Livre riche en idées article est axee à un sujet ou une idee

Yes, it does definitely differ.

A scientific article has certain salient areas and features which must be adhered to by the authors.

But a scientific book either written or edited has to maintain a holistic essence of the key theme all throughout and side by side to ascertain all the salient areas and features in the individual chapters.

The challenge is more.The audience is more broad-based. The flavour and tone of the words and/or the overall language should be lucid and dynamic. The journey of a book to reach a satisfying end point is altogether a bit difficult to achieve, if not properly attempted or carefully designed.

With a scientific book you can be more free to combine things that you like to be in your book; you can be multidisciplinary, for example --- and that is quite impossible to do right if you only have 20 pages in a journal issue. In a book you can be broad in the subject, or very specialised. Essentially, you can do what you want, as long as the whole thing becomes a text that is held together, if you understand what I mean. If this is your first attempt to create a book, I suggest that you write down your plan in detail, and show it to a senior scientist, in order to perhaps get more feedback on structure, the ordering of stuff, what to bring in and what not to bring in, and the level of detail. You need perhaps to talk with a few more of your colleagues, in order to get hints from more than one.

Don't be in a hurry! And do not try to publish with a little known publisher - you may be treated badly, such as they do not give you feedback at all. Again, ask for advise on most things, and then make up your mind what you want to do.

Good Luck!

yours

Michael

Fatima Boukhlifi , Thank you very much for your answer, as follows:

"Fatima Boukhlifi added an answer 5 days ago, as follows:

Livre riche en idées article est axee à un sujet ou une idee."

My translation from the French language to the English language is:

"A book is rich in ideas, while an article is focused on one subject or one idea."

Very best regards, Nancy Ann Watanabe, B.A. in French Language and Literature, Ph.D. in Comparative (British/American/French/German/Latin/Spanish) Literature

Newer information -- articles take less time to write and publish, ... they cover new developments in a field of study than books.

....most scholarly books average up to hundreds of pages. ...articles typically run for few pages.

https://libguides.uvt.nl/humanities/books-vs-articles

You have more freedom while writing a book, whereas when you are writing an article, peer reviewers may suggest or request some changes that you may not really agree in reality, but still make them to get an acceptance. Of course, an article is short and focused, whereas a book is much longer and more broad. Writing a book is more like writing a dissertation, except that it doesn't have to consist of all novel ideas as in dissertation. In fact, much of it may be previously known ideas, methods, models, etc., especially if you are writing a textbook. It also depends a lot on what type of book you are writing. An edited volume is very much like a special issue of a journal. In that case, you only write a portion of the book (if at all) and solicit, screen and review the rest. A textbook is a very different thing. The publisher will give you a lot of help and support, and they will hold focus groups and administer questionnaires to gather some ideas from the potential users (other professors). They will also provide help in finding case studies, creating test banks, problems and presentation slides, etc. A scholarly book on a niche topic at a more advanced level is an entirely different animal. It is like writing a very long academic paper, with a very long literature review section. However, it is completely your work like a research paper and you can write whatever you want, as long as you have a publisher to publish it.

Writing a paper takes a shorter time than writing a book.

This link may help put things into perspective: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-writing-scientific-papers-and-writing-a-book

Rafiq Bodalal ,

Thanks for your answer: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-writing-scientific-papers-and-writing-a-book

However, the link is closed. If you know what the link says about the difference between writing a scientific paper and writing a book, please give us a summarization!

Best wishes anyway.

Nancy Ann Watanabe The Quora link isn't closed; you just have to scroll down and click on "continue reading" where applicable. I quote in full the most informative answer from Gabriele Kembuan:

MD, researcher, baker, writer, passionate amateur.Gabriele Kembuan

Answered 5 years ago · Author has 1.6K answers and 11.4M answer views

A whole lot of a difference. Scientific papers aren’t just small books. Then again, what kind of book is meant in this context? I will assume popular fiction / nonfiction bookstore bestsellers.

Writing a scientific paper starts from doing the research (assuming this is a study). In a nutshell: You need to come up with an amazing research idea that actually answers a question worth-answering, isn’t redundant, and most importantly, fits your budget. You have to formulate a hypothesis. You have to get a lab and fellow researchers, and design a study design, which preferably doesn’t have any flaws. You have to do the study, which involves months of laboratory testing and maybe gathering cases or subjects with all the paperwork involved. Then you have to exclude as much variables as possible, making sure that your findings are as accurate and reliable as possible. And then the statistics.

While writing the paper itself, you have to comply to formats and fit in your months of work into only several pages of articles. A good scientific paper ideally is concise but clear enough that another group of scientist reading the paper can exactly replicate the experiment. Every single sentence should be concise but clear and unambiguous, and you have to make sure that you don’t unintentionally plagiarize a sentence and check each of your citations. There’s also a sense of responsibility that you must not publish any factual inaccuracy- in the name of science.

I’m not saying that writing a book is less rigorous- they are also difficult. Books are much bigger and longer, but you are accorded a degree of freedom in writing it- and you are actually expected to “express” yourself and your ideas, with little limitation. You have to understand good writing and also chop your sentences again and again and do your “research” by reading other books and actively study writing styles and good writing, but eventually it depends on you, your style and your rythm and your internal voice. Individuality is not only tolerated, but expected. Books are less precise, but more massive. I think the even more difficult part is creating the large plots and large universe and having that giant frame of story in your mind, and having the grit to keep on writing for a very long time.

In a sense, I think of writing scientific papers as a sprint, and it could be very intense. Writing a book however is a marathon, and you need to commit and have endurance to write for months- even if just a little at a time.

Or alternately (borrowing partly from Murakami, and luckily this isn’t a paper or otherwise I need to find out which novel’s preface this is from) writing a novel / book is like creating a forest. People don’t really pay attention to each tree, but into the forest as a whole. Both how it feels being inside the forest, or the aerial view. In this context, he compared it to writing short stories, which are akin to planting a flower garden. However, writing a scientific paper is like creating this fine art Ikebana piece where you labor over which flower you should use, what they represent, what you want to create, but then you have adjust each stalk so they lean at eeeexactly that degree and form eeeexactly what you have in mind. It’s more difficult than just creating a “tree”. But you only have to make maybe one or two in a year, not 1000 pages.

891 views

View upvotes

Karl Pfeifer Thanks for helping.