This paper is addressing a comparison of Leslie Sage's article Writing A Clear and Engaging Paper and Madhav Ghanta's article Is the Liquid-Phase H2O2 - Based Ethylene Oxide Process More Economical and Greener Than the Gas-Phased O2 - Based Silver - Catalyzed Process?. The comparison touches on a couple of points: how Ghanta's voice affects the reader's perception and how format and structure help or hinder a paper. Ghanta's structure and voice is very stern and professional, which makes the paper feel distant and hard to connect to. Whereas Sage's article is in laymen's terms, but still holds its professionalism, allowing a connection to be made between the writing and the reader, but still remember they are reading a scientific paper.
.
IMRAD format is as follows: intro, method, results, and discussion, but Ghanta's article takes a slightly different approach. He has an introduction of the processes he is discussing, a method of what the processes are, not his methods of research, a data section that is paired with a discussion, and then a conclusion. The way Ghanta set up his data section was to break it up into smaller parts such as "Simulation Package, Specifications, and Assumptions" and "Mass Flow Rates of Various Compounds Entering and Leaving the Hydrogen Peroxide- and discussing those data individually, directly after presenting them (Ghanta, 2012, p. 4). I believe this is a better set up than IMRAD, and was a well-thought, creative change that Ghanta made for his paper. Although Ghanta is being creative in changing the usual process of a science paper, there is one major component of his article that is less than creative: boring voice.
.
Ghanta's article is written mostly in passive voice, using an abundance of scientific vocabulary that many have not seen or used before, making it very difficult to stay interested and keep reading. Even just looking at the title a reader can see that this article is going to be difficult to follow.