PB2A

Scholarly academic publication: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119470

This academic publication is about anatomy, specifically about using resonance imaging to see what happens inside the knuckles when they are cracked. Being a scientific paper on a research journal website, it follows many of the usual conventions of a research paper. It has a title that concise and utilizes complex and technical to describe the experiment in a few amount of words. Under the title, the names of the researchers and the date of publishing is included. The first paragraph is an abstract that explains broadly the scope and results of the experiment.  The rest of the paper contains the details of the experiment sorted into multiple sections with their own headings. Diagrams and photographs are distributed throughout to explain things. Acknowledgements and citations are at the bottom to reference other researchers and their research.  

Scigen generates a convincing but fake computer science research paper. It has all the conventions that a normal research paper would, like title, authors, and various sections outlining results of the experiment.  Though the Scigen paper and the PLOS paper both fall under the same genre, they have some differences. The audience for the PLOS paper can be less technical, due to less jargon being used. In addition, cracking knuckles is a much easier concept for the average person to understand when compared to mathematical algorithm comparisons that are commonly generated in Scigen. The context and the choice of words also on the PLOS paper is also less technical in nature than the CS paper. Also, the CS paper is most likely designed to be printed out or read in a document form. It has no external links or color pictures, a sign that it wasn't intended to be viewed mainly on a computer. On the other hand, the audience for the PLOS article is mainly one that will view the research online, because of the interactive galleries and external links directly embedded into the website. These things cannot be fully experienced once the page has been printed out or exported to a document, therefore the authors intend for this paper to be viewed online on their website.  

Though they are intended for different audiences (assuming the Scigen article is actually read by someone), the two papers have many similarities that qualify them to be considered to be of the same genre. They both begin with abstracts that allow the reader to have a rough idea of what the paper is about before reading it.  The abstract is followed by some form of background information providing context to the experiment, then to a section that describes the scientific processes used, then concludes with results and data gathered.

The selection of words and phrasing makes papers immediately identifiable as academic research. The firsst thing that people would read of any research paper is the title, and having a title that follows the convention of a research paper is the most important in establishing the nature of the paper to the reader. The title, as well as the text use within the body of the paper, should make no sense to someone who has no expertise in the field. Having something very difficult to understand makes an untrained audience less likely to be enthusiastic about reading what the paper has to offer. This is especially important for the Scigen papers, as the main purpose of the generated paper is to create "submissions to conferences that you suspect might have very low submission standards". Choosing language that is very technical and obscure is the best way to concisely share the research to experts in the field, as well as convince people that aren't experts that your research is legit.