And if you follow the instructions, you get a gold star!

So, I'm subscribed to a service that emails out a list of recently published astronomy papers. Lately, I've noticed that all of the abstracts for papers published in Astronomy & Astrophysics are sub-divided into sections, e.g.,

Context: Pretty pictures rock. Aims: We wanted to acquire a pretty picture of the Eagle Nebula. Methods: We took out our backyard telescope and CCD and pointed it at the Eagle Nebula. Results: Pretty picture. Conclusions: We have a totally rad photo of the Eagle Nebula. Cool!

So, let me get this straight: we are supposed to be a group of intelligent, highly trained scientists undertaking original research of astrophysical import but we aren't presumed capable of writing a summary of our work without a paint-by-numbers superstructure? Now, as a caveat, A&A is a European journal, so they may be streamlining their structure as an aid to writers for whom English is not the first language. I must say, however, that most of the Euros with whom I work speak and write English better than the average American.

It was bad enough when I was an engineer -- those folks can be terrible writers -- but science falls under the arts and philosophy fields of academic endeavor. I don't think I'm asking too much when I request that the ability to write clear, concise, possibly even at times venturing into delightful prose be considered part of the job description.