Tag Archives: All Things Editorial

The Exclamation Mark

The exclamation mark (!) is used in place of a period to add emphasis. The exclamation mark is used to express surprise, disbelief or extreme emotion and can turn a statement into a powerful one. It is used to grab your attention, and is used primarily in dialogue text to indicate excitement or astonishment. (“No!” he yelled. “I want it now!”)

The exclamation mark is used in place of a question mark to end a rhetorical question when no answer is expected. (“Isn’t she adorable!”)

The exclamation mark can be used following a single word to express intense feeling.

(Congratulations!) When using the word “oh,” an exclamation mark can be used to follow the word to add emphasis. (“Oh!  I didn’t see that!”)

The exclamation mark is used with words that describe sounds. (All day long the dog’s woof! could be heard in her garage.)

To add extra emphasis, a non-standard punctuation mark called an interrobang (^), which was created in the 1960s, merges the question mark with the exclamation mark. This punctuation mark was first used in publishing and advertising firms, and was not readily available on a typewriter. Therefore, it did not become a standard punctuation mark. Microsoft has it available in their Wingdings 2 set of fonts.  In some publications, you will see a question mark followed by an exclamation mark. (“Can you believe what he’s done?!”)

Many publishers do not use the exclamation mark at all, claiming strong writing will make it unnecessary and down-right distracting.

Leave a comment

Filed under editing, publishing, Uncategorized, writing

Revision Tips for Writers

  1. Revise big stuff first, make small edits later. This doesn’t mean you should not correct obvious typos and grammar errors as you notice them. However, you shouldn’t be actively tinkering with word choice until after you’ve nailed down the structure of your piece.
  2. Put the manuscript down and walk away. Writers need at least a little distance from their manuscripts before jumping into revision.
  3. Scan the whole manuscript without reading. Scanning can make big problems more obvious than a writer might not notice when reading closely.
  4. Read carefully. Take your time and read every word. Then, read it out loud. This will help you catch obvious errors and check for smoothness or the “flow.”
  5.  Look for ways to be more concise with your language. Can you turn a 15-word sentence into an 8-word sentence? Can you turn an 8-sentence paragraph into a 5-sentence paragraph? Less almost always means more for the reader.
  6. Use active voice over passive voice. There may be occasions for using passive voice, but for the most part be active.
  7. Vary sentence structure. Even if it’s grammatically correct, using the same pattern over and over again will make your manuscript boring. Don’t feel like you have to be creative with every sentence; just check that you’re not falling into a monotonous pattern.
  8. Save each round of revisions as its own file. Saving these files provides a record of your changes and shows your development of the story.
  9. Have someone read the manuscript. The more eyes the better, because they’ll be more objective when reading. It is always best to ask someone other than a relative, who naturally will be biased.
  10. Print the manuscript for a final edit. There are things you’ll catch on paper that you won’t on the screen.

Leave a comment

Filed under editing, publishing, Uncategorized, writing

Et al.

Origin of et al.

Latin et alii (masculine), et aliae (feminine), or et alia (neuter)

That is why et al. is used—simpler, right?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized, writing

Polish Your Work Before Submitting: Six Revision Tips

1. Listen to your critique group. When I first began to write, I was fortunate to meet some wonderful writers who became fabulous friends. We met regularly to work on our manuscripts. We worked to give constructive feedback to one another and because we listened to each other, our writing got better. We listened when the group told us the funny parts weren’t really all that funny. We listened when the group thought our chapters were too long. We listened when the group couldn’t relate to our characters. Listening to the group’s honest feedback made us dig deeper into our stories, making them stronger and better.
2. Listen to other authors. Most writers know that writing begins with reading, but some writers don’t take that to heart. If you want to write funny picture books, read funny picture books. If you want write a mystery series, read mysteries series. If you want to write children’s poetry, read the children’s poetry that’s being published. But when you read the genre you’re trying to write, don’t just read it as a reader would, read it as a writer would and “listen.” Really listen to the way the author tells the story. Then go to your story and see if yours sounds the same way when you really listen to it. Doing this might help you see how your story is falling short.
3. Listen to writing teachers. If you have the opportunity, take a writing class or go to a writing workshop or conference. Learn everything you can firsthand from experts, but don’t just go and take notes and network. Really listen to what the experts are trying to teach you about writing and then go home and do it in your own writing. If the classes, conferences and workshops are out of your reach, read books about writing or watch a DVD. You can learn plenty if you really listen and apply what is being taught to your own manuscript.
4. Listen to your editor. When you finally get your big break, and an editor wants to work with you, be sure you’re ready to listen. Don’t be defensive. Don’t be argumentative. Listen. Listen to their feedback. They love your story or they wouldn’t be working with you. They want what’s best for you and your story, and good editors always have a vision for what your book can really be. Listen to them and let them guide you. If you do, in the end, your book will be more than you ever imagined it could be.
5. Listen to yourself. Throughout all this listening, as you are learning and taking advice from all of these sources, don’t forget to be true to yourself and your story. You don’t always have to take everyone’s suggestions. If after you listen, you realize someone’s advice is not what’s truly best for your story, stand your ground and stay true to yourself. But remember, standing true in this way, can only be done if you’ve first taken the time to really listen.
6. Listen to reviews. When your book is finally published, lots of people will have lots of things to say about it. Some good. Some maybe not so good. Listen to it all and glean what you can from it. Use it as a learning experience for the new project you’re working on. Maybe the reviews of your present book will teach you things that will make your next book even better.

Revision requires patience and can even be painful at times, but it’s the only way your writing will ever improve. Following these six keys to revision will help you find the path that leads to making your story as wonderful as it can be.

From: Chuck Sambuchino’s Guide to Literary Agents Blog

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Writing Creative Non-fiction

There are many different genres within creative nonfiction: memoir, biography, autobiography, and personal essays, just to name a few.

Here are six simple guidelines to follow when writing creative nonfiction:
1. Get your facts straight. It doesn’t matter if you’re writing your own story or someone else’s. If readers, publishers, and the media find out you’ve taken liberty with the truth of what happened, you and your work will be ridiculed and scrutinized. You’ll lose credibility. If you can’t help yourself from lying, then think about writing fiction instead.
2. Issue a disclaimer. Most nonfiction is written from memory, and we all know that human memory is deeply flawed. It’s almost impossible to recall a conversation word for word. You might forget minor details, like the color of a dress or the make and model of a car. If you aren’t sure about the details but are determined to include them, be upfront and plan on issuing a disclaimer that clarifies the creative liberties you’ve taken.
3. Consider the repercussions. If you’re writing about other people (even if they are secondary figures), you might want to check with them before you publish your nonfiction. Some people are extremely private and don’t want any details of their lives published. Others might request that you leave certain things out, which they feel are personal. Otherwise, make sure you’ve weighed the repercussions of revealing other people’s lives to the world. Relationships have been both strengthened and destroyed as a result of authors publishing the details of other people’s lives.
4. Be objective. You don’t need to be overly objective if you’re telling your own, personal story. However, nobody wants to read a highly biased biography. Book reviews for biographies are packed with heavy criticism for authors who didn’t fact-check or provide references and for those who leave out important information or pick and choose which details to include to make the subject look good or bad.
5. Pay attention to language. You’re not writing a textbook, so make full use of language, literary devices, and storytelling techniques.
6. Know your audience. Creative nonfiction sells, but you must have an interested audience. A memoir about an ordinary person’s first year of college isn’t especially interesting. Who’s going to read it? However, a memoir about someone with a learning disability navigating the first year of college is quite compelling, and there’s an identifiable audience for it. When writing creative nonfiction, a clearly defined audience is essential.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


Does your story need conflict? Maybe, maybe not but conflict is the one aspect of a story that is sure to raise interest, cause a reader to take sides and, in general, portray a true-to-life situation. Much of our lives, from early childhood, have involved some type of conflict, be it sibling rivalry, teen competition, adult competition and rivalry for jobs, mates and other facets of our lives. So, to speak, conflict is a normal part of life.
Conflict boils down to five main areas:
a. Man against self: A person deals with conflict within him/herself when ones decides whether or not do “do the right thing”. Do I keep that beautiful ring lying on the sidewalk or try to find its owner?
b. Man against man: We are well aware of the conflict of man against man—just watch the evening news.
c. Man against society: People have fought to break from social mores since we lived in caves. There have always been do’s and don’ts, often called taboos. Women, for generations, were raised to believe that ‘decent’ women wore dresses. Now, that is no longer true, women wear dresses, slacks, jeans, shorts or whatever is comfortable or fitting for the occasion.
d. Man against nature: Humans have conflicted with nature since time began. The most notable conflict comes from the weather. We have conflict with dust storms, tornadoes, blizzards, floods, hurricanes and all other manner of foul weather that can be damaging or life threatening.
e. Man against God: This is the trickiest one, in that it assumes a belief in, or at least a grudging recognition of, the Almighty. No God, no conflict, no problem, right? No so fast—there are always forces that cannot be explained, whether they’re supernatural, chance or “dumb luck”. These areas of conflict are covered here.

The examples given for each of the five areas are meant only as that, just examples, not all-inclusive descriptions. Think about it. I’m sure you’ll come up with more, even better ones. If you have some that byou think will help other writers, please share them.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Delayed Subject with There

by Maeve Maddox
From Daily Writing Tips

In conversation we’d probably find ourselves tongue-tied if we couldn’t begin sentences with the grammatical subject there:
There are only three eggs left in the refrigerator.
There’s a lot of traffic on the freeway this morning.
In each example there begins the sentence, but the true subjects– eggs and a lot of traffic –are delayed until after the verb.

There is nothing grammatically wrong with this construction. Did you notice that I just wrote a sentence beginning with “There is”? Simply placing the true subject first would create Yoda-speak:
Nothing grammatically wrong with this construction is.
Rewriting an expletive sentence (the kind that begins with a subject place-holder like “There”) requires a little more effort than simple reversal. That’s probably why we let so many of them creep into our first drafts.

Compare the following:
There is research that shows that phonics is the most important component of beginning reading.
Research shows that phonics is the most important component of beginning reading.
Not only is the delayed subject pattern wordy, but it can also lead to a lack of subject-verb agreement. Here are some examples from websites offering professional services:
There’s good reasons EmCare is the industry leader
There’s areas of freezing drizzle/mist out there this afternoon.
There’s schooling costs, there’s health costs and they’ll continue to be provided out of the centres for those who are being temporarily resettled…(This was a government minister.)
Informal conversation is one thing, but writing for a professional purpose is something else again. If the “There is” opener is the preferred stylistic choice, then the delayed subject should agree with the verb that precedes it:

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Twelve Useful Websites to Improve your Writing

1. http://www.Words-to-Use.com – A different kind of thesaurus.
2. http://www.OneLook.com – One quick dictionary search tool.
3. http://www.Vocabulary.com – The quickest, most intelligent way to improve your vocabulary.
4. http://www.ZenPen.io – A minimalist writing zone where you can block out all distractions.
5. http://www.750words.com – Write three new pages every day.
6. http://www.Readability-Score.com – Get scored on your writing’s readability.
7. http://www.YouShouldWrite.com – Get a new writing prompt every time you visit.
8. http://www.WriterKata.com – Improve your writing with repetitive exercises.
9. http://www.IWL.me – (I Write Like) A tool that analyzes your writing and tells you which famous authors you most write like.
10. http://www.HemingwayApp.com – Simplify your writing.
11. http://www.FakeNameGenerator.com – Generate fake names for your characters.
12. http://www.Storyline.io – Collaborate on a story with others by submitting a paragraph.

Johnny Webber – Daily Zen List

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Don’t Get Rejected Before You Submit

To give yourself a head start you need to make your book stand out. Why does the publisher have to read it? Why do you believe in what you are doing? What is it about this book that warrants the attention of the book-buying public? If you are able to provide a publisher with this kind of information before they look at it, then – as long as they are enthusiastic, of course – you’re a step ahead.
First and foremost, you need to stop thinking like a writer and start thinking like a marketer. Can you condense your story down into one or two awesome sentences? If you can, you’ve developed a pitch and, depending on the policy of the publisher in question, you can use this to get people interested – either on the phone or via cover letters/emails.
Do you know which market you’re aiming for? Have you thought about how your book will compete with others on the shelves? Why is it different? Why will readers pick up your travel book on Rome rather than the Lonely Planet’s? If you can give a publisher answers to these kinds of questions (without them having to ask), you will pique their interest. Otherwise, if such questions come up and you have no reply, you will look naïve.
Look at submissions policies very carefully and use them to your advantage. A script that comes in clean, tidy, correctly formatted according to guidelines and with a concise cover letter will get more attention than the dog-eared, single-spaced tome with a rambling two-page explanation.
Are there small embellishments you can use to draw people’s attention – artwork, for example? Be careful on this, if you make the presentation too much of a challenge for a publisher, you’re shooting yourself in the foot before you’ve begun.
Can you do anything else differently to get people’s attention? Your ploys need to be subtle, because at this stage a busy publisher is doing you a favor by reading your work.
The submissions stage is one where books and dreams are made or broken. Success is a combination of skill, perseverance, patience and good fortune (and much more besides) – but the only way the final line is ever drawn is the moment you give up. Good luck!


Filed under Uncategorized

Finding a Reliable Source Near You

The quintessential scientist, Carl Sagan, once said, “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.”
Never has it been more crucial for the lay public to be scientifically literate. That’s where outdoor writers, using science, come in. In nearly all fields, outdoor writers deal with scientific facts from time to time. It is extremely important that writers get the facts right! Outdoor writers are often perceived by the public as authorities on fish, wildlife, and environmental issues. The writer has a responsibility to be accurate, as well as interesting and entertaining. The credibility of the writer will be judged on the accuracy as well as the readability of his/her work. The writer who has a reputation for accuracy and readability will sell more articles.
The goal is to make your product as scientifically accurate as possible, while still interesting and entertaining. “Where does the writer find the information necessary to produce an accurate yet interesting article?” You need to find experts.
Experts, “Who needs ‘em and why do we need ‘em?” you might ask. The short answer is: “We all do.” We call on experts all the time in our daily lives. Every time we visit our family physician, go to a hair stylist or take our cars to the repair shop we are seeking the services of an expert. Why shouldn’t we consult an expert when we’re communicating science to the public? Few of us as writers have the expertise necessary to explain adequately how cancer cells invade surrounding tissue or how an e-mail message travels on the internet.
In general, an expert is described as someone who is recognized by his or her peers or by the public as a reliable source of knowledge, information, and/or abilities. Just the fact that someone hunts, fishes, or photographs wildlife does not mean that person is an expert on fish and wildlife; it may mean, however, that a person is an expert on where to hunt, fish or find wildlife to photograph or what equipment is best for a particular site. We need to consult experts in the natural history and biology of the animal we’re writing about. How do you distinguish among real experts, pretenders, and ambitious individuals who want to use you to publicize their work and ideas? Finding an expert is not hard. Finding a credible expert with the proper credentials is a different matter.

Experts; Why do we need them?
One reader questioned a 2010 Smithsonian article on “Our Earliest Ancestors” presenting evolution as a fact, and not a theory. There is an equal body of scholarly work that supports the creation theory (i.e., The Institute for Creation Research). My problem with the article is NOT in its publication, it is in its presentation as absolute fact, which is not the case. What would prevent Smithsonian from presenting BOTH theories objectively, and allowing the readers to come to their own conclusions? Would that be any less scholarly?
What is the confusion here? Evolution as fact or theory…

What is the difference?
We know what a fact is, right? “The sun rises in the East”, that’s a fact. You can’t argue it—it happens all the time. But, what is a theory?
In technical or scientific use, theory, principle, and law represent established, evidence-based explanations accounting for currently known facts or phenomena or for historically verified experience: the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the law of supply and demand, the principle of conservation of energy. Often the word “law” is used in reference to scientific facts that can be reduced to a mathematical formula: Newton’s laws of motion. In these contexts the terms theory and law often appear in well-established, fixed phrases and are not interchangeable.
Where we run into trouble: In both technical and nontechnical contexts, theory is often used synonymous with hypothesis, a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, serving as a basis for thoughtful discussion and subsequent collection of data or engagement in scientific experimentation(research) to rule out alternative explanations and reach the truth. In these contexts of early speculation, the words theory and hypothesis are often interchanged “this idea is only a theory” when it’s barely a hypothesis.
Pasteur’s experiments helped prove the hypothesis that germs cause disease. Certain theories that start out as hypothetical eventually receive enough supportive data and scientific findings to become established, verified explanations. Then, and only then, does the hypothesis become a theory, the thought/hypothesis has evolved from mere conjecture to scientifically accepted fact.
Conventional wisdom also can be a big problem when presenting science to the public. Yes, even scientists can be guilty of accepting something as fact when it is not fact, or is an interpretation of facts that still have substantial uncertainty related to them. This problem has become particularly troublesome with respect to environmental issues. Ecology and environmental issues related to ecological matters generally involve greater uncertainty than the so-called hard sciences (physics and chemistry). An example is the statement that “fire is an ecological necessity”. This statement is accurate only if a particular stage of ecological succession must be maintained. In the absence of fire, succession will proceed in a different direction. It is more accurate to say, “Fire is natural, but it is not absolutely necessary”. Finding reliable sources that can and will distinguish between organizational policy or conventional wisdom and scientifically valid information may be difficult, but it is well worth the effort.
The credibility of the communicator, the media and, ultimately, the scientific enterprise itself, is at stake in our coverage of risks to human health and the environment. Many readers and listeners look to the media for some guidance in understanding the risks that we face and how to deal with them. Sometimes the best we as communicators can offer is the simple truth that science currently has no clear answer, so we need to learn to live with uncertainty. This fact, in itself, is not easy to communicate. We owe it to our audiences to provide more sophisticated, balanced reporting that goes beyond the “fear factor” approach. It is extremely important that writers get the facts right, and that they interpret these facts appropriately!

Who and Where are These Experts?
Colleges and Universities are full of ‘em. Government agencies, such as the County Extension Agent, and state agencies such as the state fish and game agency and even high school teachers can be experts. Successful business people can be experts, though this expertise may have been gained the hard way—by trial and error, not considered research.
A word of caution however, be careful when relying on specialties. Not every aquatic biologist is an oceanographer. In this age of interdisciplinary research, the boundaries between fields are often blurred. And always, remember that a scientist speaking may not be speaking as a scientist. Rely on them only when they are speaking within their area(s) of expertise. Really good scientists will tell you when they are expressing personal opinions or when your question is outside of their area.
Now that you have a few good sources, how do you interpret the scientific information to make it understandable and interesting the public? First, be sure that you understand the topic and the information you have collected. If you don’t have a complete understanding yourself, you will not be able to communicate the information accurately. Being a good science writer doesn’t require a college degree in science, however, it does require some healthy skepticism and the ability to ask good questions about things that can affect research studies and other claims. To separate truth from trash, you will need answers to these questions:
1. Was the study done, or claim made, on the basis of evidence only? How was the study designed and conducted? Was it laboratory research, field collections or observations?
2. What are the numbers? Was the study large enough to reach believable conclusions? Are the results statistically significant? That phrase simply means that based on the scientific standards, the statistical results are unlikely to be attributable to chance alone.
3. Are there other possible explanations for the study’s conclusions?
4. Was the study conducted free of any form of bias, unintentional or otherwise?
5. Have the findings been checked or replicated by other experts? And, how do the findings fit with previous knowledge on the topic?

What You Need to Know about Science
You must understand five principles of scientific analysis to find answers to these questions. They are the basis of scientific inquiry.
1. Some Uncertainty is Acceptable. Science looks at the statistical probability of what’s true. Conclusions are based on strong evidence, without waiting for an elusive proof positive. But science is always an evolving story, a continuing journey that allows for mid-course correction. This can confuse the public, especially when preliminary information is reported as fact. Scientists then are accused of “changing their minds or flip-flopping.”
2. Probability and Large numbers. The more subjects or observations in a study the better. A commonly accepted numerical expression is the P (probability) value, determined by a formula that considers the number of events being compared. A P value of .05 or less is usually considered statistically significant. It means that there are 5 or fewer chances in 100 that the results could be due to chance alone. The lower the P value, the lower the odds that chance alone could be responsible. Science writers don’t have to do the math, they just have to ask researchers: “Show me your numbers.”
3. Is There Another Explanation? Association alone does not prove cause and effect. You must be able to distinguish between coincidence and causation. A chemical in a town’s water supply may not be the cause of the illness there. A study’s time span can be very important so that normal cycles are not confused with study results. Ask the researcher and yourself: “Can you think of any alternative explanations for the study’s numbers and conclusions? Did the study last long enough to support its conclusions?”
4. The Dimensions of Studies. For costs and other reasons, all studies are not created equal. Old records, statistics and memories are often unreliable, but sometimes used. Case studies involving only one or two subjects usually are not considered a basis on which to draw broad conclusions. Far better is a study that follows a selected population for the long term, sometimes decades. Ask researchers in all scientific fields: “Why did you design your study the way you did? Is a more definitive study now needed?” Nevertheless, always bear in mind, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
5. The Power of Peer Review. The burden of proof rests with researchers seeking to change scientific conclusions. Science is never accepted until confirmed by additional studies. Science writers should look for consensus among studies.

In Summary
Above all, have fun. Science is intriguing, funny and essential to everyday life. If you write too loftily, you lose some of the best stories and the ones to which your readers most relate. You must:
• Know your topic. First, do some old-fashioned library research.
• Find an expert.
• Schedule a face-to-face interview if possible. Phone conversations and email questionnaires are OK if the expert is not local.
• Be sure you understand the FACTS before you begin to write,
• Check again with the expert, if you feel unsure.
Being a non-expert will not make someone a good science writer. But it’s not the kiss of death either. If you pay attention to detail, ask good questions, and aren’t afraid to admit how little you know, you can actually turn your ignorance to your advantage. I’ve found that if I can get an expert, often my husband— who has a doctrate in zoology, to explain something to the point where I can understand it, then I’ll be able to explain it to anyone else.
Remember: your credibility will be judged on the accuracy as well as the readability of your work. The writer who has a reputation for accuracy and readability will sell more articles, as well as provide greater service to the public.

Further Reading

Altimore, M. 1982. The social construction of a scientific controversy: Comments on press coverage of the recombinant DNA debate. Science, Technology & Human Values 7: 24-31
Ananthaswamy, Anil. 2011. Why I Write: Writing about Science—A Way to Pay Attention to Nature. http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/3658
Blum, D., M. Knudson, and R. M. Henig. 2006. A field guide for science writers; the official guide of the National Association of Science Writers. 2nd edition. Oxford Univeristy Press, New York, NY.
Crettaz von Roten, F. 2006. Do we need a public understanding of statistics? Public Understanding of Science 15(2): 243-249.
Clarke, George “Woody”. 2009. Justice and science: trials and triumphs of DNA evidence. Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, NJ.
Coyne, Jerry A. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/caturday-felid-how-do-falling-cats-right-themselves/ Science video
Dingwall, R. and M. Aldridge. 2006. Television wildlife programming as a source of popular scientific information: a case study of evolution. Public Understanding of Science 15(2):131-152.
Duke University. 2000. https://cgi.duke.edu/web/sciwriting/
Gardner, Daniel. 2008. The science of fear; why we fear the things we shouldn’t—and put ourselves in greater danger. Dutton, New York, NY.
Gould, S. J. 1999. Rock of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. Ballantine Publishing Group, New York, NY.
Hilgartner, Stephen. 2000. Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama (Writing Science). Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA
Laudan, L. 1982. Commentary: Science at the bar — causes for concern. Science, Technology, and Human Values 7(4):16–19.
Lewenstein, B. 1992. The meaning of ‘public understanding of science’ in the United States after World War II. Public Understanding of Science 1:45–68.
Losse, J. 1993. A historical introduction to the philosophy of science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Miller, S. 2001. Public understanding of science at a crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10:115–120.
Nickum, Mary. 2009. Experts: Who needs ‘em and Why? Outdoors Unlimited May, 2009
Nickum, Mary. 2009. Anatomy of a Science Article. Outdoors Unlimited April 2009.
Nickum, Mary. 2008. Sell Biology 101; Accuracy, readability form backbone of bankable science article. Outdoors Unlimited 69(1):1, 6.
Nisbet, M C, D. A. Scheufele, J. E. Shanahan, P. Moy, D. Brossard and B. Lewenstein. 2002. Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research 29:504–608.
Pardo, R. and F. Calvo. 2002. Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science 11:155–196.
Peters, H. P. 2013. Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 Suppl 3:14102–14109.
Prewitt, K. 1982. The public and science policy. Science, Technology & Human Values 7: 5-14.
Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. 2007. The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Random House, New York, NY.
West, Berndadette, M. Jane Lewis, Michael R. Greenberg, David B. Sachsman, and Renee M. Rogers. 2003. The Reporter’s Environmental Handbook. Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, N J.Wynne, B. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1:281–304.
Wynne, B. A. Irwin and B. Wynne, eds. 1996. Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science. Pages 19–47 In Misunderstanding science? : The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, London, UK.
Wynne, B. 2002. Public understanding of science. Chapter 17 In Jasanoff, S., G.E. Markle, J.C. Peterson T. J. Pinch, eds. Handbook of science and technology studies, revised edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yankelovich, D. 1982. Changing Public Attitudes to Science and the Quality of Life: Edited Excerpts from a Seminar. Science, Technology & Human Values 7: 23-29.

Additional Websites
http://casw.org/ Council for the Advancement of Science Writing
http://www.nasw.org/ National Association of Science Writers

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized