This autobiographical case study of two scientists involved in earlier studies documents a profile of each scientist. These profiles were used to develop semi-structured interview protocols and email surveys for each scientist. The central issues of these data collections were whether these modern, evaluativist scientists believe that the review-react-revise process of publishing a peer-reviewed research report simply improves the quality of the language or actually changes the science, and how their metacognitive awareness and executive control were demonstrated in their science inquiry and science writing. The scientists served both as informants and co-authors. Both scientists believed that writing and revising research reports improved the science as well as the clarity of the text; that their use of absolutist language related to their beliefs about inquiry and not about science knowledge; that addressing comments about their writing forced them to assess, monitor, and regulate their science inquiries and research reports; and that traditional forms of knowledge about nature and natural events were valuable information sources that stress description rather than physical causality