Author Template For Journal Articles: Fill & Download for Free

Going in reverse, it's common for members of the legal community to write about law-related issues. Personally, in addition to thousands of Quora answers, I've co-authored law review/bar journal articles and have given presentations, among other things, and I'm just a corporate litigator in private practice. Prior to becoming a federal appeals judge in 2017, Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame, which meant that writing articles and presenting papers was literally part of her job, as professors who don't produce scholarship tend not to have long careers. It's therefore unsurprising that Barrett has more of a written record than your typical would-be member of the Supreme Court, and as she's unquestionably conservative, some of her writing reflects such views.Once on the bench (or potentially on the bench), however, various additional ethical rules apply. See Code of Conduct for United States Judges. And one particularly relevant obligation is that “A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.” See id. Canon 3(A)(6). While this rule contains some carve-outs for scholarship and purely administrative acts, in a nutshell, it's considered improper for a judge to even give the appearance of prejudging a specific case, as it potentially undermines not just the judge's, but the broader court system's, image of fairness and impartiality. Moreover, inappropriate comments could also lead to a judge being forced to recuse in future cases. As a result, most judges typically limit their scholarship/comments to high-level stuff or to discussions of past actions.As an example, I attended a speech given by the late Justice Antonin Scalia when I was an undergraduate. Given Scalia's gift for the English language, the presentation was interesting and entertaining, and he even took some audience questions. But the discussion was on things like legal philosophy and past decisions, plus a criticism of one scholar's support of a “living tree” Constitution. Scalia didn't come within a country mile of talking about anything pending or potentially pending before the Court, even though, based on his well-developed record by then, one likely could have predicted his voting with a fair (Scalia still had a bit of an unpredictable streak) amount of accuracy.In the post-Bork era (so basically, the last 30 years), all Supreme Court nominees of both parties have dodged the “how would you decide X?” questions for fear of appearing unduly partial and creating recusal situations. The very justice Barrett is presumably going to replace, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in fact more or less established the template for handling these kinds of questions. By 21st century standards, Barrett was surprisingly open (no doubt due to her written record); many people who secretly (or perhaps openly) dream of joining the federal judiciary are extraordinarily careful to make the right friends and never create a record of any opinions that might even theoretically be controversial. See, e.g., Roberts, C.J.But still, the “how would you decide X?” questions keep getting asked by senators. Why? For one thing, most viewers (and far too many commentators) have no idea what a Supreme Court justice actually does, and these kinds of questions tend to play well with low-information types and journalists with agendas. Second, senators tend to be a self-important lot; much of these hearings tend to be wasted on windbags talking rather than listening, trying to appear intelligent and active to voters back home, or perhaps involve the future-president-in-their-own-minds types who want to create a soundbite for the internet where they allegedly “destroyed” the nominee. And finally, as a practical matter, an “I won't answer that” response can always be interpreted however the questioner/listener likes, namely “this person is a loon and isn't answering because they're dishonest and the truth is pure, unadulterated evil.” Thus, no matter who is in the White House and who controls the Senate, we can expect the current game to repeat itself.

Oh yes, there are several great books on how to write scientific research articles.One of my favorites is Write It Up: Practical Strategies for Writing and Publishing Journal Articles by the psychologist Paul J. Silvia. It is written in a highly entertaining way, but contains very solid & practical advise (how to approach the writing of each article section, how to pick a journal, how to collaborate with co-authors, etc.).A perfect complement to that book is Science Research Writing for Non-Native Speakers of English (9781848163102) by Hilary-Glasman Deal, who has taught scientific writing at the Imperial College London. This is a great self-help book for beginning non-native writers of science: it provides structural templates for each article section as well as info & exercises on grammar & language relevant for each section.

Personally, I don’t pay very much attention to cover letters, but some journal editors do, so it is a good idea to take them seriously.First, put the letter on your university or research centre letterhead if possible, making sure that it is properly addressed to the editor and showing your return address.Then, explain briefly what your paper is about and why it is significant and relevant to the scope of the journal. One of the journals for which I am an Associate Editor, Limnology and Oceanography Letters, provides a helpful template for the scientific significance statement (https://aslopubs.pericles-prod.literatumonline.com/hub/journal/23782242/about/author-guidelines#Scientificsignificance). In summary, L&O Letters asks for a three-element statement in less than 125 words. Element 1: What is the topic? Element 2: What is the challenge or gap that your paper addresses? Element 3: What is your key conclusion and what is its significance? The journal’s author guidelines include a good example of a scientific significance statement, and you can use the same structure in a cover letter to any journal.Finally, of course, sign off in the traditionally way.