Scientific Writing Barbara Janssens 2012

SCIENTIFIC WRITING

Heidelberg, March 2012

Scientific Writing
Dr. Barbara Janssens, PhD Career Manager

www.wordle.net
www.slideshare.com

1

SCIENTIFIC ...WRITING <-> ...CAREER
1.  Writing, editing, career development
○  A career in science
○  Editor
○  Career
○  About publishing and impact
○  Before writing
2.  Publication ethics
3.  Writing a paper
○  IMRAD structure
○  How to get started & „sculpt“
○  Titles and abstracts
○  How to submit with cover letter
4.  Tips on language/style
5.  Writing an application
6.  Science Communication with the Public
http://www.slideshare.net/secret/oymNwGJBTzqRyl
http://www.biotecvisions.com

MY CV
Ò  Master Biotechnology (Ghent, Belgium, 1997)
Ò  Erasmus in Uppsala, Sweden
Ò  PhD cell-cell adhesion/migration (Ghent 2002)
Ò  Postdoc (+ 2 kids) in Paris (Institut Curie) on Rho/ARF GTPase
cell biology (2002-2005)
Ò  Editor at Wiley-Blackwell (2005-2010)
É  Heidelberg 2005: 1-year Editorial Trainee position at Wiley-VCH in Weinheim;
launch of BTJ in 2006
É  More than editing: peer review, marketing, controlling, accounting, customer
service, journal production, strategics, research, BIBLIOMETRICS
É  Managing/Executive Editor of BTJ and Publishing Editor for biotech portfolio
Ò  Teaching scientific writing since 2008
Ò  PhD Career Manager at DKFZ Heidelberg in 2011

2

EDITOR: JOHN WILEY & SONS
Ò  Founded in 1807
Ò  Over 5000 employees in USA,
Europe, Canada, Asia, Australia
Ò  2007: Wiley-Blackwell STMS
É  science technical medical
Ò  Products include
É  1500 peer reviewed journals
É  3 M articles
É  6500 books (also online)
É  Major reference works, databases, lab
manuals, WIREs,…
É  Online open: author pays for non-
subscribers

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

EDITOR: LIFE SCIENCE JOURNALS
USA

EUROPE
USA

Asia

3

EDITOR: BIOTECH JOURNALS

Weinheim 上海市 
(Germany) (China)

Hoboken
(NY, USA)

Oxford /
Chichester
(UK)

EDITOR: MAGAZINE

Ò  Since June 2009
Ò  Hottest news &
discussions
Ò  Fully interactive PDF

Ò  Printed in WB
biotech portfolio
Ò  Columns
É  GettingPublished
É  BiotecCareers www.biotecvisions.com

4

WRITING – SCIENTIFIC CAREER

CAREER AFTER PHD

5

A JOB IN SCIENCE…

X 40

Richard Bolles, What Color Is Your Parachute?

LIFE/WORK PLANNING L/W-P

Ò  France: Daniel Porot It´s easier to act yourself
É  www.porot.com into a new way of thinking,
than it is to think yourself
É  www.careergames.com into a new way of acting.
Ò  Germany: John Webb
Richard N Bolles
É  www.life-work-planning.de

É  www.lwp-seminare.de

Ò  US: Richard N. Bolles
É  www.jobhuntersbible.com

6

2 DAYS OR 2 HOURS

Ò  Where do we go shopping today?
Ò  Focus on
É  Publishing and ethics?
É  Writing a paper?

É  Writing a CV?

É  Language and style?

WHAT SCIENTISTS WRITE
ž  Papers
ž  Curriculum vitae
ž  Grants
ž  Reports
ž  Proposals
ž  Web pages
ž  Conferences
ž  Lectures
ž  Meetings
ž  Posters
ž  ...

7

WHY SCIENTISTS WRITE
ž  „Your research is not complete until you publish it“
(Ibn al Haytham, 1021)
—  Make a permanent and accessible record of your findings
—  Avoid others repeat unnecessarily

ž  Publish or perish....
ž  Publico ergo sum!

ž  Stuff your CV (you need papers to get grants)
—  More papers = more eminent scientist (Hirsch factor)

WHERE DO YOU FIND IT?
Ò  Journals, scopes, readership: who reads and
cites your papers?...
Ò  Think of your audience!!!

Ò  Search sites
×  PubMed/Medline

×  Google Scholar
×  Scopus (Elsevier)

×  CrossRef

×  BioMed experts

×  Open Access journals

×  ISI Web of Science (Thomson) – IF

Ò  Downloads vs citations

8

IMPACT FACTOR (IF)
Devised by Eugene Gar field, founder of ISI (Chairman Emeritus of
Thomson Scientific)

1955

Slide by
Matteo Cavalleri

IMPACT FACTOR (IF)
IF = average number of times articles from the journal published
in the past two years have been cited in the JCR year.

Citations

C12

published

Articles
A1
A2
time

published

Year
1
Year
2
Year
3

C12
IF (Year 3) =
A1 + A2
Slide adapted from Matteo Cavalleri

9

THE H FACTOR
A scientist has index h if h of [his/her] Np papers
have at least h citations each,
and the other (Np - h) papers have at most h citations
each.

THE SNIP
Since 2010
SNIP = Source Normalized Impact per Paper
SNIP (Journal)= RIP/CP
RIP = Raw Impact per Paper
CP = Citation Potential
(average number of references in the articles that cite a given journal)
Ò  Only cited references from articles in the census period, and which refer to
articles within the target period are counted
Ò  Only cited references indexed in the Scopus database are counted

10

BIBLIOMETRICS....
Web of Knowledge
http://isiwebofknowledge.com
Scopus
http://www.scopus.com
Faculty of 1000 (post-publication peer review)
http://f1000.com/
Australian journal ranking A*, A, B, C
http://www.arc.gov.au/era

BEFORE WRITING...

11

BEFORE WRITING…
ž  What would you do?
ž  Read read read...
ž  Assemble data
1.  Which journal/scope?
2.  Which format?
3.  Who will be author?
4.  Check instructions to authors!

READ… BUT HOW?

Ò  How do you find articles?
Ò  How do you read them?

Ò  How can you be critical?
É  If
a paper is difficult to follow/understand: ask
yourself how you like the writing…
Ò  How do you keep track of articles?
É  Web of Science
É  Self archiving

É  Mendeley http://www.mendeley.com/

12

CHOSE TARGET JOURNAL

13

CHOSE TARGET JOURNAL
Journal XXX XXX
Publishes similar work?

Scope/recent content?

Quality/impact?
Fast publication?
Charges for pages, color,
open access?

Article format/length?

TIMING

14

SCIENTIFIC WRITING
1.  Introduction and basics
○  introduction
○  About journals and peer review
○  Online access and searches, IF
○  Authorship
○  Plagiarism
3.  Writing
----------------------------------------
5.  Practical abstract/title writing
6.  Science communication

AUTHORS

15

AUTHORS
Ò  Author = significant contributor
Ò  Providing reagents, scientific/moral support =
acknowledgement
Ò  First author =„paternity“ („the one without whom the work
could not have been accomplished“)
Ò  Last author =„Senior author“ (often the group leader or head of
Department)
Ò  Corresponding author (usually first and/or last) = assumes
responsibility for writing, submiting, revising and answering
questions after publication. Most prestigious.
Ò  „These authors have contributed equally“
Ò  Decide authors and order as early as possible
Ò  Which author you are will be important for your CV – but being
an author in the first place is what matters

AUTHORS
Ò  FIRST AUTHOR: Weary graduate student who spent hours doing the work.
Ò  SECOND AUTHOR: Resentful graduate student who thinks he or she spent
hours doing the work.
Ò  THIRD AUTHOR: Undergraduate just happy to be named.
Ò  FOURTH AUTHOR: Collaborator no one has ever met whose name is only
included for political reasons.
Ò  FIFTH AUTHOR: Postdoctoral fellow who once made a chance remark on the
subject.
Ò  SIXTH AUTHOR: For some reason, Vladimir Putin.
Ò  LAST AUTHOR: Principal investigator whose grant funded the project but who
hasn’t stood at a lab bench in decades, except for that one weird photo
shoot for some kind of pamphlet, and even then it was obvious that he or
she didn’t know where to find basic things.

A. Ruben dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a1200033

16

GHOST AUTHORS?
Ò  Ghost authors: individuals not named as authors but who
contributed substantially to the work
Ò  Honorary authors: named authors who have not met authorship
criteria
Ò  Confidential survey of corresponding authors of 809 articles
É  156 articles (19%) had evidence of honorary authors
É  93 articles (11%) had evidence of ghost authors

Flanagin et al., Prevalence of Articles with Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals. J. Am. Med.
Assoc. 1998, 280, 222-224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.222

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGED

Ò  FromPNAS:
Author contributions: A.B. designed research;
A.B., M.G.K., and J.-E.S. performed research;
A.B., M.G.K., and J.-E.S. analyzed data; and
A.B., M.G.K., and J.-E.S. wrote the paper.

17

ETHICS/PLAGIARISM
Ò  What is plagiarism?
Ò  The „Guttenberg syndrome“
Ò  Plagiarism is the representation of another person's words,
ideas, or information as if they were one's own
Ò  ... Do not publish previously published work!
Ò  However you may reuse some of your own and „CITED“ [1]
material
Ò  Check COPE - the Committee on Publishing Ethics
(http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/about).
Ò  Check „copyright transfer agreement“

COPYRIGHT TRANSFER AGREEMENT (CTA)
……………
a. Contributors may re-use unmodified abstracts for any non-commercial purpose. For
on-line uses of the abstracts, Wiley-Blackwell encourages but does not require
linking back to the final published versions.
b. Contributors may re-use figures, tables, data sets, artwork, and selected text up to
250 words from their Contributions, provided the following conditions are met:
(i) Full and accurate credit must be given to the Contribution.
(ii) Modifications to the figures, tables and data must be noted.
Otherwise, no changes may be made.
(iii) The reuse may not be made for direct commercial purposes, or for
financial consideration to the Contributor.
(iv) Nothing herein shall permit dual publication in violation of journal
-------------------------------

18

PLAGIARISM CHECKS
É  EVE2, OrCheck, CopyCheck, and WordCHECK, to name a few
É  eTBLAST and Déjà vu

É  http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck

É  http://www.turnitin.com

É  http://ithenticate.com

É  http://research.ithenticate.com

Implemented for all W-B journals

SIMILARITY REPORT

19

30% = PLAGIARISM?
Individual for each article…
a)  When the sources are not cited
—  High similarity = ethical misconduct -> reject
—  Depending on response by author, the Editor may
○  inform the head of the research institute and/or
○  ban the author from publication for 1-3 years.
—  reasonable similarity -> revise -> further consideration
b)  When the sources are correctly cited
—  high degree of flexibility towards e.g. methods and introduction (up to 250 words,
see CTA), but
—  If results or conclusions are copied -> reject
—  mosaic-type (patchwork) article -> reject
—  A review type article -> at least revise
—  Hidden plagiarism is still possible (http://plagiarism.org)

NOT CITED = PLAGIARISM
  "The Ghost Writer„ : writer turns in another's work, word-for-word, as his or her own.
  "The Photocopy„ : writer copies significant portions of text straight from a single source,
without alteration.
  "The Potluck Paper„ : writer tries to disguise plagiarism by copying from several different
sources, tweaking the sentences to make them fit together while retaining most of the
original phrasing.
  "The Poor Disguise„: writer has retained the essential content of the source, but has
altered the paper's appearance slightly by changing key words and phrases.
  "The Labor of Laziness„: writer takes the time to paraphrase most of the paper from
other sources and make it all fit together, instead of spending the same effort on original
work.
  "The Self-Stealer„: writer "borrows" generously from his or her previous work, violating
policies concerning the expectation of originality adopted by most academic institutions.

Ò  http://plagiarism.org

20

CITED BUT STILL PLAGIARISM
Ò  "The Forgotten Footnote„: writer mentions an author's name for a source, but neglects
to include specific information on the location of the material referenced. This often masks
other forms of plagiarism by obscuring source locations.
Ò  "The Misinformer„: writer provides inaccurate information regarding the sources, making
it impossible to find them.
Ò  "The Too-Perfect Paraphrase„: writer properly cites a source, but neglects to put in
quotation marks text that has been copied word-for-word, or close to it. Although attributing
the basic ideas to the source, the writer is falsely claiming original presentation and
interpretation of the information.
Ò  "The Resourceful Citer„: writer properly cites all sources, paraphrasing and using
quotations appropriately. The catch? The paper contains almost no original work! It is
sometimes difficult to spot this form of plagiarism because it looks like any other well-
researched document.
Ò  "The Perfect Crime„: Well, we all know it doesn't exist. In this case, the writer properly
quotes and cites sources in some places, but goes on to paraphrase other arguments from
those sources without citation. This way, the writer tries to pass off the paraphrased
material as his or her own analysis of the cited material.
http://plagiarism.org

SCIENTIFIC WRITING
1.  Introduction and basics
○  Mutual introductions
○  About journals and peer review
○  Online access and searches, IF
3.  Writing
----------------------------------------
5.  Practical abstract/title writing
6.  Science communication

21

NOW THE MANUSCRIPT

START TO WRITE…
  “The time to begin writing an article is when you have
finished it to your satisfaction. By that time you begin to
clearly and logically perceive what it is you really want to
say.” (Mark Twain, 1902)
  1) Have something to say
2) Say it
3) Stop as soon as you have said it
(Billings, J., An address to our medical literature. Brit.
Med. J. 1881, xx, 262-268)
  NOT instant messaging, tweeting, status updating...
(that‘s marketing AFTER your publication)

22

WRITE AT BEGINNING!
Serial position effect

Drain needs
Recall

unblocking!!

Mustn’t forget
to do the shopping...
I’m hungry...

t
Primacy Recency

Deese and Kaufman, J. Exp. Psychol. 1957, 54, 180-187.�
© Andrew Moore Murdock , J. Exp. Psychol. 1962, 64, 482-488.�

FIRST LETTER… BRAIN DOES THE REST

Ò  http://www.positscience.com/games-teasers/brain-teasers/teasers/scrambled-text

23

MANUSCRIPT DRAFT
- IMRAD -
Ò  Title
Ò  Abstract
1.  Introduction
2.  Materials and Methods
3.  Results
4.  Discussion
5.  Figures and Tables
Ò  Cover letter

WRITING
ORDER?

24

...WRITING ORDER
Ò  Title
Ò  Abstract
2.  Results
4.  Introduction
5.  Discussion

...WRITING ORDER
Ò  Figures and Tables
Ò  Title
Ò  Abstract
2.  Results
4.  Introduction
5.  Discussion

25

START WITH THE DATA

Ò  This will cut your writer‘s block!
Ò  (Pictures of gels, graphs etc)

Ò  Order in Figures: write legends

Ò  What is the story?

Ò  (Title, abstract draft)

FIGURES
Ò  Should tell the story - quick readers will read the abstract and
check the figures
Ò  Are the data comprehensive?
Ò  Not too many panels (6)
Ò  If too many data: provide as supporting material
Ò  Think: what do I need to convince the reviewer? What is the
minimum to satisfy a reader without „losing the forest because
of the trees“? e.g. No need to repeat all different conditions as
a proper figure
Ò  Include a concluding visual scheme, diagram, overview

26

FIGURES II
Ò  Detail how many times the experiments were
performed
Ò  Detail the number of animals/replicates
Ò  Provide clear statistical analysis
Ò  Should enable the reader to fully understand
the figure
Ò  Ensure everything is described: abbreviations,
symbols etc.

FIGURE OR TABLE?
Ò  Table
É  Recording data (raw or processed)
É  Showing actual data values, precision
É  Multiple comparisons
É  Has a short title and footnotes

Ò  Figure
É  Showing trend or picture
É  Shape rather than numbers
É  Compare few elements
É  Has a legend with all details needed

27

KEEP SOURCE DATA!

http://www.slideshare.net/lemberger/editorial-process

FIGURE QUALITY
Ò  resolution should be at least 400 dpi
Ò  to be printed either to fit the width of one column (8 cm) or to
fit the width of the page (17 cm)
Ò  Avoid extreme height-to-width ratios (“noodles” and
“skyscrapers”)
Ò  Resizing: Increasing the resolution of an image will result in a
proportionally smaller image size
É  20 x 30 cm 96 dpi -> 400 dpi 5 x 7 cm
É  do not embed TIFF files in DOC files; JPEG files will not be compressed

28

CHART RESOLUTION
Ò  Excel: scale the chart to at least 400% of the expected printing
size
Ò  Select the chart, copy
Ò  PowerPoint: Edit-“Paste special…“: paste as PNG file
P

IMAGE PROCESSING

Regulations by Rockefeller University Press
(now adopted by most journals)
Ò  No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured,
moved, removed, or introduced.
Ò  Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are
acceptable if they are applied to the whole image and as long as
they do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information
present in the original.
Ò  The grouping of images from different parts of the same gel, or
from different gels, fields, or exposures must be made explicit by
the arrangement of the figure (e.g., dividing lines) and in the text
of the figure legend.
Ò  If the original data cannot be produced by an author when asked
to provide it, acceptance of the manuscript may be revoked.

http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3363

29

MANIPULATION OF BLOTS Brigthness and contrast adjustments.

© 2004 Rockefeller University Press Rossner M , Yamada K M J Cell Biol 2004;166:11-15

STICK
TO
THE
FIGURE
GUIDELINES...

30

...WRITING ORDER
Ò  Title
Ò  Abstract
2.  Results
4.  Introduction
5.  Discussion

TITLE
ž  The first impression counts...
ž  A strong title will attract readers/citations
ž  Keep it short: 15 words
ž  Clear, informative, raise curiosity
ž  Interesting and easy to read
ž  Main message of the paper
ž  Remember Medline
ž  Key words
ž  Start with a „quick go“, remodel during writing
process and rethink for some days when the whole
manuscript is ready
Ò  Test: http://www.lulu.com/titlescorer

31

EXAMPLES: COMPARE
Ò  “The X-ray crystal structure of the complex formed
between a recognition domain on a sensor histidine
kinase (CheA) and its cognate response-regulator
(CheY) reveals insights into the mechanism of signal
transduction in bacterial chemotaxis.”
Ò  “Structure of the CheY-binding domain of histidine
kinase CheA in complex with CheY.”
Ò  “Preliminary canine and clinical evaluation of a new
antitumor agent, streptovitacin.” (Clin. Res. 8:134, 1960)
Ò  „Evidence for women dreaming more often about food
than men.“

TITLES TO AVOID
Ó  Vague titles
Ó  Titles starting with
Ó  „Studies on..“ „Implications of…“
Ó  „Characterization of...“ „Involvement of…“
Ó  „Observations on...“ „Evidence for…“
Ó  „Investigations into...“ „Insights in…“
Ó  “The involvement of protein x in signal transduction pathway y”
—  -> „Protein x does y in this signal transduction pathway “
P
Ó  Titles with jargon or abbreviations
Ó  Titles with „new“ and „novel“ (all research is new)

32

KEYWORDS

Ò  Donot repeat title words – these come up
anyhow
Ò  Most cited versus never cited...

Ò  Try out in Medline: possibly your keywords
should be obvious and short but bring less hits
(and rather your than a competitor‘s article!)

TITLE SYNTAX

Ò  “Preliminary canine and clinical evaluation of
a new antitumor agent, streptovitacin.”
(Clin. Res. 8:134, 1960)
Ò  „Evidence for women dreaming more often
about food than men.“
Ò  ...

33

HAVE A LOOK AT TITLES
Reviews Reviews

+
Yoghurt fermentation at elevated temperatures by Essential fatty acids: Biochemistry, physiology and

- strains of Streptococcus thermophilus
expressing a small heat-shock protein:
pathology

Application of two-plasmid system for

+
Metagenomics: An inexhaustible access to
constructing food-grade strains of nature‘s diversity
Streptococcus thermophilus

- New insights into mechanisms of growth and b-
carotene production in Blakeslea trispora Production of biopharmaceuticals and vaccines in
plants via the chloroplast genome
+/-
+/- Research Ar ticles
Separation of catechin compounds from different
Application of inkjet printing to tissue engineering
+
teas

+/- Production and characterization of theromstable Research Ar ticles
α-amylase by thermophilic Geobacillus
stearothermophilus
Arenicola marina extracullar hemoglobin: A new
promising blood substitute +/-
- Molecular characteriazation of rpoB gene
mutations in rifampicin-resistant
Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains isolated
Directed evolution of industrial biocatalyst 2-
deoxy-D-ribose-5-phosphate aldolase +
-
from TB patients in Belarus

+/-
Investigating pH and Cu(II) effects on lipase Bio-electrosprays: The next generation of
activity and enantioselectivity via kinetic electrified jets

-
and spectroscopic methods

+/-
Metabolic flux analysis of the two astaxanthin-
A rapid, high content, in vivo model of
producing microorganisms Haematococcus glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis
pluvialis and Phaffia rhodozyma in the pure
and mixed cultures

Never cited...........well cited

ABSTRACT
ž  Hardest part to write
ž  Second most important part
ž  Maximum 200 words (Medline truncates at 250 words)
ž  What are the significant results?
ž  Important methodology (in vitro vs. in vivo, human, model
systems)
ž  What are the conclusions/implications?
ž  Start with writing these in bullet points and take time to re- re-
and re-write this part with some distance
ž  Write in PAST TENSE
ž  NO citations, avoid non-standard abbreviations

34

© Andrew Moore

Drain needs
recall unblocking!!

PI3K Mustn’t forget
I’m hungry...

t
primacy recency

OPTIMIZE ABSTRACT
Ò  Be specific, not just one word
É  e.g. women's fiction not fiction.
Ò  Key phrases need to make sense within the title and
abstract and flow well.
Ò  Focus on a maximum of three or four different
keyword phrases rather than try to get across too
many points.
Ò  Finally, always check that the abstract reads well,
remember the primary audience is still the researcher
not a search engine, so write for readers not robots.
http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/

35

STRUCTURED ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus have become increasingly
common in hospitals worldwide. S aureus continues to be a cause of nosocomial bacteremia. METHODS:
We analyzed the clinical significance (mortality) of MRSA and methicillin-susceptible S aureus bacteremia in
a retrospective cohort study in a 2900-bed tertiary referral medical center. Survival and logistic regression
analyses were used to determine the risk factors and prognostic factors of mortality. RESULTS: During the
15-year period, 1148 patients were diagnosed with nosocomial S aureus bacteremia. After controlling
potential risk factors for MRSA bacteremia on logistic regression analysis, service, admission days prior to
bacteremia, age, mechanical ventilator, and central venous catheter (CVC) were independent risk factors for
MRSA. The crude mortality rate of S aureus bacteremia was 44.1%. The difference between the mortality
rates of MRSA (49.8%) and MSSA bacteremia (27.6%) was 22.2% (P < .001). Upon logistic regression
analysis, the mortality with MRSA bacteremia was revealed to be 1.78 times higher than MSSA (P < .001).
The other predicted prognostic factors included age, neoplasms, duration of hospital stay after bacteremia,
presence of mechanical ventilator, and use of CVC. CONCLUSIONS: Resistance to methicillin was an
important independent prognostic factor forpatients with S aureus bacteremia.

PMID: 18313513 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/policy/structured_abstracts.html

STRUCTURED ABSTRACT
Ò  Developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s to assist
health professionals in selecting clinically relevant and
methodologically valid journal articles
Ò  Mainly medical

Ò  Makes text mining (search engines) easier

Ò  Could start to be used in life sciences (MedLine
encourages)

36

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

Ò  Startedin chemical journals
Ò  VISUALISE the main message in ONE figure
É  Chemical reaction
É  Signal transduction pathway

É  Hypothesis

É  Structure

É  Etc…

LAY ABSTRACT

Ò  Sometimes asked at submission
Ò  Summary for non-expert

Ò  Here you CAN say why it is new

Ò  Always write this, it can be useful
É  In cover letter to convince Editor
É  After acceptance to highlight your work

É  To explain your friends and family

37

EDIT AN ABSTRACT

Ò  Mark key statements
É  Doyou get what it is about?
É  What could be left out?

Ò  Firstand last sentence: strong?
Ò  Positive wording

Ò  Sentence length

Ò  Suggest one or two alternative titles

Ò  What would you write in a „lay“ abstract?

EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS

38

...WRITING ORDER
Ò  Title
Ò  Abstract
2 .  Results
3 .  Materials and Methods
4.  Introduction
5.  Discussion

39

RESULTS
Ò  Follow the figures: Present the experiments performed in a logical and clear
manner. Why did this lead to the next experiment?
Ò  Written in the PAST TENSE
Ò  Provide statistical analysis and clearly indicate significant data
Ò  Cite relevant literature but only the FACTS to understand (as previous
studies showed XXX [23] we tested the cells with XXX). Comparing is for the
discussion
Ò  Do not lose in technical details („we transfected and then purified cell
extracts and then separated...“): these go to the M&M
Ò  Be SELECTIVE
Ò  Present your results ONCE, either in the text, OR a Table OR Figure

MATERIALS & METHODS
Ò  Should be concise but complete
Ò  Written in PAST TENSE
Ò  DO NOT include any results!
Ò  A colleague should be able to repeat the experiment
Ò  All new reagents, sequences, etc should stated;
Ò  New method: provide ALL detail
Ò  Standard procedures: cite and only mention modifications
Ò  If too lengthy: decide afterwards if parts can be cut or removed
to supporting information
Ò  Write 20 mL (not ml), 5 mm, 3 min (not mins), kDa (not Kda;
molecular mass – not weight), M (not mole)
  Check chemical nomenclature www.chem.qmw.ac.uk/iubmb

40

FUNNY M&M
Ò  “After standing in boiling water for an hour, I loaded the sample
on a gel…..”
Ò  “Blood samples were taken from 48 informed and consenting
patients….. the subjects ranged in age from 6 months to 22
years.” (Pediatr. Res. 1972, 6, 26)
Ò  “Employing a straight platinum wire rabbit, sheep and human
blood agar plates were inoculated….”
Ò  “Lying on top of the small intestine, we observed a small
transparent thread”
Ò  “In this experiment, one third of the mice were cured by the test
drug, one third were unaffected by the drug and remained
moribund, and the third mouse got away.”(Reputedly from a MS
submitted to Infection and Immunity)

From Martin Welch, BIOCAM course

...WRITING ORDER
Ò  Title
Ò  Abstract
2.  Results
4 .  Introduction
5.  Discussion

41

INTRODUCTION
Ò  Provides the background to the study
Ò  Can be written in PRESENT TENSE (= existing knowledge)
Ò  Details the results from relevant published studies (difference between we
demonstrated – it was demonstrated – it has been demonstrated – it is
known)
Ò  Explains what is still unknown
Ò  Describes why the work was carried out and what the aim of the study was
Ò  Enables a non-expert to understand the rationale
Ò  Try to cite relevant review articles rather than going back to all basic papers
Ò  State your principal results and conclusions in one sentence

INTRODUCTION

Ò  Donot keep the reader in suspense:
Tell the audience at the start that the
butler did it.
[Which they already know anyway,
because they’ve read the abstract……..]
Ò  Decisions about what is or is not
interesting should be left up to the
reader.

42

...WRITING ORDER
Ò  Title
Ò  Abstract
2.  Results
4.  Introduction
5 .  Discussion

DISCUSSION
Ò  QUICKLY summarize the findings
Ò  This is not just the results presented in another format, they
need to be discussed in the wider context of the field
Ò  What are the implications for future work?
Ò  Systematically compare findings with supporting and/or
conflicting literature
Ò  Discuss implications and applications, future directions to take
Ò  Be clear, honest, don‘t over-interprete but also don‘t minimize
Ò  Are there any models/rules that can be established?
Ò  If it was a model system, what are the implications for the
human system? Parallels, differences?
Ò  If primarily in vitro studies, what is the scope for further in vivo
studies? Relation to published in vivo studies?

43

REFERENCES
Ò  The references must comply to house style
Ò  Ensure that they are cited in numerical order and that
every reference is cited
Ò  The work cited should be fair and balanced
Ò  Ensure that credit is given to the original discoveries,
including back-to-back publications
Ò  Use a reference manager (e.g. Endnote) and correctly
format the citations and ref list

NOW THINK LIKE REFEREE
1. Is the subject matter suitable for publication in XXX?
2. Does the manuscript contain new and significant information
to justify publication?
3. Is the technical quality of the paper adequate for publication?
4. Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
5. Is the summary (abstract) informative and concise?
6. Is the English satisfactory?
7. Do the references adequately refer to related work?

44

KEEP IT SHORT
É  600-700 words = one typeset page - excluding
figures. (12000 words = 20 pages)
É  Introduction < 1000 words

É  Concluding section < 300 words

Ò  Shorten:
É  Latest publications of relevance
É  Keep details to minimum
É  Concentrate on bullet points, 3 key arguments
É  Cover only as much historical background as is necessary for the
contextualization of the topic for a broad readership.
É  Avoid detailed lists of genes, gene products, acronyms etc. -> Table

KEEP
WITHIN
THE
PAGE
LIMIT

45

...WRITING ORDER
Ò  Title
Ò  Abstract
2.  Results
4 .  Introduction
5.  Discussion

LAST BUT NOT LEAST: COVER LETTER
Ò  Convince the editor of the importance of your work
Ò  State in a few sentences what the paper is about (not
abstract)
Ò  Why does it fit the scope of the journal?
Ò  Why is it novel?
Ò  Why will it be of interest to reviewers? If you state non-
preferred reviewers, you may explain why
Ò  Write this for the EDITOR

46

COVER LETTER
= Getting through the first editorial assessment...

...or will not be sent out for peer review

WHAT THE EDITOR WANTS?
Ò  OURS
É  Originality

É  Understandibility

É  Reliability

É  Suitability

Ò  Poorlywritten or
conceived papers
will be rejected
editorially

47

COVER LETTER EXAMPLE
Dear Dr. Brown,

Please find attached the manuscript „Arbuscular mycorrhizal associations of the southern Simpson
Desert“. This manuscript examines the mycorrhizal status of plants growing on the different
soils of the dune-swale systems of the Simpson Desert. There have been few studies of the
ecology of the plants in this desert and little is known about how mycorrhizal assocaitions are
distributed amonst the desert plants of Australia. We report the arbuscular mycorrhizal status
of 47 plant species for the first time. The manscript has been prepared according to the
journal‘s Instructions for Authors. We believe that this new work is within the scope of your
jounal and hope that you will consider this manuscript for publication in the Australian Journal
of Botany.
We await your response and the comments of reviewers.

Yours sincerely,

COVER LETTER EXAMPLE
Dear Dr. Brown,

Please find attached the manuscript „Arbuscular mycorrhizal associations of the southern Simpson
Desert“. This manuscript examines the mycorrhizal status of plants growing on the different
soils of the dune-swale systems of the Simpson Desert. There have been few studies of the
ecology of the plants in this deser t and little is known about how mycorrhizal assocaitions are
distributed amonst the desert plants of Australia. We report the arbuscular mycorrhizal status
of 47 plant species for the first time. The manscript has been prepared according to the
journal‘s Instructions fo Authors. We believe that this new work is within the scope of your
jounal and hope that you will consider this manuscript for publication in the Australian Journal
of Botany.
We await your response and the comments of reviewers.

Yours sincerely,

48

COVER LETTER QUOTES
Ò  “It gives me immense satisfaction to be able to share with you an additional
application of….”
Ò  “We, the Arthurs of this mansucript …”
Ò  “The conception of Chapter 1..”
Ò  “We hope that paper should priority handing”
Ò  “I would like to express my honour to submit our hard work to your
respected journal”
Ò  “Dear Sir, Thank you for the sweet reviewing process and find here the
responce for the reviewers comments”
Ò  “After deep thinking of the comments, we made statement as follow:”

Thanks to Lucie and Uta, EJLST and ELS

NOW SUBMIT
  http://mc.mscentral.com/btj
  Take time! You will need to provide
–  Names and emails of authors
–  Names and emails of referees
  4 preferred referees
  Evt non-preferred: best state WHY – this choice will be respected
–  Title, abstract and keywords
–  Lay abstract/practical applications
–  Cover letter
–  Conflict of interest statement

49

SUBMIT ONLINE:
Ò  http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/btj

50

THEN BE PATIENT

Ò  The editors will try to get back to you as soon
as possible
É  Immediate decision within 1 week
É  Peer review within 4 weeks is fast!

É  You may inquire after 6 weeks

AFTER DECISION
Ò  Always sleep over the referee comments
Ò  Reply correctly, especially if „rebuttal“
Ò  Carefully revise and make a point-by-point answer to
referee comments – especially if some requests
cannot be fulfilled, come up with a plausible
explanation!
Ò  The revised version has to be PERFECT – it will save a
lot of time for all parties involved.

51

EDITING

Ò  Language vs peer review/editing
É  Badly written -> reject
É  Poor language -> language polishing
É  Small mistakes -> copy-editor
Ò  Shashok K. Content and communication: How can peer review
provide helpful feedback about the writing?
É  BMC Medical Research Methodology 2008, 8:3, doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-3. http://
www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/8/3

www.writeresearch.com.au

52

… ACCEPTED
  Celebrate!
  Cite per DOI (Digital object identifier)
○  = Publisher/MSnumber
  http://dx.doi.org
  http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/biot.2009xxxxx

  Publication times….
Ø  Author
Ø  Signed copyright transfer agreement
Ø  Final figures/text
Ø  Galley proof corrections
Ø  Publisher
Ø  Copy-editing
Ø  Typesetting
Ø  Online publication
Ø  Issue and/or print: pages assigned

STYLE = CLARITY

Ò  Writeto be understood
Ò  Think of your audience

Ò  Make information accessible

Ò  Make reader feel comfortable

Ò  THINK what you want to say
É  Clear thinking = clear writing
Ò  Arrange your thoughts in a logical order (MIND
MAP)

53

#
LANGUAGES…

Ò  …
diﬀerent
challenges!

Ò  Sentences
too
long/too

short

Ò  False
friends

Ò  Commas

SENTENCE STRUCTURE

Ò  Simple

Ò  Precise

Ò  Concise

Ò  Topic near the beginning!
Ò  Active tense where possible

Ò  KISS
Ð  Keep

Ð  It

Ð  Short
and

Ð  Simple

54

SENTENCE STRUCTURE
Ò  Which sentence is easier to understand?
É  The primary site of contact with airborne allergens,
irritants, pathogens and other proinflammatory
agents is the pulmonary ephithelium
É  The pulmonary epithelium is the primary site of
contact with airborne allergens, irritants, pathogens
and other proinflammatory agents

SENTENCE STRUCTURE
Ò  Often splitting in two is better, even if result is longer:
É  Wiley-VCH is a Weinheim, Germany, global STM publisher
specialized in chemistry and life sciences, belonging to the
Wiley-Blackwell group.
É  Wiley-VCH is a publishing house located in Weinheim,
Germany. As a part of the global Wiley-Blackwell scientific/
technical/medical (STM) program, it is specialized in
Chemistry and Life Science publications.

55

PARAGRAPHS

ž  Units of thought, not length
ž  Provide visual relief

ž  Contain related thoughts

ž  Thoughts in logical order

ž  Consistent organization

ž  Use topic sentences
—  At beginning or end
—  Rarely in the middle (unless preceding is transitional)

© Andrew Moore

Drain needs
recall unblocking!!

PI3K Mustn’t forget
I’m hungry...

t
primacy recency

56

SOME TIPS
Ò  Avoid vague terms such as trends
Ò  Be very precise and clear

Ò  “The cells increased following treatment with” – what
characteristic of the cells increased: size, number?
Ò  Data = results; datum = result; use the correct verb
form (also criteria/criterion etc.)
Ò  Careful with embedded phrases
É  Avoid separating subject and verb

ENGLISH
PUNCTUATION

http://files.nothingisreal.com/publications/Tristan_Miller/advice.pdf

57

http://www.facebook.com/sujaybarc

MORE TIPS

Ò  Be cautious with imprecise words:
É  Several, some, many, affected, somewhat, quite, relatively
Ò  Don‘t add doubt unnecissarily. Could you replace...
É  Could -> can
É  Would -> will

É  Hopefully -> Possibly

É  Difficulty -> challenge

58

PAST VS PRESENT TENSE

Ò  Past tense: for a completed study
É  what was done and found
Ò  Present tense: for what is always true or always
there
É  An example is….
Ò  Modal tense: doubt
É  This may influence…

ACTIVE VS PASSIVE
É  Avoid passive (is, was, are, being...)
É  Use active: the subject of the sentence performs an action
Ð  The man was bitten by the dog - pass
Ð  The dog bit the man - active

É  Only use passive if you cannot use the „we“ form
Ð  Gelelectrophoresis was used - pass
Ð  We used gel electrophoresis – active

É  Example from Adam Ruben
Ð  ACTIVE VOICE: We did this experiment.
Ð  PASSIVE VOICE: This experiment was done by us.

Ð  SEMI-PASSIVE VOICE: Done by us, this experiment was.

Ð  Yes, for the semi-passive voice, you’ll want to emulate Yoda. Yoda,
you’ll want to emulate. A. Ruben dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a1200033

59

WHICH/THAT

Ò  Which/that: relative clauses
Ð  Defining clause: NO comma
×  That/which in UK, only that in US
×  No comma
Ð  Non defining clause: comma
×  ,which ((by the way)) ….
×  Not essential to basic meaning

×  Comma before which
Ø  Land which/that is surrounded by water is an island.
Ø  Tasmania, which is surrounded by the waters of Bass Strait, is an island of great
natural beauty.


THE COMMA: A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH?

Ò  “Panda: large black and white bear-like
mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and
leaves.” [1]
Ò  Help the reader understand!/list information

Ò  Before the “and” is optional

Ò  To date, …

Ò  Use commas as you would salt and pepper:
don’t overdo it!
Ò  [1] Truss, L., Eats(,) Shoots and Leaves, Profile Books Ltd., UK 2003
Ò  Fay Wolter, BiotecVisions April 2011

60

ANTHROPOMORPHISM
= assigning actions that can only be performed by humans to non-living
subjects. Subjects like method, theor y, research, table, figure, etc. cannot
determine, conclude, find, summarize, compare, or actively “act” as human
subjects do

Anthropomorphism
Solu�on

HPLC
was
able
to
determine
We
determined
the

the
composi�on.
composi�on
by
HPLC.

The
research
found…
The
researchers
found…

Table
1
summarizes
the
The
summary
in
Table
1.

results…

Figure
1
compares
ac�vi�es
Ac�vi�es
at
4°C
and
37°C
are

at
4°C
and
37°C.
compared
in
Table
1.

Our
hypothesis
says…
We
hypothesize…

www.biotecvisions.com

USE LINKS
ž  Transition words
—  And, so, therefore, however, in conclusion, nevertheless
ž  Do not use several words where one will do
—  As a means of
—  Ask the question
—  At the present time
—  During the time that
—  In order that
—  With regard to
—  Prior to
—  With the exception of
—  ...

61

RATHER NOT USE ...
Ò  Seems/appears Ò  Restricted
Ò  Uncritical Ò  Unsupported
Ò  Undermined
Ò  Limited
Ò  Confounded
Ò  Compromised
Ò  Inappropriate
Ò  Somewhat
Ò  Purported
Ò  Superficial
Ò  Caution
Ò  Ofdoubtful value
Ò  Limitations
Ò  Unlikely

ALSO NEGATIVE ...

Ò  Unclear
Ò  Uncontrolled
Ò  Uncertain
Ò  Anomalous
Ò  Potentially
biased Surprising
Ò  Controversial Ò  Unusual
Ò  Debatable Ò  Confusing
Ò  Unexpected Ò  Negative

62

AVOID REDUNDANCY

Ò  Present moment in time
Ò  Fewer in number

Ò  Estimate at about

Ò  Whether or not

Ò  Try and endeavour

Ò  True facts

.. DO NOT BE ARROGANT...

Ò  As is well-known
Ò  It is obvious that

Ò  It will be self-evident that

Ò  Of course

Ò  A not inconsiderable body of evidence...
Ò  Starting sentences with “obviously” or “as everyone
knows” demonstrates your intellectual superiority. If
possible, start sentences with, “As super-intelligent
beings like myself know,” or “Screw your stupidity;
here’s a fact-bomb for you.”A. Ruben dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a1200033

63

SOME RULES
Ò  Shun and avoid the employment of unnecessary, excess extra words.
Ò  Make certain all sentences are full and complete. If possible.
Ò  Avoid cliches like the plague.
Ò  Take pain's to spell and, punctuate correctly.
Ò  BE Consistent.
Ò  Don't approximate. Always be more or less precise.
Ò  Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity or prolixity.
Ò  Avoid pointless repetition, and don't repeat yourself unnecessarily.
Ò  Always try to remembr t he/E extreme importance of being accurit; ne at, and carfful.
Ò  Don't use no double negatives.
Ò  Don't never use no triple negatives.
Ò  All generalizations are bad.
Ò  Take care that your verb and subject is in agreement.

SOME RULES II
Ò  A preposition is a bad thing to end a sentence with.
Ò  Don't use commas, which aren't necessary.
,
Ò  "Avoid overuse of 'quotation' marks." "
Ò  Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
Ò  And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
Ò  Reserve the apostrophe for it's proper use and omit it when its not necessary.
Ò  Avoid run-on sentences they are hard to read.
Ò  Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
Ò  Never use that totally cool, radically groovy out-of-date slang.
Ò  Avoid those long sentences that just go on, and on, they never stop, they just keep
rambling, and you really wish the person would just shut up, but no, they just keep
on going, they're worse than the Energizer Bunny, they babble incessantly, and these
sentences, they just never stop.

From http://www.union.edu/PUBLIC/BIODEPT/wicked.html

64

IF YOU DON‘T KNOW…
Ò  Google!!
Ò  Merriam Webster
É  www.merriamwebster.com
Ò  Linguee for German to English
Ò  Software ConcApp
É  www.edict.com.hk/pub/concapp/
É  Build your own corpus (articles) of english journal articles

É  Search gives you CONTEXT of search words


FUNNY SYNTAX...
Ò  “A large mass of literature has accumulated on the cell walls of
staphylococci.” (From a MS submitted to the editor for publication in J.
Bacteriol.)
Ò  “….He presented evidence that women who smoke are likely to have
pulmonary abnormalities and impaired lung function at the annual meeting
of the American Lung Association.” (From a Press release)
Ò  “THF is a single heat-stable polypeptide isolated from calf thymus composed
of 31 amino acids with a molecular weight of 3,200.”
Ò  “For sale, fine grand piano, by a lady, with three legs.”
Ò  “For sale, German Shepherd dog, obedient, well trained, will eat anything,
very fond of children.”

From Martin Welch, BIOCAM course

65

NOW YOU CAN WRITE… A CV?

Ò  Think of your audience
Ò  Write to be understood

Ò  Most important first

PICK OUT THE RIGHT CV

Ò  You have 10 minutes to read 20 CVs
Ò  Which criteria do you use?

Ò  What attracts you in a cover letter?

Ò  When do you spot what is important?

Ò  -> YOUR list

Ò  -> THE list of writing tips

66

WHEN IS A CV NOT SELECTED?

Ò  No cover letter
Ò  No motivation

Ò  Unclear

Ò  Not interesting

Ò  No extra skills

Ò  Not matching job description

Ò  Perfect but boring (standard without extra)

Ò  The person behind this CV does not appeal

Ò  …

CV TIPS I

Ò  Deliver information at first glance
É  Trigger interest
É  Emphasize specific skills

É  Criteria from job ad can be found back in examples

É  Cover letter focused on position

É  Picture not required but IF, it will be seen…

É  Clear motivation

Ò  Easy to read – content and layout, uncongested
É  Clearstructure
É  CV not too long not too short

 

 

 

67

CV TIPS II

Ò  Be
É  precise and concise
É  specific and concrete

É  honest but not over-honest

É  yourself

Ò  Show that
É  you know the needs (search for company info in any possible
way)
É  you are mature (know what you are talking about)

É  you can learn what you don’t know

É  you can deal positively with problems

CV TIPS III

Ò  State
É  work experience
É  international experience

É  relevant awards and prizes

É  extra activities (especially social ones)

É  examples of additional skills

Ò  But
É  No information without examples
É  No gaps without explaining

É  No unnecessary details

É  No spelling mistakes

68

RECOGNIZE YOUR SKILLS – STAR TECHNIQUE

Ò  Situation The setting, the aim, the obstacles,
the persons involved.
Ò  Task What did you and your team want to achieve?
What problem did you face? What was your
particular role?
Ò  Action What did you do? How did you do it?
Ò  Result What was the outcome? What did you achieve?
What was the value of your contribution?
What did you learn from the experience?

HOW TO TURN YOUR CV INTO A „RESUME“

69

CV DO‘S AND DON‘TS
Ò  Do Ò  Don‘t
É  Give evidence for everything É  Start every sentence with „I…”
you claim you’ve done without variation
É  Be specific about everything É  Copy-paste the website
you state
É  Be concise but not terse É  Push open doors (they already
É  Avoid jargon if not relevant know that “publishing is a great
É  Use active verbs. career option”)
(“I do” not “It was done”) É  Repeat exactly the same
É  Use strong verbs information from your CV in the
(“Initiate”, “Devise”, cover letter
“Perform”,) É  Insert doubt
É  Show your enjoyment and É  Be over-modest
satisfaction in relevant É  Use long words or sentences
activities
where shorter means the same
É  Add some concrete details
wherever it helps

COVER LETTER: STRUCTURE

1.  Reference to previous contact/job ad
2.  Information about yourself
3.  Your specific contribution to the position
4.  Suggest next steps
É  I will be available XXX to discuss with you
É  I can start from XXX

70

SCIENTIFIC WRITING TIPS

BORING SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15674.x

71

WEBSITES

Ò  http://www.slideshare.net/secret/oymNwGJBTzqRylp
Ò  http://www.wiley.com/authors
Ò  http://www.biotecvisions.com
Ò  http://www.writeresearch.com.au
Ò  http://www.writing.engr.psu.edu/exercises/
Ò  http://www.bioc.cam.ac.uk/teaching/partii/both/ScientificWriting.pdf
Ò  http://www.freelancers.co.uk/
Ò  http://www.inter-biotec.com/services/services.html
Ò  http://www.union.edu/PUBLIC/BIODEPT/wicked.html
Ò  http://www.lib.umich.edu/hsl/resources/writing

FURTHER READING

72

QUESTIONS?

Contact me:
Ò  Barbara.janssens@gmail.com

Ò  www.facebook.com/phdcareers

SO WHAT DID YOU BUY?

Ò  Today
É  Xxx

É  Xxx

É  Xxx

É  Xxx

É  Xxx

É  Xxx

É  Xxx

É  Xxx

É  xxx

73

RECOMMENDED REFERENCES
Ò  Shashok, K., Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about
the writing? BMC Medical Research Methodology 2008, 8:3,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-3
Ò  Cargill, M., O’Connor, P., Writing scientific research articles. Blackwell Publishing, Chichester
2009, ISBN 978-1-4051-8619-3.
Ò  Ruben, A., How to Write Like a Scientist. Sciencecareers 2012, March 23, dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.caredit.a1200033

74

Scientific Writing Barbara Janssens 2012

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Scientific Writing Barbara Janssens 2012

Semelhante a Scientific Writing Barbara Janssens 2012 (20)

Último

Último (20)

Scientific Writing Barbara Janssens 2012