Rhetorical Analysis

The journal that I read articles from was the PLoS Biology. After reading Linton et al.'s article, I noticed multiple conventions they list as specific to the sciences. For instance, many times the articles would start out with an abstract that provided an overview of the research and the conclusions found, then in the substance of the article would follow with materials/methods, results, a discussion and conclusion. Also, there were never direct quotes from people, but things were still cited. Many times in science writing, the specific language isn't important, but the ideas are what matters. The authors of the articles would find information from other sources and then put it into their own words. There was never any mention of other particular people or research like there would be in articles relating to the humanities. If there ever was a mention, then it related more to past research rather than to specific individuals. Instead of trying to disregard or completely change views, the goal is to add on to previous experiments and from the accumulation of all the results comes new theories.

It makes sense to me that articles for people in the sciences focus less on language and more on the actual data in the paper because in many instances, people aren't as skilled in that field. That's not to say that they don't know how to write, but just that they don't see the choice of each and every word as the most important thing. The audience that the journal is directed toward is definitely towards people who understand how and why the articles are written, and know how to gather the information they need to find.