Carty 1
A Rhetorical Analysis of Scientific Journals
Crista Carty
Northeastern University
Progress in research is expedited when large institutions distribute data because scientists
with different affiliations can analyze these studies and apply them to their own research. This
results in new methods and protocols that drastically shorten experiment durations. When
experiments are less of a hassle to perform, scientists can attain results not only on a shorter
timescale but also with greater validity and reliability. Scientific journals were created with the sole
purpose of sharing impactful information within the scientific community. These magazines address
the community with new information from studies across the globe to persuade other scientists that
these novel hypotheses are valid and therefore are deserving of experimenter time and money.
Nature, Science, eLife, Cell and The Journal of Neuroscience were all founded with the intentions
of providing a network through which scientists could share their findings without fear of losing
legitimacy.
Although everyone has the ability to access Nature, Science, eLife, Cell and The Journal of
Neuroscience, their main audience is researchers and faculty within the scientific community.
However some journals choose to specialize within this group. The Journal of Neuroscience
addresses those researchers that concern themselves with solely neuroscience issues and how that
affects behavior while Cell focuses on the microbiological aspect of the problems scientists are
tackling today. Nature, Science and eLife are more general with the scientific disciplines they
choose to publish but strategically divide their issues by the specific type of science for organization
purposes. All these journals are filled with technical jargon because they are meant for researchers
Carty 2
active in the field. For instance, when neuroscience papers refer to regions of the brain they simply
use the acronyms associated with that region rather than write out the whole region. This is difficult
to follow throughout the paper if the reader does not have a background in neurology. However
eLife publishes research manuscripts that include a short abstract that summarizes past findings,
their relevance and even the basic science behind the study.
Usually scientific journals publish world news and debates in science and technology.
Nature and eLife discuss news about everything from health policy reform to statistical analyses of
disease rates in underdeveloped countries while The Journal of Neuroscience, Science and Cell only
discuss scientific discoveries and do not provide coverage for political activism unless it changes
how institutions should conduct experiments. For instance, this week in Science the leading news
articles discussed the New Horizons approach to Pluto and Japan fabricating data about whale
hunting while Nature debated the ongoing issue of falsifying policy in the name of national
hubris.4,5 Despite these differences in news publication, the structure of the original manuscripts
these scientific journals circulate is universal.
In Science, Nature, Cell, The Journal of Neuroscience, and eLife the basic configuration,
function, and overall tone of the research articles in the issues are almost identical. Every original
manuscript published in these papers takes on a formal tone. When constructing these papers
researchers are trying to convince the reader to agree with their hypotheses even if it contradicts
preceding studies as evidenced by the title “Arcuate hypothalamic AgRP and putative POMC
neurons show opposite changes in spiking across multiple timescales.”1 This type of persuasion
requires the paper to take on the style of a formal discourse rather than a light-hearted letter. When
reading a manuscript, the majority of scientists skip right past the introduction and move straight to
the data and figures presented in the study. This results section is what will determine whether or
not fellow experimenters accept the presented findings. Researchers do not care how well someone
Carty 3
can reiterate past findings or hypotheses, but if the article can convince the researcher through the
graphs and tables alone with no words that there is some evidence that gives gravity to their
hypothesis then the colleague will go back and read the paper. Therefore when scientific journals
publish articles they structure them in such a way that illuminates the results and figures for the
reader.
In Science, Cell, eLife, The Journal of Neuroscience, and Nature, research articles start with
the title that states the hypothesis, or what the study was attempting to prove or disprove. It usually
looks more like a long statement filled with technical jargon rather than a title. There is
subsequently a short abstract section that briefly discusses what scientists have determined to be
true in this specialty up to the point the experiments were conducted. There is then an introductory
segment that briefly touches on more background knowledge, methods, and the problem that the
researchers were trying to solve. In short, the introduction covers why the researchers chose to
spend six months of their lives trying to solve this problem and what were the general steps it took
to putatively solve that issue. The introduction is swiftly followed by the results section. This
contains numerous graphs that show the same data but statistically grouped in different ways to
determine a correlation between two variables. This is followed by the discussion section that
delves into why these results prove the original hypothesis or caused the researcher to reevaluate
and construct a new one. Then the methods section covers all matters of how the experiments were
performed: everything from mouse genomic models to animal diet. Once all the sections that
actually talk about the experiment have been concluded, the authors list the references used
throughout the study and any acknowledgments to researchers who may not have done enough to
claim authorship but still contributed largely to the study itself.
Unfortunately in this day and age science has become a giant money pit where society only
hears or cares about the biggest, scariest problems and donates all funds allocated for science to the
Carty 4
institutions that work to solve those specific problems. This also translates to scientific journals.
Science, Nature and Cell are all known to publish only what the field has deemed “impactful
science.” In short, this is science that sells. These journals have begun publishing studies without
sound results or logical methods that are flashier than a well-constructed study on fish migrations.
This is because flashy science is what sells subscriptions. Recently, Science had to redact a study on
human embryo cloning published in the June 2005 issue when reports surfaced that the data
published was entirely fabricated.2 Science is not the only profitable peer-reviewed journal under
scrutiny for retraction. In the month of May 2015, Cell retracted two papers, “A Self-Produced
Trigger for Biofilm Disassembly that Targets Exopolysaccharide” and “Impairment of central
leptin-mediated PI3K signaling manifested as hepatic steatosis independent of hyperphagia and
obesity.”6 The first contained irreproducible results while the latter depicted figures with contrived
data. In the past six years retraction rates for Nature have doubled, averaging about two studies a
year as of 2010 with the number steadily increasing with no sign of cessation. A paper published in
Infection and Immunity created a retraction index, claiming that the impact factor of a scientific
magazine can be directly correlated to its retraction rate.3 Since its publication in 2011, this article
has been the steppingstone for over 15 published studies discussing the retraction epidemic science
is currently facing.
Out of this pit of misconduct and fabrication was born eLife, an open-access, online journal
created by Nobel Laureate Randy Schekman in 2012. Specializing in the life sciences and
biomedicine, the overall goal of this journal was to distribute only studies that were reproducible
and provided a strong argument to support hypotheses.7 They advertise their integrity by explicitly
reminding their audience that they do not chase the impact factor right on their homepage. As stated
previously scientific journals cater to an audience consisting of the scientific community, however
since eLife is an open access journal that does not require a subscription to enter into the
Carty 5
community, they add a section in each manuscript called the eLife Digest right before the
introduction. This provides more in depth background for those readers who may not have any prior
experience in science. Although the tone of article remains a formal discourse, the aesthetics of the
eLife site as a whole contrast greatly with the scholarly voice. They utilize bright colors on their
general website to draw the reader to important facts or news. There is an easy to use menu sidebar
as well as a section containing topical podcasts that cater to adults on any career path. Using a small
header at the top of the screen minimizes distractions from the actual content of the site.
The article entitled “Arcuate hypothalamic AgRP and putative POMC neurons show
opposite changes in spiking across multiple timescales,” discusses the inhibitory agouti-related
peptide (AgRP) neurons and their spiking patterns in mice recorded in vivo. To quickly summarize
the content, before a mouse even eats the food, i.e. the moment there is a cue that would indicate
food, AgRP neuronal firing rate decreases dramatically. This contradicts the preceding hypothesis
that AgRP neuronal firing decreases with caloric repletion. In addition, they noticed an increase in
activity in a nearby neuronal population associated with satiety and thus concluded that these two
populations are most likely linked in a downstream mechanism.1 Looking at the article as a whole,
the tone is once again scholarly throughout and follows the same structure as previously discussed.
However, aesthetically speaking this article is set on a purely white background to minimize
distractions from the actual information. There are large tabs at the top of the article to easily move
between sections and large social networking icons to the right of the article. Rather than have a
separate references section on this scrolling platform, eLife has decided to put the full citation right
in the text. The minimalistic style draws the eyes right to the body of the text and any graphs
presented. The bold, contrasting colors of the figures make them understandable and easy to
distinguish. This makes the article more appealing because readers do not have to strain their eyes
to browse the article and thus can focus on what the manuscript is trying to emphasize.
Carty 6
In recent years the field of science has exploded and researchers everywhere have been
using new methods and equipment to make groundbreaking discoveries. The journals Science, Cell,
Nature, eLife and the Journal of Neuroscience were all founded to share these new findings
throughout the scientific community. Every scientific journal publishes original manuscripts with a
formal tone in order to convey their objectivity as a professional scientist. While the basic structure
of research articles is consistent throughout journals, the sites use a variety of bright colors and easy
to use features to grab the attention of the reader. Although the intended audience for these research
articles is anyone willing to pay the subscription, the true audience is the researchers and faculty in
these fields. Scientific journals have allowed the exchange of ideas and information that has resulted
in a progress towards cures for hundreds of diseases that currently plague modern society.
Carty 7
References
1. Andermann M, Burgess C, Lowell B, Mandelblat-Cerf Y, Patella P, Ramesh R, Yang
Zongfang. Arcuate hypothalamic AgRP and putative POMC neurons show opposite changes
in spiking across multiple timescales. eLife. 2015; 4(7122). doi:10.7554/eLife.07122
2. Boyle A. Journal retracts disgraced stem cell papers. NBC News. January 12, 2006.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10826359/#.VafL1cZVikp. Accessed July 16, 2015.
3. Casadevall A, Fang F, Morrison R.P. Retracted Science and the Retraction Index. Infection
and Immunity. 2011; 79(10). doi:10.1128/IAI.05661-11
4. Hand E. Updated: Pluto’s icy face reveals, spacecraft phones home. Science. July 14, 2015.
http://news.sciencemag.org/space/2015/07/updated-plutos-icy-face-revealed-spacecraftphones-home?rss=1. Accessed July 16, 2015.
5. Rochmyaningsih D. Don’t distort policy in the name of national pride. Nature. 2015;
523(257). doi:10.1038/523257a
6. Scudellari M. Harvard biofilm paper in Cell breaks down after challenged findings can’t be
repeated. Retraction Watch. May 14, 2015. http://retractionwatch.com/category/byjournal/cell-press/. Accessed July 22, 2015.
7. Why publish with us? eLife Web site. http://elifesciences.org/about#why. Published 2015.
Accessed July 16, 2015.