voice. Finally, a good paragraph has a topic sentence, a body, and a concluding sentence.
With such detail the paper should come out well.

A Specific Archetype Example

U
p to now this paper has described the context for Science authorship, the types of
technical papers which are common, and their content and style. A useful additional
view is around the specifics of one archetype called the experience report. This report
style is a mainstay of technical publications. This report documents work that has been
performed, its experimental environment, and results as found by the authors.

The basic outline of a technical experience report is roughly as follows:

1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Related Research
4. Approach & Goals
5. Tools & Environment
6. Results
7. Discussion

15 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

 8. Conclusion
9. Acknowledgements
10. References

The introduction and background are straight forward. The author must entice the reader with the
story that is about to be told. Once the preliminaries are presented a literature review segment is
required to put the work into profile with prior art. The goal is to demonstrate awareness of
related research and to differentiate the current work from existing published work. In order to
do this the author must on a continuing basis 1) read the latest journals and books, 2) attend
relevant conferences, 3) stay active in the field, meaning contributing to newsgroups and
discussing trends with other researchers, and finally 4) participate in editorial forums which will
be explained shortly. These actions will make it easier to produce relevant literature reviews. It is
worth mentioning also that while online searching is very useful, visits to physical libraries may
sometimes be required due to access constraints of online information services and sources. A
handy way to advance this is to also reference your own prior work to build a history.

Once the new work is defined in context the researcher must provide the approach taken. This is
known as “experimental design”. In all solid Scientific work an experiment is created, carried
out, and results reported in such a way that independent verification of results can be achieved.
Famous experiments were conducted on falling objects by Galileo in 1634 [RUBI09] and then
repeated in Lunar gravity by the Apollo astronauts [WILL09]

An experiment is defined as: “an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something
unknown or of testing a principle” [DICT09]. The basics of designing an experiment includes
the following:

1. Defined hypothesis: a testable hypothesis must be presented, such as, all bodies fall at
the same rate regardless of their mass.
2. Specified expected outcomes: the experimenter needs to predict the outcome of the
experiment.
3. Controlled environment: there needs to be an environment defined within which to
carry out the experiment, the setting, tools, etc.
4. Observable factors: a predefined set of factors should be determined to be able to
understand the results.
5. Measureable elements: some aspect of the experiment should be measurable in a
quantitative or qualitative manner.
6. Repeatable results: The experiment must be reproducible by others by following the
steps laid out above.

Once an experiment is defined, executed, and reported on, the results can be published as per the
publication approaches described above. These kinds of experience reports rely heavily on data
and data visualization techniques. The specifics of data representation are beyond the scope of
this paper but the reader is referred to the work of Edward Tufte [TUFT97] an expert in this area.

16 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

Additionally, the author should not shy away from using mathematics to represent models, tools,
and results. Not all readers may follow complex derivations so these need to be explained
sufficiently in the text. This is the same for charts. One should not include a chart that is not
mentioned at least once in the body of the document.

A solid experience report will follow the general out line and report on an experiment as per the
6 components defined above. A report may be more qualitative than quantitative and perhaps not
every factor will be preplanned, that is, the scientist may discover some factors as they progress
but those should be documented as well.

Once a draft is prepared it should be proofread carefully. Typically, I physically print out the
paper when it is nearly complete and read it word for word and apply plenty of red ink where
required. Next, it is best to get 1-2 people to proofread for typographical problems. The next step
should be to enlist 3-4 internal reviewers. These people may not give typographical comments
but should be looking at logical flow and impact of the paper. They will provide a good indicator
if the paper is ready for further review and possible submission. In some cases I will send a draft
to several external reviewers for comment prior to submitting to the targeted publication source.
In some cases I may not have a target publication source and an external reviewer might suggest
one. Once all comments have been integrated one can submit the paper. As mentioned earlier
this review process may vary from journal to journal or from conference to conference. The
specific review process will be provided by the call for papers or by the journal’s standard
submission guidelines. These approaches are too varied to summarize here but typically require a
the application of a standard template and of course certain dates need to be met to be
considered. It sometimes helps to contact the editor ahead of time for any special requirements or
to discuss the appropriateness of the piece for the journal or conference.

The final sections of the report are the acknowledgment section where the author lists any
individuals or groups that have been helpful in the research and the references section detailing
all sources used in the paper. The references section is a bibliographic list of each relevant author
and published source used to support the comments made in the paper including key prior
technical findings which might be built on in the paper. There are excellent guidelines on how to
carry out this critical piece of a research paper. I prefer to reference one or two instead of
recreate the wheel.8 9 10 This particular paper uses a style which is common in social Science and
computing where the author’s name combined with the publication year is used as a reference
tag embedded in the text and the bibliography repeats the tag and is sorted alphabetically by the
tag name. I find this the easiest to use as a reader but many other styles are valid also. Once
again, the target publication will make it clear what style the is needed an you can simply convert

8
Basic Bibliographic Style: http://www.amphi.com/~cross/bibliography_page.htm
9
A Research Guide for Students: http://www.aresearchguide.com/7footnot.html
10
Columbia University professor’s tech writing guide with bibliographic reference style defined:
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/etc/writing-style.html

17 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

over as appropriate. The main point here is to be consistent in your style and make it readable
and of course, document all relevant sources as appropriate.

“The map is not the territory”.

- Korzybski, 1931

A Sample Career in Writing

A
n example sometimes helps. As such let me present (in all humility) my career as a
programmer, manager, applied researcher, author, and instructor. I have had the good
fortune of working and publishing for about 25 years thus far. My first paper was
accepted at an undergraduate research conference in 1985. I began publishing and
teaching and routinely wrote one or more papers per yar. This year I was fortunate to have three
papers accepted: one by an online journal, one by a writer’s conference which inspired this
paper, and one as an invited talk to a professional group which I plan to convert into a white
paper shortly. Some of this work has been widely disseminated and even translated in part or in
whole into Russian, French, Chinese, and Japanese. I have also published dozens of conference
papers and been invited to speak numerous times. Some people have asked me how I did all this
while still keeping a full time job. Well, let me try to explain.

Reading as a Base
The roots of my writing go back to my adolescent years. Nearly every summer my family would
spend a few weeks at the sea shore. I loved sitting in the sun and reading while taking the
18 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010
occasional boogie board ride. It may seem odd to say that I was able to write because I loved to
read but that is true. In software there is an axiom that if you want to write good code you need
to read a lot of other people’s code first. I was trained in Liberal Arts and then Organizational
Psychology which emphasized what is called soft research. Between the two disciplines I got a
lot of practice writing and on how to run a social Science experiment. As it turns out, software
development is basically a heavily technical activity governed by complex social interactions.
This is fertile ground for a trained social scientist to look for patterns and relationships.
Ironically, running software engineering projects turns out to be a perfect environment for testing
both technological and social hypothesis.

In college and afterwards during my 20’s I read vociferously. I read literature, Science, history,
and more. Some of my favorite authors were Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Twain,
Dostoevsky, and many more. I was curious about the world, the meaning of each of us in it, and
how things worked. A favorite book was Cosmos by Carl Sagan. I read it twice. This was an
outstanding piece of Science writing tracing the current universe from its origins and from its
smallest pieces to its largest movements. My interest in Science was renewed and after teaching
for a couple of years in Japan I started a new job as a technical writer for a small software
company. In parallel I went back to school to study software development. While teaching in
Japan, I also published illustrations and cartoons as a hobby and had my first prolonged exposure
to the publication process, in this case for a leisure arts magazine. I worked with editors,
assignments, and deadlines and experienced the thrill of seeing my work in print at bookstores. A
good friend at the time (Jay D.) had a Masters in English from Berkeley and influenced me on
how to think about writing. A key book which I read at that time was “How to Read a Book”
[ADLE72]. This book is a classic on how to use the appropriate reading technique for the task at
hand. For example reading a newspaper versus reading a thesis calls for different skills. All these
early experiences helped prepare me for my first professional writing experience.

Starting Points and Progress

My first assignment as a tech writer was to create a user manual for a medical billing software
application. This took a couple of months of research, writing, careful editing, formatting, and
review. The result was a book used by thousands of people to help them operate their businesses.
I am indebted to my boss at the time (George G.) who took extensive time to read and reread the
drafts and suggest basic guidelines on format, organization, and flow.

My first research publication in software came a few years later after working for AT&T Bell
Laboratories. I spent a few years in software development writing C and C++ code and then I
was asked to run a test group. At the time, I didn’t know what software testing really meant aside
from unit testing. I started doing some research in the company library to figure out the best
methods to apply. One day I happened to read John Musa’s just-published article on operational
profiles [MUSA93]. After applying his ideas I was invited to publish my first conference
publication documenting approach. This led to several other publishing opportunities. I can say
that afterward, I was more of an engineer and an applied researcher than just a programmer.
Being surrounded by great Scientists and engineers at Bell Labs helped my work. The

19 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

organization encouraged, developed, and supported writing and publishing work to further the
expertise of the company as well as its profile in the industry and bolster recruiting aims.

Eventually, I set a goal for myself to publish one paper a year. So far I have been averaging
about two each year. These papers have almost exclusively been related to Software
Engineering. The topics are varied as can be seen in Figure 5. To get this distribution I took my
current 45 publications and classified them according to primary and secondary topics. The
merged result of 90 data elements was then sorted into the 8 buckets in the diagram by looking
for commonalities. This collection does not include the several ancillary publications I can also
be credited with such as a short story, some graduate research papers, and numerous illustrations
and cartoons; I consider those as separate as they are not Scientific in nature. The resultant
graphic does indicate that my work has been distributed in several clustered areas. This can be
interpreted as unfocused or healthily diversified depending on your interpretation bias. For the
purpose of this paper the point is that the same authorship and publication technique can work
for multiple technical domains. In almost all of these areas (except history and the profession)
the experience report is a very frequent format.

Figure 5 – Research Topic Distribution of Cusick Publications

This distribution, as mentioned, has been produced on average by publishing twice a year.
However, as Figure 6 indicates the flow of papers can vary. In some years as many as 5 papers
have been published and in other years zero. One major influence during the 1990s was my
adjunct teaching at Columbia University. The requirement to develop new courses pulled me
deeply into the literature. The primary course I developed required upwards of 200 research
citations to put together. Doing this reading and sowing together the threads of key methods on
software forced me to think about many aspects of the field I might not otherwise have

20 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

investigated. Coupled with continuing to work inside a hotbed of advanced software engineering
at AT&T, my creativity was engaged and expressed itself in models, approaches, observations,
and more both independently and with co-authors of various backgrounds. I have carried this
style of work with me to each ensuing employer as my career developed. My professional toolkit
now includes the means and interest to conduct such applied research, write about it in detail,
and get it into press.

In addition to the environmental aspects that supported my writing, several key individuals took
an interest in my work, especially a good friend and collaborator Dr. William Tepfenhart, John
Musa (1933-2009), Bill Everett, Max Fine, Vic Basili, and numerous others, primarily inside
Bell Labs. It was through these people that my style began developing, that I viewed project
events as opportunities to publish, and that my own horizons as a researcher and writer grew. I
have deep appreciation for each of their efforts in guiding me and working with me.

Figure 6 – Publications per year by Cusick

Citations
These papers have been met sometimes with acclaim and sometimes with a silent thud. It is hard
to tell which paper will find an audience. In the overall publishing model seen in Figure 3 above
the final piece is citations. In the early years of my work it was rather difficult to tell if a paper
had been cited. If the author did not inform you (and normally they will not) then you might only
discover the usage by accident such as by reading the actual paper. Citations are both a vote of

21 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

confidence in the work and also build a dependence tree from a Scientific and evidentiary
perspective (see Figure 7).

Today there are multiple repositories that can tell you the citation history of a paper with some
accuracy. The Google Scholar11 application and Microsoft Academic12 both provide numbers of
papers citing other papers or how many citations per paper. One paper I worked on shows up as
having 30 citations on Google Scholar and 9 citations on Microsoft Academic. Some very
popular papers have citations in the thousands. I do not think any author can predict which of
their papers will be pointed to or at what degree of frequency. Cleary, a popular Science paper
must be well written so as to be understandable and accessible but as already mentioned it needs
to have relevant and impactful ideas and/or data so that future authors will find it valuable to
quote, cite, or otherwise reference.

Figure 7 – Citation example

One thing to note about both of these tools is that at least for the data relating to my work each of
them is incomplete and inaccurate. The tools do not find the bulk of my publication as some of
them may be in conference materials not easily indexed. Also, there are many people with the

11
Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/schhp?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=ws
12
Microsoft Academic: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/

22 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

same name so the tools group findings together inaccurately. At the present time these citation
mapping visualization tools are only just usable and the data remains unreliable if interesting. I
especially like the interactive tools on Academic providing visualizations of the data.

More Reading and Some Reviewing

During these years of professional development I read broadly in Software Engineering and in
related fields. Some of the more influential writers I found were Ed Yourdon, John Musa, Tom
Demarco, and Capers Jones. Each of these pioneers documented their ideas in articles and books
on various subjects. Yourdon talked about the profession and where it was going [YOUR92].
Musa talked about how to achieve reliable software [MUSA87]. Demarco’s brilliant Peopleware
[DEMA87] taught me what I needed to know to be a reasonable manager. And Jones explained
what it meant to measure software on many different levels [JONE91]. As one can imagine there
were many other books and papers that led to my outlook and influenced my writing style. As a
loyal reader of journals like “IEEE Software13” and “Software Practice and Experience14” I saw
what a good journal article looked like. Again, through reading I was able to understand how to
write better and for the target audience.

Another piece of the puzzle on becoming a technical and Scientific writer has been contributing
to the field as a journal editor. John Musa got me started on this by introducing me to the then
editor of IEEE Software15 and having me review a few papers for them. As of now I have
contributed to the following journals as a reviewer:

1. Editorial Board Member, “Open Software Engineering Journal16”, 2007-Current

2. Member, “OASIS Technical Committee on Electronic Court Filing”, 2004-2008
3. Reviewer, “Journal of Information Science and Engineering”, 1999-2003
4. Reviewer, “IEEE Software”, 1995-2002
5. Reviewer, “AT&T and Bell Labs Technical Journal”, 1996-2002
6. Reviewer, “IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering”, 1996-2000

As John explained it, being a reviewer helps you to become a good writer. You get to see many
people’s ideas in raw form, try to help shape it up, and learn new tricks. After 15 years of
involvement in this aspect of technical publication I must agree. Additionally, I feel proud of
assisting other authors in becoming published. One incident in particular stands out in my
memory. A group from Motorola had a very good paper on Global Software Development which

13 IEEE Software: http://www.computer.org/portal/web/software/home

14
Software Practice and Exerience: http://www3.interScience.wiley.com/journal/1752/home
15
IEEE (Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers)
16
OSE(Open Software Engineering Journal) = http://www.bentham.org/open/tosej/index.htm

23 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

I supported for publication in “IEEE Software” but I thought some key text would be better
represented in a table. The authors agreed and it went to press. I feel my idea helped the paper
and it has turned out to be a frequently cited article.

Why Write?
All of the above is focused on the mechanics of publishing. I would like to spend a moment
discussing the motivation for writing. In thinking about it I believe the bottom line for myself as
an author is that writing is a natural form of expression. Just as painters paint, and drivers drive,
so too do writers write.

So if I write because I am a writer what makes me a writer is writing. This circular logic can be
made clearer by remembering some key factors in Scientific, engineering, and technology
writings:

Writing is central to the Scientific Method. Approaches and results must be documented
to allow for independent confirmation and validation.

The author becomes a participant in a 2 way dialogue of ideas. Once the work has been
shared comments can be made that critique or support the work. The same is true in
reverse, as a writer I must base my work on others’ foundational handiwork and re-test
their ideas. This virtuous cycle benefits society.

Publishing allows for a test of usefulness. Some papers I have submitted for publication
have been rejected. In general the rejection rate is about 1 in 6. This means that on
average my work typically makes sense to others, adds some value, and has been
accepted. In the other half dozen cases the work needs to be rethought and possibly
rewritten. Such feedback is very useful in getting to a more pragmatic theory or
description of results. I always point out that some people have hobbies like bowling or
golf but the game of publishing is a puzzle I like to try to solve over and over just like a
persistent hobbyist will try to improve their golf swing.

Of course authorship builds professional recognition and a portfolio. My work and ideas
are a matter of the public record. Many articles appear on web sites, are indexed by
search engines, have appeared in printed journals that are archived in libraries, and of
course I have self published my work on my personal web site. When I meet with people
I can easily point them to my collection of works so they can find topics of interest to
them, provide feedback on my work, and discuss how to work together on new things
based on the building blocks I have carved over the years.

In essence, writing is like falling off a log for me. When I have difficulties I write. When I am in
a good mood I write. I write for my supper and I write to entertain others and add to the
discourse of Science. Writing also places my work into the maelstrom of Scientific progress. A
professor of mine once said that he would like to be able to play one game in the NFL (National
Football League) because while he would be knocked on his back immediately at least he would
24 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010
be in the game. This is the same way I feel about my Science writing career. I may not be one of
the stars but I am definitely in the game. Finally, I write because I feel as if I have something to
say. It is not ego alone but a passion to contribute something from my point of view, backed up
with data, and research and achieve acceptance in the minds of editors, reviewers, and the
readership or audience as the case might be.

A Writer’s Mentorship Program

O
ver the last few years I have developed and run a voluntary program within my company
(Wolters Kluwer) which is intended to support individuals and/or groups in publishing
their ideas, results, findings, or experiences in Scientific and technical journals and
domestic conferences.

This benefits the company by the fact that publications bring good publicity to the company,
active publication efforts generate new ideas, contributes to augmenting our technical
competitiveness, and enhances our ability to attract top talent. Furthermore, the interaction with
other authors and editors develops ideas that can enhance company products, answers the need to
build and capitalize on thought leadership, meets the need to document successes for projects,
and finally, further builds team work.

The program also benefits individuals as it allows for the development of writing and publishing
skills, encourages deep research in technology areas that are key to the company, and allows the
individual networking opportunities and supports the creation of a professional portfolio.

All members of our IT department are welcome to participate with the immediate goal of
producing a steady stream of publications over time. To carry this out, the program assists in
individuals selecting research topics, developing those ideas for publication, creating abstracts,
papers, and reports, including help in proofing, editing, and research. Finally, each individual is
assisted in finding an outlet for the publication as well as advice on each step in the publication
cycle. In many cases, but not all, the individual researchers have invited me to participate in the
development of the paper and I have co-authored many of the successful papers so far. However,
the idea is to “teach someone to fish so that they might feed themselves for a lifetime”. Thus,
independent research and publication by each individual in the program is the ultimate goal.

All that is required of the participating individual is a desire to learn, interest in writing, ability to
generate ideas, and ability to devout time to the task. So far we have had 8 papers developed
since 2004 with 5 different individuals involved including myself as co-author on several papers.
Only one of these papers has yet to be published but was submitted to an online technical paper
catalog. These papers have covered a wide variety of topics including Global Software
Development, process engineering, performance engineering, overtime effects on quality, and
Bio-computing.

25 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank all the people who taught me to read as without reading there can be no real
writing. Also, the many people who laboriously read my many papers over the years (like
Max Fine) even when those papers sometimes needed to be nearly rewritten in whole or in
part have my thanks. Finally, people like Bill Tepfenhart, Al Aho, and John Musa who are
prolific writers at the same time that they invent and discover as true Scientists have my deep
appreciation in being sounding boards but especially inspirations for sticking to it amidst
adversity and challenge.

Conclusions

W
riting Scientific and technical papers remains a critical link in the development of our
technologically based society. Everything from pharmaceuticals to farming and from
computers to aeronautics relies on the principles of experimentation and results
presentation as discussed in this paper. The interrelated topics of Science, Engineering, and
Technology were defined in relation to the form, type, and typical content of a Science or
technical paper or article. A sample paper of the experience report was clearly described along
with a sample profile of a career in progress of a writer in the field. From all these angles the task
of the technology or Science writer can be seen as both challenging but also rewardingly well
defined.

References

1. [ADLE72] Adler, Mortimer J. , & Van Doren, Charles, How to Read a Book, Touchstone;
Revised edition, 1972.
2. [ARMI47] Armitage, Angus, Sun Stand Thou Still: The Life and Work of Copernicus
the Astronomer, Henry Schuman, New York, 1947.
3. [CUSI08] Cusick, James, Non-European Scientific Concepts in Modern Science Transported
to Renaissance Europe via Islamic Culture http://www.jamescusick.net/pages/hosdocs/non-
european%20concepts%20via%20Islamic%20Science.pdf, December, 2008.
4. [CUSI09] Cusick James, “Writing for Science and Engineering”, Japan Writer’s Conference,
Kyoto, Japan, October, 2009.
5. [CUSI09] Cusick, J., “In Memoriam: John Musa”, IEEE Computing Now,
7/15/2009.[LERT96] Lertzman, Ken, Twenty-One Suggestions for Writing Good Scientific Papers:
Notes on Writing Papers and Theses, 1996, viewed 2009,
http://course1.winona.edu/mdelong/EcoLab/21%20Suggestions.html
6. [DARW59] Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 1859.
7. [DEMA87] Demarco, T., & Lister, T., Peopleware, Dorset House, 1987.

26 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

 8. [DICT09] dictionary.com
9. [EINS98] Einstein, Albrert, Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the
Face of Physics, Stachei, John, ed., Princeton University Press; illustrated edition edition
(March 30, 1998).
10. [JONE91] Jones, C., Applied Software Measurement: Assuring Productivity and
Quality, McGraw Hill, Inc., New York, 1991.
11. [KOLL09] Sami Kollanus & Jussi Koskinen, “Survey of Software Inspection Research”,
Open Software Engineering Journal, pp.15-34 (20).
12. [MCPH08] McPhee, Isacc, M., Relativity and Bending Light: Albert Einstein’s Most
Famous Prediction of General Relativity, Suite 101.com,
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/albert_einstein_and_bending_light, Feb 6, 2008
13. [MUSA87] Musa, J. D., Iannino, A., and Okumoto, K., Software Reliability:
Measurements, Prediction, Application, McGraw-Hill, 1987.
14. [MUSA93] Musa, John, “The Operational Profile”, IEEE Software, 1993.
15. [NYU08] Celebrating 150 Years of Darwin’s Origin of Species, New York University, 2008.
16. [PERE01] Perelman, L. C., et. al., The Mayfield Handbook of Technical and Scientific
Writing, The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2001.
17. [RUBI09] Julian Rubin, Galileo Galilei, The Falling Bodies Experiment,
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/galileofallingbodies.html, 2009.
18. [SOFT] IEEE Software, http://www.computer.org/portal/web/software/home.
19. [SPE] Software Practice & Experience,
http://www3.interScience.wiley.com/journal/1752/home.
20. [TOMA00] Tomayko, James, “A Historian’s View of Software Engineering”, 13th
Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, pp 39-46, Austin, TX,
March, 2000.
21. [TUFT97] Edward Tufte, Visual Explanations, Tufte Press,
http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/, 1997.
22. [WILL09] Williams, David, The Apollo 15 Hammer-Feather Drop, 2008,
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_15_feather_drop.html.
23. [YOUR92] Yourdon, Edward, Decline & fall of the American programmer, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ : Yourdon Press : PTP Prentice Hall, 1992.

27 Writing for Science and Engineering by J. Cusick ©2010

View publication stats