Analysis and discussion of research papers, especially within the student’s own research field, with a focus on rhetorical strategies, the common practice of the research field, and structure and language.

Short written assignments, such as a project proposal or similar text type with relevance to the research career

Work on own drafts for a forthcoming scientific publication

Discussion of other course participants’ drafts, and reflection on the peer review process

Exercises in scientific English, for instance regarding sentence structure, grammar and vocabulary.

After passing the course, the student should be able to:

• adapt the content and structure of scientific research papers according to audience and purpose, and justify their choices
• apply rhetorical strategies typical for research papers in STEM fields, especially in their own discipline
• apply effective writing strategies in order to compose clear and precise text in English
• critically review and suggest changes to scientific texts written by others, considering e.g. audience, purpose, structure and language, and use others' feedback to improve their own text

in order to

• produce scientific research papers in STEM in English for publication in relevant journals.

The course consists of 8 class meetings . A major part of each meeting is devoted to group discussions and group work, for which you are expected to prepare by reading the course literature and studying the structure and language of texts in your own field. The discussions focus on, among other things:

• how typical papers in your discipline are written. 
• possible solutions to tasks on e.g. sentence and paragraph structure. 
• feedback on drafts of a paper underway.

In between meetings, students prepare feedback on drafts from your peer reviewing team. The peer review takes place, in most cases, outside of class (students set up their own meeting to conduct their peer review).

During the writing process, and peer review process, students keep a Writing Journal which is submitted at the end of the course.

In the first half of the course, students write a one-page Grant Proposal Abstract with the purpose of practicing the principles of clear, effective scientific writing.

The course also contains Canvas quizzes (self-study) on grammar, punctuation, and vocabulary.

An important part of Writing Scientific Articles is the peer review of your own work. For this to run smoothly, it is important that you have an article underway during the course. If you are at the beginning of your doctoral studies and won’t be writing an article this term, please get in touch with us.

Course material

Reading and tasks provided on Canvas.

The KTH Guide to Scientific Writing, compiled by the course teachers

A collection of 5–6 "model papers" from the student's own research discipline: typical, well-written, recently published articles, selected by the student.

An article draft to work on during the course.

Recommended literature

Swales, John. M., and Christine B. Feak (2012) Academic Writing for Graduate Students, 3rd ed. Ann Arbor: Michigan.

Caplan, Nigel A. (2019) Grammar Choices for Graduate and Professional Writers, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Glasman-Deal, Hilary (2020) Science Research Writing for Native and Non-native Speakers of English. 2nd ed. London: World Scientific Publishing Ltd.

Note: Glasman-Deal's book is available as an e-book at KTHB, albeit on a license that only allows three simultaneous users online. Therefore, students are encouraged to download chapters before the course. 

Hofmann, Angelika H. (2020) Scientific Writing and Communication. Papers, Proposals, and Presentations, 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rau, Gerald. (2020) Writing for Engineering and Science Students. Staking your Claim. London: Routledge (E-book, KTHB)

Caplan, Nigel A. (2019) Grammar Choices for Graduate and Professional Writers, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

AntConc, found here: https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/

A pdf-txt file converter of your choice

Students at KTH with a permanent disability can get support during studies from Funka:

Funka - compensatory support for students with disabilities

P, F

• INL1 - Written assignment, 5.0 credits, Grading scale: P, F

Based on recommendation from KTH’s coordinator for disabilities, the examiner will decide how to adapt an examination for students with documented disability.

The examiner may apply another examination format when re-examining individual students.

Requirements for passing the course

During the course:

• Completion of assigned tasks for preparation, and active participation in at least six out of the eight course meetings
• Peer reviews in pairs or small groups (outside class)
• A Writing Journal, kept during the writing process and the peer reviews
• Written assignment, Grant Proposal Abstract, in three versions

After the course: 

• Individual tutorial with the teacher on a full research paper of your own, at any point in the coming few years
• A short written reflective assignment on your writing process and your finished article

You are responsible for contacting the teacher or course convenor when you have a finished manuscript and are ready to book an appointment for the final tutorial. 

75% attendance requirement, and all written assignments passed.

75% attendance (six out of eight course meetings) is required to pass the course. Students who miss one or more classes have the opportunity to take the class on another day of the week, or in a coming semester.

Students will be given their 5 credits within a couple of weeks of their final tutorial, provided all requirements have been fulfilled.

• All members of a group are responsible for the group's work.
• In any assessment, every student shall honestly disclose any help received and sources used.
• In an oral assessment, every student shall be able to present and answer questions about the entire assignment and solution.

Course schedule

As of Autumn 2024, the course will have only eight two-hour course meetings instead of ten three-hour meetings. The course is still worth 5 credits and requires the same workload as before.

Many students have reported that they prefer conducting the peer review outside of class. We also believe it is more worthwhile to spend more class time on discussions of texts, the writing process, and language choices, and less time on language proficiency. Most KTH doctoral students have an advanced level of English when they come to the course, and most types of pure language tasks are best done outside class.

The course book Swales and Feak

For more than 15 years, the assigned course book has been Swales and Feak's Academic Writing for Graduate Students. As of Autumn 2024, however, this will no longer be a required text that students must have access to. In the course evaluations, opinions differ: while some students find the book very useful, others don't. Therefore, we will still teach students the content that is still relevant, but also mix this with material from other sources.

There are several reasons for this re-shaping of the course. Firstly, most tasks and examples in Swales and Feak are not from the STEM fields, making the book seem irrelevant to many. As recommended reading, we replace Swales and Feak with e.g. Glasman-Deal's Science Research Writing. Secondly, Swales and Feak mixes informative text with a great number of tasks and exercises, which makes the book difficult to use as a "checklist" for writing. Thirdly, the fact that Swales and Feak's book is not available as an e-book (last updated more than a decade ago) makes students not always willing to buy the book.

In the coming few years, we aim to update the course with more recent, authentic examples from various STEM disciplines. We are also interested in exploring how students use - and should use - generative AI to help them with their writing.

Peer review reports

This year, we are replacing the Peer Review Reports with a Writing Journal, which students keep during the course and their writing process, and which teachers look at at the end of the course. The peer review reports have been reported to be time-consuming, not really supporting learning.