Scholarly articles might not be so helpful.

When you hear that something is scholarly you tend to assume that it’s researched and most of the time correct. I also tend to assume that whatever they are talking about is way out of my field of comprehension. Scholarly articles tend to be peer reviewed and made sure to be perfected long before they are ever published to make sure that they represent the correct traditions and customs of their respective discipline. You won’t find a “scholarly” article that pokes fun at Trump’s wig. They are always on topic and constructed with the utmost formalities.

In the scigen generator you can find samples of so called scholarly papers.  They used common phrases that appear quite frequently in other published scientific papers such as, “Many mathematicians would agree that,” or “Suppose that there exists cache coherence.” And people are sometimes fooled by this. The crazy thing about this generator is that publishers in real life have actually been fooled by this and have published “papers” even though the scientific paper they received was nothing but jargon they obviously didn’t understand. A scientific research paper is obviously a genre, and the makers of this website just used multiple conventions of the genre and meshed them together into what appears to be a research paper. They put enough fluff into the papers where people will just skim through it and accept it as fact, because they honestly have no idea what the ‘article’ is talking about. This is really important to note because the fact that it can be passed as a scholarly article shows that it has enough of the same conventions as the actual article that it passes for the real one.

 In the article “VISUAL DISORIENTATION WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO LESIONS OF THE RIGHT CEREBRAL HEMISPHERE.” The author is talking about something that he obviously knows a lot about. Or maybe he is spitting out random phrases like scigen. The point is that the actual article published by Oxford University and the text junk spewed out by the Article generator are indistinguishable for me as a reader. They use so much jargon that is inconceivable for me to even attempt to understand the title of the article, let alone what the body is trying to tell me. The only difference between the two publications that I can see is the layout. SciGen is laid out like a lab project while Oxford’s looks more like the page of a lengthy boring article. However they both do include pictures that show you want they are trying to tell you—so the use of visual images helps convey the message to the reader.

The absolutely most important piece of any scholarly article is the title. The title is the first thing you look at. When you are late night researching up topics to write about in the morning before your paper is due—like I am currently—you look for articles with titles that contain the key words you’re looking for. Thankfully Google quickens this process for us. You’re not going to pick an article titled “Young minds use interpersonal manipulation between allies to influence potential mates” for your research article about economic theory. The point I’m getting at is that with a scholarly article the title has to present itself to the world and basically tell it who its audience is meant to be.

Scholarly articles are the bane of anyone who isn’t interested in the topic. Oxford’s article gives most people shivers when they find out that it is the reading assignment. However so does a nonsense article form scigen. They both have similar conventions such as pictures and jargons; however they have contrasts such as structure and actual reality of the articles.