Professional Development Lecture 6 Writing the Best Scientific Paper

2011 Professional Development Series 1

Professional DevelopmentLecture 6

Writing the Best Scientific Paper

Philip E. [email protected]

PLoS Comp. Biol. 1(5): e57

1Professional Development Series

mailto:[email protected]


Overarching Thoughts …

• Your publications are the most important metric by which you are judged as a scientist

• That metric is increasingly easy to measure – H factor (ISI Web of Science)– Number of citations (ISI, Google Scholar)– Journal downloads

• Your papers will be around long after you are gone – they are your scientific legacy

• Think about that immutability as you write• Numbers (regrettably) are important

2


Overarching Thoughts

Quality is Everything


Personal Experiences

• Have one of the most cited papers in the biological sciences (5,671) – hardly anyone has ever read it

• Have papers that are highly read (as judged by downloads) but never cited

• The work I am proudest of is not the most cited• As an Editor you see a lot of papers – both good and

bad• Even the best scientists write bad papers - they just

know how to work the system better

4


Emerging Metrics - Gerwick

http://pubnet.gersteinlab.org/


Emerging Metrics - Bourne

http://pubnet.gersteinlab.org/


Acknowledgement

• The following is a rework of the Ten Rules for Getting Published PLoS Comput Biol 1(5): e57 (there is a rule here - you can always improve your work)

• Notes from Bill Gerwick “Writing a Research Publication – 21 Suggestions” which he has prepared for students


Rule 1 – To Write You Have to Read

• Read at least 2 papers per day in detail• Review papers through journal clubs and take

note of the reviews of others• Put aside papers you and others think are of

high quality to refer to as you write even if they are not related to the topic

• Look at papers which have open review – learn to write better papers from those reviews


Rule 2 – Learn to be Objective About Your Work

• The best scientists are the most objective • It is easy not to be objective when you have buried

yourself in it for months on end – see your work in a broader context – how will it impact science as a whole

• It is easier for your mentor to be objective (it is only one of a number of projects going on in the lab) but still..

• Have independent colleagues who can be objective review your first draft


Rule 3 – Pick the Right Journal

• In order of Priority:1. The quality of the journal as defined by impact factor,

Editorial Board and quality of reviews2. Be realistic about where the work can be published – it

will save time and frustration3. The journal with the readership that is closest to your

work4. Go open access (personal comment)

• Use the pre-submission system to be sure it is the right journal


Rule 4 – Learn to Write Well

• This is critical to being a good scientist – it is not just about grammar, but comprehension

• Take classes to improve your writing skills• This is valuable whatever your career path as

you will need to present complex ideas clearly, logically and to a broad audience whatever in whatever you do

• This will lead to less rejection and less rounds of editing


Rule 5 – Learn to Live with Rejection

• Being objective makes rejection easier• Even the best scientists get rejected frequently • Failure to do so has adversely impacted very

good scientists• If all of the reviewers think you have written a

poor paper – 9 times out of 10 you have – move on


Rule 6 – Learn to Use the Review Process to Your Advantage

• Good reviews will improve the paper significantly• Respond to all the points made by the reviewers• Do so in a polite and non-antagonistic way –

particularly when the reviewer has not understood your point – consider it your fault not theirs

• Respond in a way that is easy for the reviewer to comprehend:– Address every point head on in the response letter to the

editor– Make it easy for the reviewer to see where you made

changes e.g. with tracking


Rule 7 – You Know the Rules for Good Science – Do Not Ignore Them

• Novelty• Comprehensive coverage of the literature to

establish your motivation and hypothesis• Good data and appropriate analysis• A though provoking discussion


Rule 8 – Even if You Obey Rule 7 the Message Can be Lost If..

• The paper is poorly organized – think logical flow not a blow-by-blow – think scholarship

• There is not the appropriate use of figures and tables• The manuscript is not of the right length• You are not writing to the intended audience• You do not obey (to the letter) the Guide to Authors

– particularly important for the methods section• The title does not convey the message• You overstate your case with words like “novel”,

“new” and a host of other adjectives


Rule 9 – Start Writing the Paper on Day 1 (Arguable)

• Make a good bibliographic database to draw from as you go• Decide on the journal in which you will publish early• This implies the end result is a paper and not a new

finding/knowledge – get real!• Draw up an outline• Structure the paper around the major results as found in

figures and tables• Starting early makes it easier to finish – being the best at

doing research is not enough – the world needs to know about it

• As a PhD student this also implies you are writing your thesis as you do the work


Rule 10 – Become a Reviewer Early in Your Career

• Have your mentors give you the papers they are reviewing – write a review and discuss with your mentor to improve your reviewing

• Look at the reviews others have written• Understand the review process – EIC, AEs,

reviewers • This will allow you to see your work in a new

light


Discussion/Questions?

Documents

Professional Development Lecture 6 Writing the Best Scientific Paper