Well, the title of this post already sets the tone on what is NOT to come. Decent poetry, that is. However, for my latest paper that was published a while ago I got inspired and wrote an alternative abstract. In the unlikely case of any open questions, you can find the usual boring abstract here.
And by the way, I’m not just doing this for fun (in fact, for a non-native speaker, it wasn’t straight forward). There’s some evidence that abstracts written in scientific verse can complement ordinary abstracts (Illingworth 2016).
Sea level: to model or not to model
Modeling sea level in the North Atlantic is tricky,
are climate models up to the challenge, or should we be picky?
And can they shed light on the nature of observations?
Tell us whether the changes are anthropogenic, or
150 years of CMIP5 model simulations
were compared to 20 years of satellite observations
By using sliding windows.
The comparison shows:
That mean topography, created dynamically
Is simulated rather realistically.
However, variability and trends
Bear a little less resemblance.
The observed regional pattern trend
is simulated randomly, to the end
that it strips the fact nude
and lets us conclude
That its likeliest cause
Is some internal force.
In contrast, the region-wide sea-level rise
(That sooner or later will be our demise),
appears to be systematic
leading us to the empathic
statement that its cause
is an external force.
In summary we can attest,
multi-model means always works best
No model performs outstanding,
nor deserves one a negative branding.
But uncertainties can be reduced
if weighting schemes are properly used.
Illingworth S. Are scientific abstracts written in poetic verse an effective representation of the underlying research? [version 3; referees: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2016, 5:91 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.7783.3)