Ding 1

Jennifer Ding

Matt Wilson

Writing 2

9 June 2017

WP2

Virology and immunology are two linked disciplines, but cover very different grounds of

study. Virology is the study of the history and the means of infection of viruses, while

immunology aims to reveal the immune systems responses to infections. Although there is an

overlap between the two disciplines, immunology is more trial-based and rooted in clinical

studies where researchers use statistics to analyze experimentally derived results. Virology is

more about the consolidation of research and observations into a case review that effectively

summarizes the history and virulence of specific viruses, incorporating public health and

epidemiology. While many people consider the two categories of study to be the same discipline,

those not in the biological research community are unable to see the differences between

virology and immunology due to the high level of specialized conventions utilized in each

disciplines structure, data presentation, and word choice.

Some conventions of Virology peer review journals that are singular to this discipline are

the inclusion of graphs unique to the field. In the article Zika virus: a previously slow pandemic

spreads rapidly through the Americas, authors who contribute to the Journal of General

Virology use specific conventions to describe the current and potential geographical range of the

deadly Zika virus, as well as its genetic sequence and general virulence. Inclusion of graphs such

as a phylogenetic tree of Zika virus genomes and a geographical spread of the virus over time

give readers a visual aid to accompany the text, inciting better understand of the material.
 Ding 2

Because the graphs are very convention-specific, they require a higher level of expertise and

knowledge in the field for full understanding of the information they relay. For example,

flavivirus, bootstrap confidence levels and GenBank accession numbers (Gatherer; Kohl;

et al.) are all terms that only an expert or student of high standing in this field would understand.

The vernacular presented in this article is very specialized and are usually not understood by

anyone outside the scientific community, specifically the virology category. Therefore, the target

audiences of the The Journal of Virology, where the article is found, are peer scholars of the field

or upper-level microbiology students in their later years of secondary education. This specific

targeting of audience is further evidenced by the overall structure of the journal.

Beginning with an abstract and ending with the works cited, the Zika virus article has a

very solid organized structure. Consisting of a brief, but concise introduction, an expository

overview of the history and evolution of the Zika virus, the article adheres to the structure

common to scientific journals presenting research completed with the scientific method.

Concurrently, there is a list of references at the end of the article containing all works cited so

that scholars could read further into the research that the author used in this article. The articles

main purpose is to describe the current geographical range of the Zika virus and its constantly

changing and evolving nature due to the mutational nature of the ssRNA sequence of the virus.

The delivery of the message is achieved by consolidating previous research done on the topic

while offering the authors own research and analysis at the end, which discusses the future of

the virus and the potential spread.

Unlike Virology peer research journals, the immunology research journal utilizes data

tables to present relevant testing and result information. This means that the immunology

research journals are more concerned with the presentation of statistical research in tables and
 Ding 3

the relevant analysis in wording, whereas Virology research journals tend to incorporate graphs

to display the records of information over time. The wording of the immunology journals is very

concise; yet it is highly professional and convention-specific. Over the course of the immunology

journal, intellectual jargon is present, and exceedingly difficult for those new to the field to

understand. The content of the journal utilizes heavy medical acronyms like HPV, GMT,

and other complex medical wording like immunogenicity, and immunoassay. Data tables are

additionally difficult to understand due to their usage of statistical vocabulary like the phrases

p-value, n=? (Ogilvie; Sauvageu; Dione; et al.), which requires a complex understanding of

mathematics and statistics, and is occasionally found when the journal cites evidence from the

charts. For example, the author indicates that test subjects were masked from the treatment they

were receiving to eliminate bias by using short, yet complex phrasing like, Antibody testing,

conducted by PPD Vaccines and Biologics for Merck, was blinded to group allocation (Ogilvie;

Sauvageu; Dione; et al.). This style of wording and data presentation is relatively specific to

immunology papers, and is usually conventional for clinical science and immunology studies.

This level of scientific vernacular specific to immunology and its study suggests that the journal

is not meant for readers uneducated in the area. Combined with the location of the journal, it is

likely that the intended audience of this immunology journals consists of medical scholars,

students, immunology researchers, and the medical community, but certainly not the common

person.

Aside from tonal and diction differences, the structure of immunology journals also

differs enormously from that of virology research journals. Whereas we see the usage of report-

styled structures for virology journals complete with an abstract and an introduction, the

immunology journal forgoes such formalities in a report and directly jumps into the objective of
 Ding 4

the study, a detailed account of methods used in testing, test results, a discussion using the

evidence collected during testing, and a works cited page. By dividing the immunology journal

into three simple categories, the process of the journal is very clear and concise. No additional

explanation is required for a detailed understanding of the study, and the flow of the writing is

curtailed to the readers understanding. By providing tables at the side of the journal, it makes

referencing data much easier and encourages free interpretation of the charts by the reader.

Although the journal contains many immunology-specific conventions, it still contains the

common indicators of a scientific journal, much like that of the virology research journal.

Both the immunology and virology journals clearly show their distinct fields of academic

inventory, but in the end, both are still scientific research journals. Immunology is the more

clinical discipline of microbiology, where scientists brainstorm and test novel and improved

ways to prevent disease. Virology is more analytical and specific, where scientists consolidate

previous research and new observations to make conclusions and predictions about possible viral

epidemics. From their vocabulary and structure, readers can see that these journals are not

simple, everyday reading content for common people, but rather for the scientific community.

Despite being structured differently, both articles use similarly scientific-related ways of

presenting a research case using scientific terminology and headings specific to scientific method

reports. The authors make a conscious effort to simplify and create a flow between topics

and yet the writing makes use of strongly subject-specific jargon and tone. Thus, both journals

can be classified as scientific research papers, and yet both are entirely different and unique in

terms of disciplinary categories.

 Ding 5

Works Cited

Dobson, Simon R. M., Shelly Mcneil, Marc Dionne, Meena Dawar, Gina Ogilvie, Mel Krajden,

Chantal Sauvageau, David W. Scheifele, Tobias R. Kollmann, Scott A. Halperin, Joanne

M. Langley, Julie A. Bettinger, Joel Singer, Deborah Money, Dianne Miller, Monika

Naus, Fawziah Marra, and Eric Young. "Immunogenicity of 2 Doses of HPV Vaccine in

Younger Adolescents vs 3 Doses in Young Women." JAMA 309.17 (2013): 1793. JAMA

[EBSCO]. Web. 29 Apr. 2017.

Gatherer, Derek, and Alain Kohl. "Zika Virus: A Previously Slow Pandemic Spreads Rapidly

through the Americas." Journal of General Virology 97.2 (2016): 269-73. Microbiology

Society Journal. Web. 29 Apr. 2017.