PB2A - Exploring Research Journals

To get a better understanding of genre, one should examine the rhetorical features and conventions of literary pieces of the same genre. Comparing and contrasting two writings can determine what features make up that certain classification. Therefore, analyzing research papers from SCIgen and UCSB’s library database should help prove why both of them belong in the same genre.

SCIgen is a “genre generator” website in that it creates a random computer science journal. After inputting a couple authors, the user is presented a research article about some complex topic. For instance, the title of an example generated essay is “Real-Time, Probabilistic Theory for Symmetric Encryption.” Other surface area features of the article is the structure. After the Abstract, a couple of sentences about the topic, there is a Table of Contents that begins different numbered titles (1 Introduction, 5 Evaluation, 5.1 Hardware and Software Configuration, etc.). Lastly, there is a Reference section that lists the different sources used to create the paper. Another convention is the graphs and diagrams that are present on the journal (published as Figure 1, Figure 2, etc.), used to help convey the argument. The audience is specific to specialists in the area. As I read the actual context of the piece, not only did I not understand any of the scientific jargon present in the article, but I also surprisingly felt even more confused. No ordinary human being can understand the context without prior knowledge of the topic because the context is so complicated. The purpose is to inform specialists of recent findings, and to perhaps open the floor for further discussion or research. Those are just some of the many conventions of a SCIgen generated essay.

Using UCSB’s library database, I found an article titled “Symmetric Quantum Fully Homomorphic Encryption with Perfect Security” by Min Liang. Almost instantaneously, the surface area features present in the SCIgen journal are also relevant in this one. The Abstract section and the other numbered headings are still present, both starting with an Introduction and Conclusion. Liang also included the References section at the end of the essay. Although Liang did not use any graphs or diagrams, she used numerous equations far beyond my understanding, which leads to the next rhetorical feature. None of this research is comprehensible by me because, again, the context is too complicated. Thus, the paper is intended for specialists and scholars, with the same purpose of informing the reader of “symmetric quantum encryption.”

There aren’t many things that differentiate one example from the other. For one, both articles are too convoluted for everyday people to understand, a very annoying aspect of the similarities. Although the context is different, the structure of the journal stays persistent. Both have numbered headings that start and end with Introduction and Conclusion, respectively. Abstracts and References are both included, as the former begins the essay while the latter ends it. Liang’s research doesn’t include diagrams, but has equations. However, both aim to help the reader understand the article more easily. In terms of rhetorical features, the audience, purpose, and tone stay the same while the context changes. Because these papers are so similar, it would be reasonable to include them in the same genre of science research journals. In fact, to the naked eye, these pieces might as well be exact replicas of another.

After exploring the similarities and differences between the two papers from SCIgen and the UCSB library online database, one can conclude that the literary pieces are of the same genre. Although the context may be different, in addition to the fact that one contains equations while the other has diagrams and graphs, these two essays share so many similarities in structure, audience, tone, purpose, etc. that it would be irresponsible to categorize them separately.