How to Write and Publish

a Scientific Paper
This page intentionally left blank
How to Write and Publish
a Scientific Paper
Ninth Edition

Barbara Gastel and Robert A. Day

Copyright © 2022 by Barbara Gastel and the Estate of Robert A. Day
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in
a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Gastel, Barbara, author. | Day, Robert A., 1924-2021, author.
Title: How to write and publish a scientific paper / Barbara Gastel and
   Robert A. Day.
Description: Ninth edition. | Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, [2022] |
   Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022001354 (print) | LCCN 2022001355 (ebook) | ISBN
   9781440878824 (cloth) | ISBN 9781440878848 (paperback) | ISBN
  9781440878831 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Technical writing. | BISAC: LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES /
   Publishers & Publishing Industry | SCIENCE / Research & Methodology
Classification: LCC T11 .D33 2022 (print) | LCC T11 (ebook) | DDC
  808.06/66—dc23/eng/20220204
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022001354
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022001355
ISBN: 978-1-4408-7882-4 (hardcover)
978-1-4408-7884-8 (paperback)
978-1-4408-7883-1 (ebook)
26 25 24 23 22 1 2 3 4 5
This book is also available as an eBook.
Greenwood
An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC
ABC-CLIO, LLC
147 Castilian Drive
Santa Barbara, California 93117
www.abc-clio.com
This book is printed on acid-free paper
Manufactured in the United States of America
 Preparation of the current edition of this book began as the COVID-19
pandemic was arriving. The pandemic has highlighted the importance of
communicating science and has spurred changes in this regard. It is
to the scientists who have helped us understand and control COVID-19,
the editors who have helped ensure that the findings are shared expeditiously
and soundly, and the many whose lives have been lost in the pandemic that
we dedicate this edition.

v
This page intentionally left blank
Contents

Preface xvii
A Word to International Readers  xxi
Acknowledgments xxiii

PART I: SOME PRELIMINARIES

1 What Is Scientific Writing? 3

The Scope of Scientific Writing  3
The Need for Clarity  3
Receiving the Signals  4
Understanding the Signals  4
Understanding the Context  4
Organization and Language in Scientific Writing  5

2 Historical Perspectives 6
The Early History  6
The Electronic Era  7
The IMRAD Story  9

3 Approaching a Writing Project 11

Establishing the Mindset  11
Preparing to Write  12

vii
viii Contents

Doing the Writing  14

Revising Your Work  17

4 What Is a Scientific Paper? 19

Definition of a Scientific Paper  19
Organization of a Scientific Paper  22
Shape of a Scientific Paper  24
Other Definitions  25

5 Ethics in Scientific Publishing 27

Ethics as a Foundation  27
Authenticity and Accuracy  27
Originality 28
Credit 29
Ethical Treatment of Humans and Animals  31
Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest  31

6 Where to Submit Your Manuscript 33

Decide Early, Decide Well  33
Prestige and Impact  35
Access 38
Avoiding Predatory Journals  38
Other Factors to Consider  39
Using Instructions to Authors  40

PART II: PREPARING THE TEXT

7 How to Prepare the Title 45

Importance of the Title  45
Length of the Title  46
Need for Specific Titles  46
Importance of Syntax  47
The Title as Label  48
Abbreviations and Jargon  49
More About Title Format  49

8 How to List the Authors and Addresses 51

Definition of Authorship  51
The Order of the Names  53
 Contents ix

Defining the Order: An Example  54

Specifying Contributions  55
Proper and Consistent Form  56
Solutions: ORCID and More  57
Listing Affiliations and Addresses  57

9 How to Prepare the Abstract 59

Definition 59
Types of Abstracts  61
Clarity and Conciseness  63
Akin to Abstracts  64
Keywords 64
Visual Varieties  64

10 How to Write the Introduction 66

Guidelines 66
Reasons for the Guidelines  67
Exceptions 70
Citations and Abbreviations  70

11 How to Write the Materials and Methods Section 71

Purpose of the Section  71
Materials 72
Methods 73
Headings 73
Measurements and Analysis  74
Need for References  74
Tables and Figures  75
Correct Form and Grammar  75

12 How to Write the Results 77

Content of the Results  77
How to Handle Numbers  78
Strive for Clarity  78
Avoid Redundancy  79
A Supplement on Supplementary Material Online  79

13 How to Write the Discussion 81

Discussion and Verbiage  81
Components of the Discussion  82
x Contents

Noting Strengths and Limitations  82

Significance of the Paper  83
Conclusions 84
Defining Scientific Truth  84

14 How to State the Acknowledgments 86

Ingredients of the Acknowledgments  86
Being Courteous  87

15 How to Cite the References 89

Rules to Follow  89
Checking Against the Original  90
Electronic Aids to Citation  90
Citations in the Text  91
Reference Styles  92
Titles and Inclusive Pages  94
Journal Abbreviations  95
Some Trends in Reference Format  95
Examples of Different Reference Styles  96
Citing Electronic Material  97
One More Reason to Cite Carefully  97

PART III: PREPARING THE TABLES AND FIGURES

16 How to Design Effective Tables 101

When to Use Tables  101
How to Arrange Tabular Material  104
Exponents in Table Headings  107
Following the Journal’s Instructions  107
Titles, Footnotes, and Abbreviations  108
Additional Tips on Tables  108

17 How to Prepare Effective Graphs 109

When Not to Use Graphs  109
When to Use Graphs  111
How to Prepare Graphs  112
Symbols and Legends  114
A Few More Tips on Graphs  115
Beyond Graphs  115
Sources Offering Further Assistance  116
 Contents xi

18 How to Prepare Effective Photographs 118

Photographs and Micrographs  118
Submission Formats  118
Cropping and Combining  119
Necessary Keys and Guides  119
Color 123

PART IV: PUBLISHING THE PAPER

19 Rights and Permissions 127

What is Copyright?  127
Copyright of Unpublished Materials  128
Creative Commons Licenses  128
Obtaining Permissions  129

20 How to Submit the Manuscript 130

Checking Your Manuscript  130
Submitting Your Manuscript  131
The Cover Letter  131
Sample Cover Letter  133
Electronic Cover Letters  134
Confirmation of Receipt  134

21 The Review Process (How to Deal with Editors) 135

Functions of Editors, Managing Editors, and Manuscript Editors  135
The Review Process  137
The Editor’s Decision  140
The Accept Letter  141
The Modify Letter—And How to Respond to It  141
The Reject Letter  144
Editors as Gatekeepers  144

22 The Publishing Process (How to Deal with Proofs)—and After

Publication 147
The Copyediting and Proofing Processes  147
Why Proofs Are Sent to Authors  148
Misspelled Words  148
Marking the Corrections  149
Additions to the Proofs  151
Addition of References  152
xii Contents

Proofing the Illustrations  152

When to Complain  152
Reprints 153
Publicizing and Archiving Your Paper  154
Celebrating Publication  155

PART V: DOING OTHER WRITING FOR PUBLICATION

23 How to Write a Review Paper 159

Characteristics of a Review Paper  159
Preparing an Outline  160
Types of Reviews  161
Writing for the Audience  162
Importance of Introductory Paragraphs  163
Importance of Conclusions  163
Additional Tips for Writing Review Articles  163

24 How to Write Opinion (Letters to the Editor, Editorials, Book Reviews,

and Essays) 165
Writing Informed Opinion  165
Letters to the Editor  165
Editorials 166
Book (and Other Media) Reviews  167
Essays 168

25 How to Write a Book Chapter or a Book 171

How to Write a Book Chapter  171
Why (or Why Not) to Write a Book  172
How to Find a Publisher  172
How to Prepare a Book Manuscript  174
How to Participate in the Publication Process  175
How to Help Market Your Book  178

26 How to Write for the Public 180

Why Write for General Readerships?  180
Finding Publication Venues  180
Engaging the Audience  182
Conveying Content Clearly  183
Emulating the Best  185
 Contents xiii

PART VI: CONFERENCE COMMUNICATIONS

27 How to Present a Paper Orally 189

How to Get to Present a Paper  189
A Word of Caution  190
Organization of the Paper  190
Presentation of the Paper  191
Slides 192
Presenting Online  193
Making a Mini-Presentation  194
The Audience  195
A Few Answers on Questions  196

28 How to Prepare a Poster 197

Popularity of Posters  197
Organization 198
Preparing the Poster  199
Presenting the Poster  201

29 How to Write a Conference Report 202

Definition 202
Format 203
Presenting New Ideas  204
Editing and Publishing  204

PART VII: SCIENTIFIC STYLE

30 Use and Misuse of English 209

Some Basics  209
Some Finer Points  214
On a Lighter Note  219

31 Avoiding Jargon 221
Definition of Jargon  221
Mumblespeak and Other Sins  221
Bureaucratese 223
Special Cases  224
Mottoes to Live By  225
xiv Contents

32 How and When to Use Abbreviations 227

General Principles  227
Good Practice  228
Units of Measurement  229
Special Problems  229
SI (Système International) Units  230
Other Abbreviations  230

33 Writing Clearly Across Cultures and Media 231

Readable Writing  231
Consistency in Wording  232
Serving International Readers  233
A Few Words on Email Style  233
Writing for Online Reading  234

34 How to Write Science in English as a Foreign Language 236

English as the International Language of Science  236
The Essentials: Content, Organization, and Clarity  237
Cultural Differences to Consider  238
Some Common Language Challenges  239
More Strategies for English-Language Writing  240
More Resources  241

PART VIII: OTHER TOPICS IN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION

35 How to Write a Thesis 245

Purpose of the Thesis  245
Tips on Writing  247
When to Write the Thesis  248
Relationship to the Outside World  249
From Thesis to Publication  250

36 How to Prepare a Curriculum Vitae, Cover Letter, and Personal Statement 251

What’s a Curriculum Vitae? What’s It Good For?  251
What to Put in (and What to Leave Out)  253
Other Suggestions  253
Preparing a Cover Letter  254
Writing a Personal Statement  255

37 How to Prepare Grant Proposals and Progress Reports 257

Preparing a Grant Proposal  257
Writing a Progress Report  265
 Contents xv

38 How to Write a Recommendation Letter—and How to Ask for One 268

Deciding Whether to Write the Letter  268
Gathering the Information  269
Writing Letters  269
A Light Aside  270
If You’re Seeking Recommendation Letters  271

39 How to Work with the Media 272

Before the Interview  272
During the Interview  274
After the Interview  275

40 How to Provide Peer Review 277

Responding to a Request for Peer Review  277
Peer-Reviewing a Scientific Paper  278
Providing Informal Peer Review  281
For More on Reviewing  282

41 How to Edit Your Own Work 283

Preparing to Edit Your Work  283
Items to Notice: 8 Cs  284
A Good Choice: Checklists  286
Finding and Working with an Author’s Editor  288

42 How to Seek a Scientific-Communication Career 290

Career Options in Scientific Communication  290
An Admittedly Unvalidated Quiz  291
Career Preparation  292
Entering the Field and Keeping Up  293

Appendix 1: Selected Journal Title Word Abbreviations 295

Appendix 2: Words and Expressions to Avoid 299
Appendix 3: SI (Système International) Prefixes and Their Abbreviations 307
Appendix 4: Some Helpful Websites 309
Glossary 313
References 321
Index 331
This page intentionally left blank
Preface

Criticism and testing are of the essence of our work. This means that science is
a fundamentally social activity, which implies that it depends on good com-
munication. In the practice of science, we are aware of this, and that is why it
is right for our journals to insist on clarity and intelligibility.
—Hermann Bondi

The goal of scientific research is publication. Scientists, starting as graduate

students or earlier, are measured primarily not by their adeptness in the labo-
ratory, not by their knowledge of scientific subjects, and certainly not by their
wit or charm; they are measured and become known (or remain unknown) on
the basis of their publications. On a practical level, a scientist typically needs
publications to get a job, obtain funding to keep doing research in that job,
and get promoted. At some institutions, publications are needed to obtain a
doctorate.
A scientific experiment, no matter how spectacular the results, is not com-
pleted until the results are published. In fact, the cornerstone of the philoso-
phy of science is based on the fundamental assumption that original research
must be published; only thus can new knowledge be authenticated and then
added to the existing database that we call scientific knowledge.
Unlike those in many other fields, scientists must provide a document
showing what they did, why it was done, how it was done (so others can try to
repeat it), and what was learned from it. The key word is reproducibility. That is
what makes science and scientific writing unique.
Thus, the scientist must not only “do” science but also “write” science. Bad
writing can (and often does) prevent or delay the publication of good science.

xvii
xviii Preface

Unfortunately, the education of scientists is often so overwhelmingly com-

mitted to the technical aspects of science that the communication arts are
neglected or ignored. In short, many good scientists are poor writers. Cer-
tainly, many scientists do not like to write. As Charles Darwin said, “A natural-
ist’s life would be a happy one if he had only to observe and never to write”
(quoted by Trelease 1958).
Most of today’s scientists did not have a chance to take a formal course in
scientific writing. As graduate students, they learned to imitate the style and
approach of their professors and previous authors. Some scientists became
good writers anyway. Many, however, learned only to imitate the writing of the
authors before them—with all its defects—thus establishing a system of error
in perpetuity.
The main purpose of this book is to help scientists and students of the sci-
ences in all disciplines to prepare manuscripts likely to be accepted for publi-
cation and to be completely understood when they are published. Because the
requirements of journals vary widely from discipline to discipline, and even
within the same discipline, it is not possible to offer recommendations that
are universally acceptable. In this book, we present certain basic principles
that are accepted in most disciplines.
Let us tell you a bit about the history of this book. The development of How
to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper began many years ago, when one of us
(Robert A. Day) taught a graduate seminar in scientific writing at the Institute
of Microbiology at Rutgers University. It quickly became clear that graduate
students in the sciences both wanted and needed practical information about
writing. If a lecture was about the pros and cons of split infinitives, the stu-
dents became somnolent; if it addressed how to organize data into a table, they
were wide awake. Therefore, a straightforward “how to” approach was used for
an article (Day 1975) based on the lecture notes. The article turned out to be
surprisingly popular, which led to the first edition of this book.
The first edition led naturally to the second edition, and then to succeeding
editions. Because this book is now being used in teaching programs in many
colleges and universities, it seems especially desirable to keep it up to date. We
thank those readers who kindly commented on previous editions, and we
invite suggestions that may improve future editions. Please send suggestions
and comments to Barbara Gastel at b-gastel@tamu.edu.
This edition, the ninth, is the fourth for which Barbara Gastel joins Robert
A. Day. Regrettably, Day did not live to see its publication. He died peacefully
at age 97, having lived a vibrant and productive life and having retained his
sharp mind despite declining health. Gastel remains grateful to Day for asking
her to collaborate, and she feels honored to maintain his legacy. We were
delighted that our previous editions together have been translated into at least
 Preface xix

five languages, and the hope persists that the current edition will be widely
translated too.
In keeping with its title, this book has always focused primarily on writing
and publishing scientific papers. It also has long provided broader advice on
scientific communication. Beginning with the first edition, it has contained
chapters to help readers write review papers, conference reports, and theses.
Over time, chapters have been added on other topics, such as how to approach
a writing project, how to present a paper orally, how to prepare a poster pre-
sentation, how to prepare a grant proposal, how to write about science in Eng-
lish as a foreign language, how to communicate science to the public, how to
provide peer review, and how to edit one’s own work.
The current edition maintains this overall scope but has been substantially
updated and otherwise revised. Newly addressed topics include posting pre-
prints, providing visual abstracts, writing personal essays for journal publica-
tion, and presenting online. We have expanded the guidance on the writing
process, and we have revamped the chapter on the use (and misuse) of Eng-
lish. The list of electronic resources also has been updated. Cartoons have long
been a popular feature of the book; we have retained favorites from previous
editions and added several new cartoons.
This book remains a “how-to book” or “cookbook,” focusing mainly on
points of practical importance. As in past editions, the book also contains
some other items, such as examples of humorous errors, intended to lighten
the reading. Readers wishing to explore topics further are encouraged to con-
sult works noted in the text or cited as references and to look at websites men-
tioned in this book.
We hope that, as well as increasing your skill, this book will increase your
confidence in communicating science. Yes, writing a scientific paper is a sub-
stantial task. But it relies largely on the same attributes—such as intelligence,
organization, and perseverance—as doing science does. If you can do research,
you can communicate it. After a course using this book, a student said that
whereas previously she had likened writing a scientific paper to climbing
Mount Everest, she now viewed it more like climbing a high but surmount-
able peak at a state park. We hope this book will be a faithful guide and good
companion during your climb.
Good scientific writing is crucial to scientists’ careers, science, and society.
We hope this book will demystify writing and publishing a scientific paper and
help you communicate about your work effectively, efficiently, and even enjoy-
ably. Your success will be our greatest reward.
This page intentionally left blank
A Word to International Readers

For researchers throughout the world, communicating in English in standard

Western formats has become largely the norm for sharing information widely.
Thus, over the years, How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper has had many
readers for whom English is not their native language. We hope that the cur-
rent edition will serve an even wider readership.
Aware of the diversity of our readers, we have tried especially hard in the
current edition to present the main content in language that nonnative users
of English can easily understand. Likewise, in choosing cartoons and other
humor, we have increasingly favored items that readers from varied back-
grounds can appreciate. We realize, though, that sometimes humor does not
translate well. If, as an international reader, you are puzzled by a cartoon or
silly-seeming comment, do not worry that something is wrong or that you
have missed an important point. Rather, realize that you are seeing some
examples of American humor.
We welcome readers from throughout the world and hope that they will
find our book helpful in communicating science internationally.

xxi
This page intentionally left blank
Acknowledgments

Over the years and over the editions, many colleagues and others have contrib-
uted directly or indirectly to this book. Those we have worked with in scientific
publishing and academia have shared information and ideas. So have fellow
members of the Council of Science Editors, the Society for Scholarly Publish-
ing, and other organizations. Students and other users of the book have made
suggestions. Many colleagues read and commented on manuscripts for early
editions. Sarah Allen, Wura Aribisala, Melissa Espinoza, Tara Gray, George
Hale, Duanduan Han, Daniel Limonta Velázquez, Arkady Mak, Corley-Ann
Parker, Nancy Day Sakaduski, and Roberto Tuda Rivas read recent editions or
parts thereof and offered thoughtful suggestions. Editors and production staff
brought the work to publication. We thank all these people. We also thank our
families for their support, encouragement, and counsel.

xxiii
This page intentionally left blank
PART I

Some Preliminaries
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 1

What Is Scientific Writing?

State your facts as simply as possible, even boldly. No one wants flowers of
eloquence or literary ornaments in a research article.
—R. B. McKerrow

THE SCOPE OF SCIENTIFIC WRITING

The term scientific writing commonly denotes the reporting of original research
in journals through scientific papers that follow a standard format. In its broader
sense, scientific writing also includes communication about science through
other types of journal articles, such as review papers summarizing and integrat-
ing previously published research. And in a still broader sense, it includes other
types of professional communication by scientists—for example, grant propos-
als, oral presentations, and poster presentations. Related endeavors include
writing about science for the public, sometimes called science writing.

THE NEED FOR CLARITY

The key characteristic of scientific writing is clarity. Successful scientific
experimentation is the result of a clear mind attacking a clearly stated problem
and producing clearly stated conclusions. Ideally, clarity should be a character-
istic of any type of communication; however, when something is being said for
the first time, clarity is essential. Most scientific papers, those published in our
primary research journals, are accepted for publication precisely because they
contribute new knowledge. Hence, we should demand absolute clarity in sci-
entific writing.

3
4  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

RECEIVING THE SIGNALS

Many people have no doubt heard this question: If a tree falls in the forest and
there is no one there to hear it fall, does it make a sound? The correct answer
is no. Sound is more than pressure waves, and indeed there can be no sound
without someone to hear it.
Similarly, scientific communication is a two-way process. Just as a signal of
any kind is useless unless it is perceived, a published scientific paper (signal)
is useless unless it is both received and understood by its intended audience.
Thus we can restate the axiom of science as follows: A scientific experiment is
not complete until the results have been published and understood. A pub-
lished paper is no more than pressure waves unless it is understood. Too
many scientific papers fall silently in the woods.

UNDERSTANDING THE SIGNALS

Scientific writing is the transmission of a clear signal to a recipient. The words
of the signal should be as clear, simple, and well ordered as possible. In
scientific writing, there is little need for ornamentation. Flowery literary
embellishments—metaphors, similes, idiomatic expressions—are very likely
to cause confusion and should seldom be used in research papers.
Science is simply too important to be communicated in anything other
than words that have a certain meaning. And the meaning should be clear and
certain not just to peers of the authors, but also to students just embarking on
their careers, to scientists reading outside their own narrow disciplines, and
especially to those readers (most readers today) whose native language is other
than English.
Many kinds of writing are designed for entertainment. Scientific writing
has a different purpose: to communicate new scientific findings. Scientific
writing should be as clear and simple as possible.

UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT

What is clear to a recipient depends both on what is transmitted and how the
recipient interprets it. Therefore, communicating clearly requires awareness
of what the recipient brings. What is the recipient’s background? What is the
recipient seeking? How does the recipient expect the writing to be organized?
Clarity in scientific writing requires attentiveness to such questions. As
communication professionals advise, know your audience. Also know the
 What Is Scientific Writing?  5

conventions, and thus the expectations, for structuring the type of writing that
you are doing.

ORGANIZATION AND LANGUAGE IN SCIENTIFIC WRITING

Effective organization is key to communicating clearly and efficiently in sci-
ence. Such organization includes following the standard format for a scientific
paper. It also includes organizing ideas logically within that format.
In addition to organization, the second principal ingredient of a scientific
paper should be appropriate language. This book keeps emphasizing proper
use of English because many scientists have trouble in this area. All scientists
must learn to use the English language with precision. A book (Day and Saka-
duski 2011) wholly concerned with English for scientists is available.
If scientifically determined knowledge is at least as important as any other
knowledge, it must be communicated effectively, clearly, and in words with a
certain meaning. The scientist, to succeed in this endeavor, must therefore be
literate. David B. Truman, when he was dean of Columbia College, said it well:
“In the complexities of contemporary existence the specialist who is trained
but uneducated, technically skilled but culturally incompetent, is a menace.”
Given that the ultimate result of scientific research is publication, it is sur-
prising that many scientists neglect the responsibilities involved with this
aspect. Scientists will spend months or years of hard work to secure data and
then unconcernedly let much of their findings’ value be lost because of their
lack of interest in the communication process. The same scientists who will
overcome tremendous obstacles to carry out a measurement to the fourth
decimal place will be in deep slumber while a typographical error changes
micrograms to milligrams.
English need not be difficult. In scientific writing, we say, “The best English
is that which gives the sense in the fewest short words” (a dictum printed for
some years in the Journal of Bacteriology’s instructions to authors). Literary
devices, such as metaphors, divert attention from substance to style. They
should be used rarely in scientific writing.
CHAPTER 2

Historical Perspectives

I imagine the early scientists of the Royal Society involved in creating the first
journals: If they came forward to 2020, everything in our world would shock
and terrify them, but they’d find deep comfort in scientific journals.
—Michael Eisen

THE EARLY HISTORY

Human beings have been able to communicate for thousands of years. Yet
scientific communication as we know it today is relatively new. The first jour-
nals were published about 350 years ago, and the IMRAD (introduction, meth-
ods, results, and discussion) organization of scientific papers has developed
within about the past century.
Knowledge, scientific or otherwise, could not be communicated effectively
until appropriate mechanisms of communication became available. Prehis-
toric people could communicate orally, of course, but each new generation
started from essentially the same baseline because without written records to
refer to, knowledge was lost almost as rapidly as it was found.
Cave paintings and inscriptions carved onto rocks were among the first
human attempts to leave records for succeeding generations. In a sense, today
we are lucky that our early ancestors chose such media because some of these
early “messages” have survived, whereas messages on less-durable materials
would have been lost. (Perhaps many have been.) On the other hand, commu-
nication via such media was incredibly difficult. Think, for example, of the
distributional problems that the U.S. Postal Service would have today if the
medium of correspondence were 100-lb (about 45-kg) rocks. It has enough
troubles with 1-oz (about 28-g) letters.

6
 Historical Perspectives  7

The earliest book we know of is a Chaldean account of the Flood. This story
was inscribed on a clay tablet in about 4000 BCE, antedating Genesis by some
2,000 years (Tuchman 1980).
A medium of communication that was lightweight and portable was
needed. The first successful medium was papyrus (sheets made from the
papyrus plant and glued together to form a roll sometimes 20 to 40 ft [6–12 m]
long, fastened to a wooden roller), which came into use about 2000 BCE. In
190 BCE, parchment (made from animal skins) came into use. The Greeks
assembled large libraries in Ephesus and Pergamum (in what is now Turkey),
as well as in Alexandria. According to Plutarch, the library in Pergamum con-
tained 200,000 volumes in 40 BCE (Tuchman 1980).
In 105 CE, the Chinese invented paper, the dominant medium of written
communication in modern times—at least until the internet era. However,
because there was no effective way of duplicating communications, scholarly
knowledge could not be widely disseminated.
Perhaps the greatest single technical invention in the intellectual history of
the human race was the printing press. Although movable type was invented
in China in about 1100 CE (Tuchman 1980), the Western world gives credit to
Johannes Gutenberg, who printed his 42-line-per-page Bible from movable
type on a printing press in 1455 CE. Gutenberg’s invention was immediately
and effectively put to use throughout Europe. By the year 1500, thousands of
copies of hundreds of books were printed.
The first scientific journals appeared in 1665, when two journals, the Jour-
nal des Sçavans in France and the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London in England, began publication. Since then, journals have served as
the primary means of communication in the sciences. As of late 2021, there
were over 48,000 peer-reviewed scholarly journals, of which over 35,000 were
in English. The number of articles published per year appeared to exceed
4 million. The number of journals, the number of articles submitted, and the
number of articles published all have been increasing from year to year (STM
2021, pp. 15–17).

THE ELECTRONIC ERA

When many older scientists began their careers, they wrote their papers in
pen or pencil and then typed them on a typewriter or had a secretary do so.
They or a scientific illustrator drew graphs by hand. They or a scientific pho-
tographer took photographs on film. They then carefully packaged several cop-
ies of the manuscript and sent them via postal service to a journal. The journal
then mailed copies to the referees (peer reviewers) for evaluation, and the
referees mailed them back with comments. The editor then mailed a decision
8  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

letter to the scientists. If the paper was accepted, the scientists made the
needed revisions and mailed back a final version of the manuscript. A copy
editor edited the paper by hand, and a compositor rekeyboarded the manu-
script. Once the paper was typeset, a copy was mailed to the scientists, who
checked for typographical errors and mailed back corrections. Before the
paper was published, the scientists ordered reprints (freestanding printed cop-
ies) of the paper, largely for fellow scientists who lacked access to libraries
containing the journal or who lacked access to a photocopier.
Today the process has changed greatly. Word processors, graphics pro-
grams, digital photography, and the internet have facilitated the preparation
and dissemination of scientific papers. Journals throughout the world have
online systems for manuscript submission and peer review. Editors and
authors communicate electronically. Manuscript editors edit papers online,
and authors receive typeset proofs of their papers electronically for inspection.
Journals are available online as well as in print—and sometimes instead of in
print; increasingly, accepted papers become available individually online
before appearing in journal issues. At some journals, electronic extras, such as
appendixes and video clips, supplement online papers. Many journals are
openly accessible online, either starting at the time of publication or after a lag
period. In addition, readers often can access papers through the authors’ web-
sites or through resources at the authors’ institutions, or the readers can
request electronic reprints. Some of the changes have increased the technical
demands on authors, but overall, the changes have hastened and eased the
publication process and improved service to readers.
Major trends in recent years have included the increasing use of preprint
servers—in other words, openly accessible online repositories or archives to
which authors post manuscripts before (or sometimes instead of) submitting
them to peer-reviewed journals. In physics and related fields, researchers have
long posted preprints to the open-access archive now called arXiv, which
observed its 30th birthday in 2021 (Celebrating arXiv’s 30th Anniversary
2021). More recently, substantial numbers of researchers in biological fields
have posted preprints, for example in bioRxiv (Kaiser 2017). The trend acceler-
ated with the advent of COVID-19 and the impetus to share research about it
quickly (Kupferschmidt 2020). Related developments have included the advent
of overlay journals, which are compilations of preprints (and sometimes other
online items) that, after peer review, been chosen for inclusion (Alves 2021).
Like circulating drafts to colleagues, posting manuscripts in preprint serv-
ers can aid in sharing information, obtaining feedback, and establishing prior-
ity. It does not, however, substitute for publication in a peer-reviewed journal
or the equivalent. Fellow researchers, members of the public, and the media
should be aware that items in preprint servers have not received the scrutiny
of formal peer review.
 Historical Perspectives  9

Whereas much regarding the mechanics of publication has changed, much

else has stayed the same. Items that persist include the basic structure of a
scientific paper, the basic process by which scientific papers are accepted for
publication, the basic ethical norms in scientific publication, and the basic
features of good scientific prose. In particular, in many fields of science, the
IMRAD structure for scientific papers remains dominant.

THE IMRAD STORY

The early journals published papers that we call descriptive. Typically, a scien-
tist would report, “First, I saw this, and then I saw that,” or “First, I did this,
and then I did that.” Often the observations were in simple chronological
order.
This descriptive style was appropriate for the kind of science then being
reported. In fact, this straightforward style of reporting still is sometimes used
in “letters” journals, case reports in medicine, geological surveys, and other
publications.
By the second half of the nineteenth century, science was beginning to move
fast and in increasingly sophisticated ways. Microbiology serves as an example.
Especially through the work of Louis Pasteur, who confirmed the germ theory
of disease and developed pure-culture methods of studying microorganisms,
both science and the reporting of science made great advances.
At this time, methodology became all-important. To quiet his critics, many
of whom were fanatic believers in the theory of spontaneous generation, Pas-
teur found it necessary to describe his experiments in exquisite detail. Because
reasonably competent peers could reproduce Pasteur’s experiments, the prin-
ciple of reproducibility of experiments became a fundamental tenet of the phi-
losophy of science, and a separate methods section led the way toward the
highly structured IMRAD format.
The work of Pasteur was followed, in the early 1900s, by the work of Paul
Ehrlich and, in the 1930s, by the work of Gerhard Domagk (sulfa drugs).
World War II prompted the development of penicillin (first described by Alex-
ander Fleming in 1929). Streptomycin was reported in 1944, and soon after
World War II, the mad but wonderful search for “miracle drugs” produced
tetracyclines and dozens of other effective antibiotics.
As these advances were pouring out of medical research laboratories after
World War II, it was logical that investment in research would greatly increase.
In the United States, this positive inducement to support science was soon
(in 1957) joined by a negative factor when the Soviets flew Sputnik around the
Earth. In the following years, the U.S. government (and others) poured
additional billions of dollars into scientific research.
10  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Money produced science, and science produced papers. Mountains of

them. The result was powerful pressure on the existing (and the many new)
journals. Journal editors, in self-defense if for no other reason, began to
demand that manuscripts be concisely written and well organized. Journal
space became too precious to be wasted on verbosity or redundancy. The
IMRAD format, which had been slowly progressing since the latter part of the
nineteenth century, now came into almost universal use in research journals.
Some editors espoused IMRAD because they became convinced that it was the
simplest and most logical way to communicate research results. Other editors,
perhaps not convinced by the simple logic of IMRAD, nonetheless hopped on
the bandwagon because the rigidity of IMRAD did indeed save space (and
expense) in the journals, and because IMRAD made life easier for editors and
referees by indexing the major parts of a manuscript.
The logic of IMRAD can be defined in question form: What question (prob-
lem) was studied? The answer is the introduction. How was the problem stud-
ied? The answer is the methods. What were the findings? The answer is the
results. What do these findings mean? The answer is the discussion.
It now seems clear that the simple logic of IMRAD does help the author
organize and write the manuscript, and IMRAD provides an easy road map for
editors, referees, and ultimately readers to follow in reading the paper.
Although the IMRAD format is widely used, it is not the only format for
scientific papers. For example, in some journals, the methods section appears
at the end of papers. In some journals, there is a combined results and discus-
sion section. In some, a conclusions section appears at the end. In papers
about research in which results of one experiment determine the approach
taken in the next, methods sections and results sections can alternate. In some
papers, especially in the social sciences, a long literature review section may
appear near the beginning of the paper. Thus, although the IMRAD format is
often the norm, other possibilities include IRDAM, IMRDRDRD, IMRADC,
IMRMRMRD, ILMRAD, and more.
Later in this book, we discuss components of a scientific paper in the order
in which they appear in the IMRAD format. However, most of our advice on
each component is relevant regardless of the structure used by the journal to
which you will submit your paper. Before writing your paper, of course, be
sure to determine which structure is appropriate for the journal. To do so, read
the journal’s instructions to authors and look at papers similar to yours that
have appeared in the journal. These actions are parts of approaching a writing
project—the subject of the next chapter.
CHAPTER 3

Approaching a Writing Project

Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood
form on your forehead.
—Gene Fowler

ESTABLISHING THE MINDSET

The thought of preparing a piece of scientific writing can intimidate even the
best writers. However, establishing a suitable mindset and taking an appropri-
ate approach can make the task manageable. Perhaps most basic, remember
that you are writing to communicate, not to impress. Readers of scientific
papers want to know what you did, what you found, and what it means; they
are not seeking great literary merit. If you do good research and present it
clearly, you will please and satisfy readers. Indeed, in scientific writing, read-
ers should notice mainly the content, not the style.
Realize that those reading your work want you to do well—they are not out
to thwart you. Journal editors are delighted to receive good papers; ditto for the
scientists they enlist as referees (peer reviewers) to help evaluate your work.
Likewise, if you are a student, professors want you to do well. Yes, these people
often give constructive criticism. But they are not doing so because they dislike
you; rather, they do so because they want your work to succeed. Do not be
paralyzed by the prospect of criticism. Rather, feel fortunate that you will
receive feedback that can help your writing to be its best.

11
12  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

PREPARING TO WRITE
In the laboratory, careful preparation helps experiments proceed smoothly
and efficiently. Much the same is true of scientific writing. By preparing care-
fully before you start to compose a manuscript, you can make writing rela-
tively easy and painless. Of course, in our unbiased view, preparing to write
should include reading this book and keeping it on hand to consult. (Our
publisher suggests buying a copy for your office or lab, a copy to use at home,
and maybe one to keep in your car or boat.) But using this book is only a start.
The following also can help.
Good writing is largely a matter of effective imitation. Therefore, obtain cop-
ies of highly regarded scientific papers in your research area, including papers
in the journal to which you plan to submit your current work. Notice how these
papers are written. For example: What sections do they include, and in what
order? How long do the various sections tend to be? How do the sections tend to
be structured? What types of subheadings, if any, tend to be included? How
many figures and tables, and what types thereof, are typical? Especially if you are
a nonnative speaker of English, what seem to be some standard phrases that you
could use in presenting your own work? Using published papers as models, and
perhaps using detailed outlines of them to help structure your own paper (Gray
2020), can prepare you to craft a manuscript that will be suitable to submit.
Successful writing also entails following instructions. Essentially every sci-
entific journal posts instructions to authors. Following these instructions
takes much of the guesswork out of writing and can save you the unpleasant
task of rewriting a paper because it did not meet the journal’s specifications
(or finding that the editor simply rejected your paper without comment). If
instructions are long (some journals’ instructions run the equivalent of several
pages or more), underline or highlight the key points to remember. Alterna-
tively, you may list the points most relevant to the paper you will write. Also,
consider bookmarking on your computer the journal’s instructions to authors.
For more detailed guidance—for instance, on nomenclature, reference for-
mats, and grammar—instructions for authors often refer readers to standard
style manuals. Among style manuals commonly used in the sciences are the
following:

The ACS [American Chemical Society] Guide to Scholarly Communication

(Banik et al. 2020–)
AMA [American Medical Association] Manual of Style, 11th edition (Chris-
tiansen et al. 2020)
The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition (2017)
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th edition
(2020)
 Approaching a Writing Project  13

Scientific Style and Format, 8th edition (Style Manual Subcommittee, Coun-
cil of Science Editors 2014)

New editions of these manuals come out from time to time. Between editions,
updates commonly are posted on the manuals’ websites. And increasingly,
such manuals are available in continually updated online versions, as well as
in print. Indeed, the ACS Guide to Scholarly Communication, which succeeds
the ACS Style Guide (Coghill and Garson 2006), exists only as such a version.
Look for the most recent edition of the style manual you will use. Commonly,
you can find such style manuals in academic and other libraries. If you lack
easy access, consider investing in the style manuals most commonly used in
your research field. In any case, be ready to consult such manuals.
If you do not have reference-management software—for example, End-
Note, RefWorks, or Zotero—now may be a good time to obtain it. Many uni-
versities make such software readily available and provide instruction in its
use. Further information about using such software appears in Chapter 15.
While you are gathering scientific content, ideas for your paper may occur
to you. For example, you may think of a point to include in the discussion, or
you may come up with a good way to structure a table. Write down these ideas;
for each section of your paper, consider creating a file in which to place them.
Not only will recording your ideas keep them from escaping your memory, but
having such ideas readily available can get your writing off to a quick start.
Once you have gathered and analyzed your data, speaking can be a fine
transition to writing. If possible, present your work at a departmental seminar
or local research day. Perhaps give an oral or poster presentation at a confer-
ence. Preparing to speak can help you with formulating your article. Also,
questions from listeners can help you to shape what you will write.
Research typically is a team endeavor. So is reporting on research. In the
writing, as in the research, different team members commonly take different
roles. Sometimes one member drafts the whole paper and the others review
and revise it. Other times, different members draft different parts of the paper
and then circulate them to the others for review. Whatever the case, clarify
beforehand who will do what, and perhaps set a timetable. Maybe consider
what software, if any, you will use to facilitate collaboration. Will you share
drafts via Dropbox? Will you use Google Docs? Will you use software designed
specifically for academic collaboration? Discuss such matters before starting
to write.
To facilitate writing, do lots of prewriting. For example, stack copies of pub-
lished papers in the order in which you plan to cite them. List points you wish
to make in a given section, and sort and re-sort them until you are pleased
with the order. Perhaps make a formal outline. By doing much of the thinking
and organizing beforehand, you can lower the activation energy needed to
14  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

write a paper. In fact, such prewriting can catalyze the writing process so well
that you find yourself eager to write.
In preparing to write, realize that sometimes ideas must percolate for a
while. If, for example, you cannot come up with an effective way to begin your
paper or to structure a section, take a break. Exercise for a while, take a nap, or
maybe discuss your work with someone. A solution may then occur to you.
The physicist Wolfgang Pauli reportedly stated, “I don’t mind your thinking
slowly; I mind your publishing faster than you think” (Mackay and Ebison
1977, p. 117). Take the time to reflect and plan before you write and publish.

DOING THE WRITING

Doing the writing means making time to do it. Most of us in science are busy.
If writing must wait until we have extra time, it might never get done. There-
fore, block out times to write. Indicate in your calendar or personal organizer
the times that you have reserved for specific writing projects. Except in emer-
gencies, do not let other tasks impinge on those times. Also, set deadlines. For
example, promise yourself that you will draft a given section by Thursday. Or
make clear to yourself that you will not leave for vacation until you have sub-
mitted a given item.
One highly published professor advocates the following approach
(Zerubavel 1999): On a page showing your weekly schedule hour by hour,
cross out the times that you are regularly unavailable—for example, times that
you teach, have laboratory meetings, or have personal commitments. Then
choose from the remaining times some slots to reserve for writing. In doing
so, consider what times of day you tend to write most effectively. For example,
if you are a night person, block out some evenings during which to write each
week; perhaps save some morning time for more routine writing-related tasks,
such as checking references. If you are a morning person, do the reverse.
Also, consider where and how you work best. Do you write most produc-
tively in an office, or is the library, a coffee shop, or the couch most conducive
to your best writing? Do you need quiet, or does music help you work? Is it
most effective for you to write for a brief time every day, or do longer, less fre-
quent stints produce your finest work? Do your ideas flow best when you set
fingers to keyboard, or does writing by hand with your favorite pen yield the
most favorable work? Contrary to what some may claim, there is no one best
set of writing habits. Whatever works for you is fine. To thine own functioning
be true.
When writing, you can start with whatever part of a manuscript you find
easiest; there is no rule that you must write the introduction first. Many
researchers like to begin by drafting the methods section, which tends to be
 Approaching a Writing Project  15

the most straightforward to write. Many like to begin by drafting the figures
and tables. Some like to start by drafting a preliminary reference list—or even
the acknowledgments. And many authors leave until last finalizing the title
and abstract. Rough-drafting the title and abstract, though, can be an excellent
way to gain needed focus when starting to write a paper.
Once you have drafted one section, the momentum that you have estab-
lished can facilitate writing the others. Feel free to draft the remaining sec-
tions in whatever order works best for you. Although the structure of Part II of
this book parallels that of a scientific paper—with the first chapter addressing
“How to Prepare the Title” and the last “How to Cite the References”—you can
draft the parts of a scientific paper (and read these chapters) in whatever order
works best for you.
Once you have established momentum, beware of dissipating it by inter-
rupting your writing to search for small details. Rather, make notes to find
the missing information later; to identify them easily, type them in boldface,
highlight them, or use the “comment” feature in Microsoft Word. Also, if a
manuscript will take more than one session to draft, consider how best to
maintain your momentum from session to session. Some authors like to
stop in the middle of a section while still going strong. Before ending their
writing session, they jot down the next few points they wish to make. Thus,
at their next writing session, they can start quickly. Consider taking this
approach.
Starting with whatever part you find easiest and taking breaks while still
going strong can help combat or prevent writer’s block at various phases of a
writing project. If you nevertheless experience writer’s block, here are some
additional remedies to consider:

• Break the writing task into small, manageable pieces—for example, sub-
sections of each part of a scientific paper.
• To bolster your confidence, read something you have successfully
written.
• To help get into the proper voice and rhythm, read a well-written example
of the type of writing you will do.
• Start by voice-recording your ideas or telling them to someone.
• Write a rough draft in a comfortable, informal format, such as that of an
email message.
• Set a timer for 15 or 20 minutes, and throughout that time, write without
editing. To prevent editing, try writing with the computer monitor turned
off.
• If all else fails, bribe yourself. The promise of a favorite snack, a wanted
small purchase, or some preferred recreation can help ensure that you
complete the task.
16  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

(ScienceCartoonsPlus.com)

Other ways to help ensure that you start—and finish—your writing include
taking a writing course and following a schedule designed by a writing expert.
As well as supplying instruction, courses where class members write and revise
journal articles section by section provide structure and incentive for complet-
ing one’s paper. Indeed, some researchers have taken such courses more than
once in order to obtain that structure. Such structure also can come from exter-
nally designed writing plans. For example, the workbook Writing Your Journal
Article in 12 Weeks (Belcher 2019) presents a detailed, week-by-week plan for
producing an article. Although intended primarily for students in the humani-
ties and related areas, the plan can be adapted for writing scientific papers.
Writing groups (also called writing clubs) can promote productivity and qual-
ity in writing. Simply put, writing groups are groups of people who meet
periodically to discuss their writing. They can meet in person, electronically,
 Approaching a Writing Project  17

or both. And they can focus on the writing process, the written product, or
some of each. As well as offering psychological support, writing groups can
benefit members in other ways. They can offer accountability by having mem-
bers regularly report on their progress. They can aid in problem-solving, for
example by giving feedback on members’ drafts and discussing obstacles
members encounter in writing and publication. They can educate members,
for instance through readings or speakers. And they can supply professional
networking and social interaction. A related option is to have a writing partner
and regularly check in on each other’s progress, brainstorm about difficulties,
and review drafts. Many research settings have writing groups, and online
options that span settings exist. If you lack access to a writing group and think
that you would find such interaction helpful, consider starting one or recruit-
ing a writing partner or partners.
Much like doing a piece of scientific research, crafting a scientific paper
typically entails solving a series of problems in order to achieve the overall
objective. In writing, as in research, often the problems have more than one
reasonable solution, each with advantages and disadvantages. Yet writers
sometimes worry that there is “one right way” (Becker 2020). Just how should
a given item be worded? In just what format should a given illustration appear?
How should a given part of the paper be organized? Often, such questions
have more than one good answer. Find one that seems reasonable and go with
it. If it seems inadequate, or if a better solution occurs to you, you can make
changes when you revise your manuscript.

REVISING YOUR WORK

Good writing tends to be largely a matter of good revising. No one will see
your early drafts, and no one cares how rough they are (a comforting thought
to those facing writer’s block). The important thing is to revise your writing
until it works well. First, revise your writing yourself. Then show it to others
and, using their feedback, revise your writing some more.
Revision is not just for students or other beginners. Researchers who have
long enjoyed great success in publishing revise the papers they write. After a
presentation to a scientific-writing class, a well-known scientist and journal
editor was asked, “Do you revise your work?” He answered: “If I’m lucky, only
about 10 times.”
In revising your work, ask yourself questions such as the following:

• Does the manuscript include all the information it should?

• Should any content be deleted?
• Is all the information accurate?
• Is all the reasoning sound?
18  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

• Is the content consistent throughout?

• Is everything logically organized?
• Is everything clearly worded?
• Have you stated your points briefly, simply, and directly? In other words,
is everything concise?
• Are grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word use correct throughout?
• Are all figures and tables well designed?
• Does the manuscript comply with the instructions?

Information that can aid in answering some of these questions appears in

later chapters of the book. For example, Chapters 10 through 13 describe the
appropriate content and organization of the main sections of a scientific paper,
and Chapters 30 through 34 address word usage and related subjects. In addi-
tion to reading these chapters before you write, consider consulting them as
you revise your manuscript. Also, for further guidance, please see Chapter 41,
which focuses mainly on editing one’s own work.
Once your manuscript is nearly the best you can make it, show it to others
and request their feedback. Years ago, scientists were advised, “Show your
manuscript to a guy in your lab, a guy in a lab down the hall, and your wife.”
These days, such advice would rightly be viewed as inaccurate and sexist. Yet
the concept remains valid. So, consider following this advice: Show your man-
uscript to an expert in your research specialty, who can help identify technical
problems. Also, show it to someone in your general field, who can note items
that may be unclear to readers and other issues. And show it to an intelligent
general reader—for instance, a friend in the humanities—who may identify
problems that those interested mainly in the content tend to miss. In addition,
consider also showing your manuscript to a professional scientific editor, as
discussed in Chapter 41.
After receiving feedback from those reviewing your manuscript, consider
how to apply it. Of course, follow those suggestions that you find useful. Even
if a suggestion seems unsuitable, keep it in mind. Although you may disagree
with it, it may alert you to a problem. For example, if a reader misinterpreted
a point, you may try to state it more clearly. Comparing the various readers’
comments may aid in this regard. If only one reader had difficulty understand-
ing an item, you might dismiss it as a fluke. If, however, multiple readers did
so, improvement probably is needed.
Revise your writing thoroughly. But avoid the temptation to keep revising it
forever. No manuscript is perfect. Be satisfied with mere excellence. Journal
editors and others will be pleased to receive the fine manuscripts that you will
prepare by following the advice in this chapter and the rest of this book.
CHAPTER 4

What Is a Scientific Paper?

Without publication, science is dead.

—Gerard Piel

DEFINITION OF A SCIENTIFIC PAPER

A scientific paper is a written and published report describing original research
results. That short definition must be qualified, however, by noting that a sci-
entific paper must be written in a certain way, as defined by tradition, editorial
practice, scientific ethics, and the interplay of printing and publishing
procedures.
To properly define a “scientific paper,” we must define the mechanism that
creates a scientific paper—namely, valid (that is, primary) publication.
Abstracts, theses, conference reports, and many other types of literature are
published, but such pieces do not normally meet the test of valid publication.
Further, even if a scientific paper meets all the other tests, it is not validly pub-
lished if it is published in the wrong place. That is, a relatively poor research
report, but one that meets the tests, is validly published if accepted and pub-
lished in the right place (a primary journal or other primary publication); a
superbly prepared research report is not validly published if published in the
wrong place. Most of the government literature and conference literature, as
well as institutional bulletins and other ephemeral publications, do not qualify
as primary literature.
Many people have struggled with the definition of primary publication
(valid publication), from which is derived the definition of a scientific paper.
The Council of Biology Editors (CBE), now the Council of Science Editors

19
20  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

(CSE), arrived at the following definition (Council of Biology Editors 1968,

p. 2):

An acceptable primary scientific publication must be the first disclosure

containing sufficient information to enable peers (1) to assess observa-
tions, (2) to repeat experiments, and (3) to evaluate intellectual processes;
moreover, it must be susceptible to sensory perception, essentially per-
manent, available to the scientific community without restriction, and
available for regular screening by one or more of the major recognized
secondary services (e.g., currently, Biological Abstracts, Chemical
Abstracts, Index Medicus, Excerpta Medica, Bibliography of Agriculture,
etc., in the United States and similar services in other countries).

At first reading, this definition may seem excessively complex, or at least

verbose. But those who had a hand in drafting it weighed each word carefully
and doubted that an acceptable definition could be provided in appreciably
fewer words. Because it is important that students, authors, editors, and all
others concerned understand what a scientific paper is and what it is not, it
may be helpful to work through this definition to see what it really means.
“An acceptable primary scientific publication” must be “the first disclo-
sure.” Certainly, first disclosure of new research data often takes place via oral
presentation at a scientific meeting. But the thrust of the CBE statement is
that disclosure is more than disgorgement by the author; effective first disclo-
sure is accomplished only when the disclosure takes a form that allows the
peers of the author (either now or in the future) to fully comprehend and use
that which is disclosed.
Thus, sufficient information must be presented so that potential users of the
data can (1) assess observations, (2) repeat experiments, and (3) evaluate intel-
lectual processes. (Are the author’s conclusions justified by the data?) Then, the
disclosure must be “susceptible to sensory perception.” This may seem an awk-
ward phrase because in normal practice, it simply means to be published; how-
ever, this definition provides for disclosure not just in terms of printed visual
materials (printed journals and the no longer widely used media called micro-
film and microfiche), but also in nonprint, nonvisual forms. For example, “pub-
lication” in the form of audio recordings, if that publication met the other tests
provided in the definition, would constitute effective publication. And electronic
journals certainly meet the definition of valid publication. What about material
posted on a website (for example, preprints)? Views have varied and can depend
on the nature of the material posted. For the most current information, consult
materials from professional organizations and journals in your field.
Regardless of the form of publication, that form must be essentially perma-
nent. Therefore, scientific papers receive digital object identifiers (DOIs):
 What Is a Scientific Paper?  21

(“Types of Scientific Paper” by xkcd [xkcd.com]. Used by permission.)

22  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

internet addresses that persist even if, for example, a journal’s URL changes
or the journal ceases publication. Primary scientific publications also must be
made available to the scientific community without restriction (for example, in
a journal that is openly accessible online or to which subscriptions are avail-
able), and they must be made available to information-retrieval services (for
example, Biological Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, and MEDLINE). Thus,
publications such as newsletters, corporate publications, and controlled-
circulation journals, many of which are of value for their news or other fea-
tures, generally cannot serve as repositories for scientific knowledge.
To restate the CBE definition in simpler but not more accurate terms, pri-
mary publication is (1) the first publication of original research results, (2) in
a form whereby peers of the author can repeat the experiments and test the
conclusions, and (3) in a journal or other source document readily available
within the scientific community. To understand this definition, however, we
must add an important caveat. The part of the definition that refers to “peers
of the author” is accepted as meaning prepublication peer review. Thus, by
definition, scientific papers are published in peer-reviewed publications.
This question of definition has been belabored here for two reasons. First,
the entire community of science long labored with an inefficient, costly sys-
tem of scientific communication precisely because it (that is, authors, editors,
and publishers) has been unable or unwilling to define primary publication.
As a result, much of the literature has been buried in meeting abstracts,
obscure conference reports, government documents, or books or journals of
minuscule circulation. Other papers, in the same or slightly altered form, have
been published more than once; occasionally, this is due to the lack of defini-
tion as to which conference reports, books, and compilations are (or should
be) primary publications and which are not. Redundancy and confusion result.
Second, a scientific paper is, by definition, a particular kind of document
containing specific kinds of information, typically in a prescribed order. If the
graduate student or the budding scientist (and even some scientists who have
already published many papers) can fully grasp the significance of this defini-
tion, the writing task might be a great deal easier. Confusion results from an
amorphous task. The easy task is the one in which you know exactly what
must be done and in exactly what order it must be done.

ORGANIZATION OF A SCIENTIFIC PAPER

A scientific paper is organized to meet the needs of valid publication. It is, or
should be, highly stylized, with distinctive and clearly evident component
parts. The most common labeling of the component parts, in the basic sci-
ences, is introduction, methods, results, and discussion (hence the acronym
 What Is a Scientific Paper?  23

IMRAD). Actually, the heading “Materials and Methods” may be more com-
mon than the simpler “Methods,” but the latter form was used in the acro-
nym.
Some of us have taught and recommended the IMRAD approach for many
years. The tendency toward uniformity has increased since the IMRAD system
was prescribed as a standard by the American National Standards Institute,
first in 1972 and again in 1979 (American National Standards Institute 1979a).
Some journals use a variation of IMRAD in which the methods section appears
last rather than second. Perhaps we should call this IRDAM. In some journals,
details regarding methods commonly appear in figure captions.
The basic IMRAD order is so eminently logical that, increasingly, it is used
for many other types of expository writing. Whether one is writing an article
about chemistry, archaeology, economics, or crime in the streets, the IMRAD
format is often the best choice.
This point is generally true for papers reporting laboratory studies and
other experiments. There are, of course, exceptions. As examples, reports of
field studies in the earth sciences and many clinical case reports in the medi-
cal sciences do not readily lend themselves to this kind of organization. How-
ever, even in these descriptive papers, the same logical progression from
problem to solution is often appropriate.
Occasionally, the organization of laboratory papers must differ. If a number
of methods were used to achieve directly related results, it might be desirable
to combine the materials and methods and the results into an integrated
experimental section. In some fields and for some types of results, a combined
results and discussion section is usual or desirable. In addition, many primary
journals publish notes or short communications in which the IMRAD organi-
zation is modified.
Various types of organization are used in descriptive areas of science. To
determine how to organize such papers and which general headings to use,
refer to the instructions to authors of your target journal and look at analogous
papers that the journal has published. Also, you can obtain general informa-
tion from appropriate source books. For example, types of medical papers are
described by Huth (1999), Peat and others (2002), Taylor (2018), and contribu-
tors to a multiauthor guide (Hall 2013); types of engineering papers and
reports are outlined by Michaelson (1990) and by Beer and McMurrey (2019).
Indeed, even if a paper will appear in the IMRAD format, books on writing in
one’s own discipline can be worth consulting. Examples of such books include
those in biomedical science by Zeiger (2000); the health sciences by Lang
(2010); chemistry by Ebel, Bliefert, and Russey (2004); and psychology by
Sternberg and Sternberg (2016).
In short, the preparation of a scientific paper has less to do with literary
skill than with organization. A scientific paper is not literature. The preparer of
24  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

a scientific paper is not an author in the literary sense. As an international col-

league noted, this fact can comfort those writing scientific papers in other
than their native language.
Some old-fashioned colleagues think that scientific papers should be litera-
ture, the style and flair of an author should be clearly evident, and variations
in style encourage the interest of the reader. Scientists should indeed be inter-
ested in reading literature, and perhaps even in writing literature, but the
communication of research results is a more prosaic procedure. As Booth
(1981) put it, “Grandiloquence has no place in scientific writing.”
Today, the average scientist, to keep up with a field, must examine the data
reported in very many papers. Also, English, the international language of
science, is a second language for many scientists. Therefore, scientists (and, of
course, editors) must demand a system of reporting data that is uniform, con-
cise, and readily understandable.

SHAPE OF A SCIENTIFIC PAPER

Imagine that a friend visits your laboratory or office. The friend is unfamiliar
with your research and wants to know about it. To orient your friend, first you
identify your general research area and say why it is important. Then you state
the specific focus of your research, summarize how you gathered your data,
and say what you found. Finally, you discuss the broader significance of your

Figure 4.1.  (Created with BioRender.com)

 What Is a Scientific Paper?  25

findings. The friend now has a new understanding—and, if you are lucky, the
friend might buy you lunch.
Although intended for readers who are more knowledgeable, a scientific
paper should take much the same approach: first provide a broad orientation,
next focus narrowly on the specific research, and then consider the findings in
a wider context. Some have likened this shape for a scientific paper to an hour-
glass: broad, then narrow, then broad. Keeping this overall structure in mind
can aid when writing the individual parts of a paper and integrating them into
a coherent whole.

OTHER DEFINITIONS
If scientific paper is the term for an original research report, how should this be
distinguished from research reports that are not original, are not scientific, or
somehow do not qualify as scientific papers? Some specific terms are com-
monly used: review paper (or review article), conference report, and meeting abstract.
A review paper typically reviews the recent work in a defined subject area.
Thus, it is designed to summarize, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize informa-
tion that has already been published (research reports in primary journals).
Although much or all of the material in a review paper has previously been
published, the problem of dual publication (duplicate publication of original
data) does not normally arise because the review nature of the work is usually
obvious—often from the title of the periodical, such as Microbiology and Molec-
ular Biology Reviews or Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics. Do not
assume, however, that reviews contain nothing new. From the best review
papers come new syntheses, new ideas and theories, and even new paradigms.
A conference report is a paper published in a book or journal as part of the
proceedings of a symposium, national or international congress, workshop,
roundtable, or similar meeting. Such conferences commonly are not designed
for the definitive presentation of original data, and the resultant proceedings
(in a book or journal) do not qualify as primary publications. Conference pre-
sentations often are review papers, presenting reviews of the recent work of
particular scientists or recent work in particular laboratories. Material at some
conferences (especially the exciting ones) takes the form of preliminary reports
in which new, original data are presented, often accompanied by interesting
speculation. But usually, these preliminary reports do not qualify, nor are they
intended to qualify, as scientific papers. Later, often much later, such work
may be validly published in a primary journal; by this time, the loose ends
have been tied down, essential experimental details have been described
(so that a competent worker could repeat the experiments), and previous spec-
ulation has matured into conclusions.
26  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Therefore, the vast conference literature that appears normally is not pri-
mary. If original data are presented in such contributions, the data can and
should be published (or republished) in an archival (primary) journal. Other-
wise, the information may essentially be lost. If publication in a primary jour-
nal follows publication in a conference report, permission from the original
publisher may be needed to reprint figures and other items (see Chapter 19,
“Rights and Permissions”); however, the more fundamental problem of dual
publication normally does not and should not arise.
Meeting abstracts may be brief or relatively extensive. Although they can
and generally do contain original information, they are not primary publica-
tions. Therefore, publication of an abstract should not preclude publication of
the full report later.
Traditionally, there was little confusion regarding the typical one-paragraph
abstracts published as part of the program or distributed along with the pro-
gram at a national meeting or international congress. It was usually under-
stood that many of the papers presented at these meetings would later be
submitted for publication in primary journals. Sometimes conference orga-
nizers request extended abstracts (or synoptics). The extended abstract can
supply almost as much information as a full paper; mainly it lacks the experi-
mental detail. However, precisely because it lacks experimental detail, it
cannot qualify as a scientific paper.
Those involved with publishing these materials should see the importance
of carefully defining the various types of papers. More and more publishers,
conference organizers, and individual scientists have agreed on these basic
definitions, and their general acceptance can greatly clarify both primary and
secondary communication of scientific information.
CHAPTER 5

Ethics in Scientific Publishing

[A]ll scientists have an unwritten contract with their contemporaries and

those whose work will follow to provide observations honestly obtained,
recorded, and published.
—CBE Style Manual Committee

ETHICS AS A FOUNDATION
Before writing a scientific paper and submitting it to a journal—and indeed,
before embarking on your research—you should know the basic ethical norms
for scientific conduct and scientific publishing. Some of these norms may be
obvious, others not. Therefore, a basic overview is provided in this chapter.
Graduate students and others seeking further information on ethics in scien-
tific publishing, and more broadly in science, may do well to consult On Being
a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research (Committee on Science, Engineer-
ing, and Public Policy 2009) and Doing Global Science: A Guide to Responsible
Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise (Interacademy Partnership 2016),
which contain both guidance and case studies. Other resources include ethics
chapters in style manuals in the sciences.

AUTHENTICITY AND ACCURACY

The fact that research reported in a journal should actually have been per-
formed may seem too obvious to mention. Yet cases exist in which an author
simply made up data in a paper, without ever doing the research. Clearly, such

27
28  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

“dry-labbing,” or fabrication, is unethical. Fiction can be a grand pursuit, but it

has no place in a scientific paper.
More subtle, and probably more common, are lesser or less definite devia-
tions from accuracy: omitting outlying points from the data reported, prepar-
ing figures in ways that accentuate the findings misleadingly, or doing other
tweaking. Where to draw the line between editing and distortion may not
always be apparent. If in doubt, seek guidance from a more experienced scien-
tist in your field—perhaps one who edits a journal.
The advent of digital imaging has given unethical researchers new ways to
falsify findings. (Journal editors, though, have procedures to detect cases in
which such falsification of images seems probable.) And ethical researchers
may rightly wonder what manipulations of digital images are and are not
valid. Sources of advice in this regard include sets of guidelines for using and
manipulating scientific digital images (Cromey 2010, 2012).
For research that includes statistical analysis, reporting accurately includes
using appropriate statistical procedures, not those that may distort the find-
ings. If in doubt, obtain the collaboration of a statistician. Enlist the statisti-
cian early, while you are still planning the research, to help ensure that you
collect appropriate data. Otherwise, ethical problems may include wasting
resources and time. In the words of R.A. Fisher (1938), “To consult the statisti-
cian after an experiment is finished is often merely to ask him to conduct a
post mortem examination.”

ORIGINALITY
As discussed in Chapter 4, the findings in a scientific paper must be new. Except
in rare and highly specialized circumstances, they cannot have appeared else-
where in the primary literature. In the few instances in which republication of
data may be acceptable—for example, in a more extensive case series or if a paper
is republished in another language—the original article must be clearly cited, lest
readers erroneously conclude that the old observations are new. To republish a
paper (either in another language or for readers in another field), permission
normally must be obtained from the journal that originally published it.
Beginning scientists sometimes wonder whether they may submit the
same manuscript to two or more journals simultaneously. After all, a candi-
date can apply to several graduate programs at once and then choose among
those offering acceptance. An analogous situation does not hold for scientific
papers, however. Simultaneous submission wastes resources and is consid-
ered unethical. Therefore, begin by submitting your paper only to your first-
choice journal. If that journal does not accept your paper, you can then proceed
to the next journal on your list.
 Ethics in Scientific Publishing  29

Originality also means avoiding “salami science” (or, for vegetarians,

“cucumber science”)—that is, thinly slicing the findings of a research project,
as one might slice a sausage or cuke, in order to publish several papers instead
of one (or, in the case of a large research project, many papers instead of a
few). Good scientists respect the integrity of their research and do not divide it
excessively for publication. Likewise, good hiring committees and promotion
committees look at the content of publications, rather than only the number,
and so are not fooled by salami science.

CREDIT
Good scientists build on each other’s work. They do not, however, take credit
for others’ work.
If your paper includes information or ideas that are not your own, be sure
to cite the source. Likewise, if you use others’ wording, remember to place it
in quotation marks (or to indent it, if the quoted material is long) and to cite a
reference. Otherwise, you will be guilty of plagiarism, which the U.S. National

(ScienceCartoonsPlus.com)
30  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Institutes of Health defines as “the appropriation of another person’s ideas,

processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit” (National Insti-
tutes of Health 2010). To avoid inadvertent plagiarism, be sure to include
information about the source when you copy or download materials that
others have written. To avoid the temptation to use others’ wording exces-
sively, consider drafting paragraphs without looking directly at the source
materials; then look at the materials to check for accuracy.
In journal articles in most fields of science, it is unusual to include quota-
tions from others’ work. Rather, authors paraphrase what others have said.
Doing so entails truly presenting the ideas in one’s own way; making minor
changes does not constitute paraphrasing. To take an example, imagine that
you wish to express the following idea, which appears later in this book:

“Leave your shyness behind when you accompany a poster.” (Gastel and
Day, 2022)

The following would not constitute adequate paraphrasing:

Be sure to leave your shyness behind you when you present a poster.
(Gastel and Day, 2022)
When you accompany a poster, leave your shyness behind you. (Gastel
and Day, 2022)

Examples of sufficient paraphrasing include the following:

Poster presenters should not be shy. (Gastel and Day, 2022)

Gastel and Day (2022) say not to be shy when presenting a poster.
Avoid shyness when presenting a poster. (Gastel and Day, 2022)
If you are presenting a poster, you should not act shy. (Gastel and Day, 2022)

On rare occasions—for example, when an author has expressed a concept

extraordinarily well—quoting the author’s own phrasing may be justified. If
you are unsure whether to place in quotation marks a series of words from a
publication, do so. If the quotation marks are unnecessary, an editor at the
journal can easily remove them. If, however, they are missing but should have
been included, the editor might not discover that fact (until, perhaps, a reader
later does), or the editor might suspect the fact and send you an inquiry that
requires a time-consuming search. Be cautious, and thus save yourself from
embarrassment or extra work.
Resources to educate oneself about plagiarism, and thus learn better how to
avoid it, include a tutorial from Indiana University (Frick et al. 2021), an online
guide to ethical writing (Roig 2015), and a variety of materials posted on
the websites of university writing centers. Another resource to consider is
 Ethics in Scientific Publishing  31

plagiarism-checking software. Such software helps identify passages of writ-

ing that seem suspiciously similar to text elsewhere; one can then see whether
it does indeed appear to be plagiarized. Such software, such as Turnitin, is
available at many academic institutions. Free plagiarism checkers, of varied
quality, also exist (Warner 2021). Many journal publishers screen submissions
with similarity-detection software. Consider prescreening your work yourself
to detect and remove inadvertent plagiarism.
Occasionally, substantial similarity between text in different papers can be
appropriate. For example, if different studies use some of the same standard
methods, parts of their methods sections can rightly include similar wording.
Likewise, if a group does a research project so extensive or long-lasting that it
yields multiple papers, the methods sections of the different papers might well
say some of the same things in the same way. Guidance on when and how
authors can appropriately reuse sections of their own text (Hall, Moskovitz,
and Pemberton 2021) is available through the Text Recycling Research Project
(textrecycling.org).
Also be sure to list as an author of your paper everyone who qualifies for
authorship. (See Chapter 8 for more in this regard.) Remember as well to
include in the acknowledgments those sources of help or other support that
should be listed (see Chapter 14).

ETHICAL TREATMENT OF HUMANS AND ANIMALS

If your research involves human subjects or animals, the journal to which you
submit your paper will almost certainly require documentation that they were
treated ethically. Before beginning your study, obtain all needed permissions
with regard to human or animal research. (In the United States, doing so
entails having your research protocol reviewed by a designated committee,
generally at your institution.) Then, in your paper, provide the needed state-
ments in this regard. For guidance, see the instructions to authors for the
journal to which you are submitting your paper, and use papers similar to
yours that have appeared in the journal as models. You may also find it useful
to consult relevant sections of style manuals in the sciences. If in doubt, check
with the publication office of the journal.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Authors of scientific papers sometimes have conflicts of interest—that is, outside
involvements that could, at least in theory, interfere with their objectivity in the
research being reported. For example, they may own stock in the company mak-
ing the product being studied, or they may be consultants to the company.
32  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Journals commonly require authors to report such conflicts of interest.

Some have checklists for doing so, and others ask more generally for disclo-
sure. Journals have varied in the degree to which they note conflicts of interest
along with published papers (Clark 2005).
Ethics requires honest reporting of conflicts of interest. More important,
ethics demands that such involvements not interfere with the objectivity of
your research. Some scientists avoid all such involvements to prevent even the
appearance of bias.
CHAPTER 6

Where to Submit Your Manuscript

I’ve always been in the right place and time. Of course, I steered myself there.
—Bob Hope

DECIDE EARLY, DECIDE WELL

Too often, authors write scientific papers and then consider where to publish
them. The decision, however, is best made early, before the writing begins.
That way, the paper can be geared appropriately to the audience (for example,
readers of a general scientific journal, a journal in your discipline as a whole, or
a journal in your specialized research field). Also, you can initially prepare
your manuscript in keeping with the journal’s requirements rather than hav-
ing to revise it accordingly. Of course, if your first-choice journal does not
accept your paper, you might need to revise your manuscript to suit another
journal. But at least you will have avoided one round of revision.
In addition to deciding early on your first-choice journal, decide well.
Choosing a journal carefully helps you to reach the most suitable audience,
gain appropriate recognition, and avoid needless difficulties with publication.
The decision of where to submit the manuscript is important. Because of
poor choices, some papers are delayed in publication, fail to receive sound
review and revision, or lie buried in inappropriate journals. If you submit
your manuscript to a poor choice of journal, one of three things can happen—
all bad.
First, your manuscript may simply be returned to you with the comment
that your work “is not suitable for this journal.” Sometimes, however, this
judgment is not made until after review of the manuscript. A “not suitable”
notice after weeks or months of delay is not likely to make you happy.

33
34  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

(PEANUTS © 1982 Peanuts Worldwide LLC. Dist. By ANDREWS MCMEEL

SYNDICATION. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.)

Second, if the journal is borderline in relation to your work, your manuscript

may receive a poor or unfair review because the reviewers (and editors) of that
journal may be only vaguely familiar with your specialty area. You may be sub-
jected to the trauma of rejection even though the manuscript would be acceptable
to the right journal. Or you could end up with a hassle over suggested revisions
that you do not agree with and that do not improve your manuscript. And if your
manuscript really does have deficiencies, you would not be able to benefit from
the sound criticism that would come from the editors of the right journal.
Third, even if your paper is accepted and published, your glee will be short-
lived if you later find that your work is virtually unknown because it is buried
in a publication that few in your intended audience read. Talking with col-
leagues can help prevent this situation.
 Where to Submit Your Manuscript  35

Think about the appropriate readership. If, for example, you are reporting a
fundamental study in physics, of course you should try to get your paper pub-
lished in a prestigious international journal. On the other hand, suppose that
your study concerns the management of a disease found only in Latin America.
In that situation, publication in Nature will not reach your audience—the audi-
ence that needs and can use your information. You should publish in an appro-
priate Latin American journal, probably one in Spanish.
To start identifying journals to consider, recall what journals have published
work similar to yours. The journals publishing the papers that you will cite are
often journals to consider. Perhaps ask colleagues to suggest potential publica-
tion sites. Also, consider using online journal selection tools—such as Jane
(jane.biosemantics.org), JournalGuide (www.journalguide.com/), and Edanz
Journal Selector (www.edanz.com/journal-selector). Based on information that
one enters about one’s work, these tools generate lists of journals to consider. To
help determine whether a journal indeed seems to be a possibility, look at the
journal’s website for statements describing its purpose and scope. Look at some
recent issues of the journal to see whether it publishes research such as yours
and whether the papers are of the type you envision writing.

PRESTIGE AND IMPACT

If several journals seem suitable, does it matter which one you choose? Per-
haps it shouldn’t matter, but it does. There is the matter of prestige. Maybe
progress in your career (job offers, promotions, grants, etc.) will be determined
largely by how many papers you publish. But not necessarily. It may well be
that a wise old bird sitting on the faculty committee or the grant review panel
will recognize and appreciate quality factors. A paper published in a “garbage”
journal simply does not equal a paper published in a prestigious journal. In
fact, the wise old bird (and there are quite a few of these in science) may be
more impressed by the candidate with one or two solid publications in presti-
gious journals than by the candidate with 10 or more publications in second-
or third-rate journals.
How do you tell the difference? It isn’t easy, and of course there are many
gradations. In general, however, you can form reasonable judgments by doing
just a bit of bibliographic research. You will certainly know the important
papers that have recently been published in your field. Make it your business
to determine where they were published. If most of the real contributions in
your field were published in Journal A, Journal B, and Journal C, you should
probably limit your choices to those three journals. If Journals D, E, and F,
upon inspection, contain only the lightweight papers, each could be elimi-
nated as your first choice, even if the scope is right.
36  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

You may then choose among Journals A, B, and C. Suppose that Journal A
is an attractive new journal published by a commercial publisher as a com-
mercial venture, with no sponsorship by a society or other organization; Jour-
nal B is an old, well-known small journal published by a famous university,
hospital, or museum; and Journal C is a large journal published by the princi-
pal scientific society in your field. In general (although there are many excep-
tions), Journal C (the society journal) is probably the most prestigious. It will
also have the largest circulation (partly because of quality factors and partly
because society journals tend to be less expensive than others, at least to soci-
ety members). By publication in such a journal, your paper may have its best
chance to make an impact on the community of scholars at whom you are
aiming. Journal B might have almost equal prestige, but it might have a very
limited circulation, which would be a minus; it might also be very difficult to
get into if most of its space is reserved for in-house material. Journal A (the
commercial journal) might well have the disadvantage of low circulation
(because of its comparatively high price, which is the result of both the profit
motivation of the publisher and the lack of backing by a society or institution
with a built-in subscription list). Publication in such a journal may result in a
somewhat restricted distribution of your paper.
Be wary of new journals, especially those not sponsored by a society. (In
particular, avoid predatory journals, which are discussed later in this chapter.)
The circulation may be minuscule, and the journal might fail before it, and
your paper, become known to the scientific world. Be wary of publishing in
journals that are solely electronic unless you know that those evaluating your
work for purposes such as promotion consider those journals sufficiently
prestigious. On the other hand, also be wary of publishing in the increasingly
few journals that appear only in print, as scientists today expect important
scientific literature to be accessible online.
One tool for estimating the relative prestige of journals in a given field is
the electronic resource Journal Citation Reports, commonly available through
academic libraries. With this resource, you can determine which journals have
recently been cited most frequently, both in total and in terms of the average
number of citations per article published, or the impact factor (Garfield 1999).
Although not all good journals have impact factors computed, impact factor
can be worth considering in judging the prominence of journals. If, in a given
field, the average paper in Journal A is cited twice as frequently as the average
paper in Journal B, it is likely that researchers find Journal A the more impor-
tant journal.
In some countries and institutions, the criteria considered when candi-
dates are evaluated for promotion include the impact factors of journals in
which their papers appear. However, limitations of the impact factor also
should be noted. The impact factor indicates how much the papers in a journal
 Where to Submit Your Manuscript  37

are cited on average—not how much your paper will be cited if it appears in the
journal. It does not indicate how much impact, other than on citation, the
papers in a journal have—for example, how much they influence policy or
clinical practice. And because different scientific fields have different citation
practices, impact factors should not be used to compare the importance of
journals in different fields. For instance, in biochemistry and molecular biol-
ogy, in which papers tend to cite many recent papers, the impact factor of the
top-cited journal was 53.4 in the year 2020, but in geology it was 5.4. In short,
although knowing a journal’s impact-factor ranking in its field can help you
assess its scientific importance, the impact factor does not say everything
about the journal’s quality or its suitability for your work. In journal selection,
as in much else in life, a multidimensional concept cannot validly be reduced
to a single number.
Increasingly, experts have emphasized the need to include indicators other
than impact factor when assessing the importance of a person’s research. For
example, the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (2012), com-
monly called DORA, calls for using more varied approaches in evaluating
research output. These approaches include—in addition to, most importantly,
evaluating the scientific content of the article—using multiple journal-based
metrics (rather than only impact factor) and looking at article-level metrics.

(ScienceCartoonsPlus.com)
38  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Examples of the latter include how many times an article has been viewed,
downloaded, or bookmarked; how much attention it has received in social
media and mass media; and how many times and where it has been cited
(Tananbaum 2013). Noticing which journals’ articles in your field tend to
receive such attention can aid in identifying suitable journals for your papers.

ACCESS
Other items to consider when choosing journals can include open access—that
is, the provision of articles online free of charge to all who may be interested.
One consideration is whether to choose an open-access journal, a journal that
immediately provides open access to all its content. At such journals, which do
not have subscriptions and thus lack this source of income, the costs typically
are defrayed, at least in part, by fees charged to authors. In some countries,
these fees commonly are paid from grant funds; it can be wise to consider
expected publication costs when preparing the budget for a grant. When
authors, such as those in developing countries, cannot afford to pay the fees,
the journal may waive or reduce them; if you cannot afford the normal publi-
cation fee for an open-access journal in which you hope to publish, contact the
journal directly. Some research funders now require that recipients of their
grants publish the resulting papers in open-access journals or otherwise make
them freely accessible.
Access-related considerations for publishing in traditional journals can
include whether to seek a journal for which the electronic version, initially
available only to subscribers, becomes openly accessible relatively fast (for
example, in a few months). Also, some journals give authors the option of
making their articles freely accessible upon publication in return for paying a
fee. Another consideration when publishing in a traditional journal is whether
the journal allows rapid posting of articles on authors’ or their institutions’
websites. The website Sherpa Romeo (v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/) provides
information about journals’ policies on open access and related matters. To
ensure that you have the most complete and current information, consulting
the journal itself can be advisable as well.

AVOIDING PREDATORY JOURNALS

As noted, open-access journals typically charge authors fees, as these journals
lack income from subscriptions. Some dishonest people take advantage of this
model by claiming to publish valid journals while instead just trying to get
authors’ money. For example, these publishers of predatory journals may post
 Where to Submit Your Manuscript  39

all the papers that they receive, without peer review or editing. Or they might
take authors’ money and publish nothing. Submitting papers to such journals
advances neither science nor one’s career.
Such journals often market themselves vigorously, filling researchers’
email boxes with invitations to submit papers. How can you recognize, and
thus avoid, predatory journals? Clues that a journal might be predatory include
promises that seem too good to be true (for example, a guarantee to publish all
submissions within a week), a website with many typographical and other
errors, inclusion of what seem to be fake metrics (such as an “impact index”),
and lack of good articles (or any articles at all) on the journal’s website.
On the other hand, indications that a journal is likely to be valid include pub-
lication of good articles that you already have seen, indexing of the journal by
major bibliographic databases, and inclusion of the journal in academic libraries.
The website Think.Check.Submit. (thinkchecksubmit.org) features guidance on
assessing whether a journal or publisher appears credible. Other resources in
this regard include an article (Elmore and Weston 2020) listing tips and resources
for identifying predatory journals. Also, if you think that a journal might be pred-
atory, consider checking with a research librarian at your institution, as the library
community has taken the lead in identifying fraudulent journals.
Especially if you are inexperienced in publishing, perhaps consult a mentor
or senior colleague if you think a journal that you are considering might be
predatory or otherwise questionable. In fact, in any case, such consultation
can be wise before finalizing one’s choice of journal.

OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER

In choosing a journal, other factors also can merit consideration. If you might
want to post your article on a preprint server before submitting it for publica-
tion, it may behoove you to check the relevant policies of the journals that you
are considering. Whereas many journals are glad to receive articles that have
been posted as preprints, or even require such posting, some journals do not
want such articles or have restrictions relating to preprints. It’s best to know
in advance.
Another factor for possible consideration is the speed of publication.
Increasingly, journals have been publishing papers individually online before
they appear in print or are compiled into an online issue. You may find it
worthwhile to check whether a journal publishes individual articles online
first and, if so, how quickly it does so.
The time from acceptance to publication in a journal issue reflects in part
the frequency of the journal. For a monthly journal, the time from article sub-
mission to publication, including the time for editorial review, commonly
40  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

runs several months. Assuming equivalent review times, articles in a quar-

terly journal tend to take longer to publish. Remember that many journals
have backlogs. It sometimes helps to ask colleagues what their experience has
been with the journals you are considering. If a journal publishes “received for
publication” dates, you can determine for yourself the average lag time. Some
journals also post such information on their websites.
Even in this electronic age, quality of printing can be a consideration. In
biology, the journals published by the American Society for Microbiology and
by the Rockefeller University Press traditionally have been especially noted for
their high standards in this respect. Whatever your field, look at the reproduc-
tion quality of the journal if it will be important to you.
Finally, consider the likelihood of acceptance. Clearly, not every paper is
important enough and of broad enough interest to appear in Science or
Nature. Rather, most papers belong in journals in their disciplines or subdis-
ciplines. Even within specific fields, some papers are of great enough impor-
tance for publication in first-line journals, whereas many others can better
find homes elsewhere. In initially submitting your paper, aim high, generally
for the broadest and most prestigious journal in which your paper seems to
have a realistic chance of publication. To decide on that journal, perhaps look
again at candidate journals and consult colleagues. Choosing a journal that is
appropriate with regard to subject matter, audience, prestige, access, selectiv-
ity, and other factors can help ensure that your paper will be published with-
out undue delay—and that it will be read and recognized by those it should
reach.

USING INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

In considering where to submit your paper, you might have looked at some
journals’ instructions to authors to learn more about their scopes, audiences,
or requirements. If you have not yet obtained the instructions for the journal
you chose, do so before starting to write your paper. These instructions should
appear on the website of the journal. In addition, instructions from more than
6,000 biomedical journals can be accessed through the website Instructions to
Authors in the Health Sciences (mulford.utoledo.edu/instr). This site also
includes links to sets of guidelines that many medical journals follow.
If you do not find instructions to authors immediately on a journal’s web-
site, keep looking. Sometimes their location is not initially apparent. Also,
instructions to authors can have a variety of other names, such as “informa-
tion for authors,” “guide for authors,” and “submission instructions.” If, after
careful searching, you still do not find the instructions, perhaps ask a more
experienced researcher or a librarian for help or contact the office of the
 Where to Submit Your Manuscript  41

journal. Also, if there is a true lack of instructions, that can be a clue that a
journal is predatory rather than legitimate.
Read the instructions for authors thoroughly before starting to prepare
your paper. Among the questions these instructions may answer are the
following:

• Does the journal include more than one category of research article? If
so, in what category would yours fit?
• What is the maximum length of articles? What is the maximum length of
abstracts?
• Does the journal have a template for articles? If so, how can it be accessed?
• Does the journal post supplementary material online? If so, how should
this material be provided?
• What sections should the article include? What guidelines should be
followed for each?
• What guidelines should be followed regarding writing style?
• How many figures and tables are allowed? What requirements does the
journal have for figures and tables?
• In what format should references appear? Is there a maximum number
of references?
• In what electronic format should the paper be prepared? Should figures
and tables be inserted within the text, or should they appear at the end or
be submitted as separate files? Is there an online submission system to
use?

Underline, highlight, or otherwise note key points to remember. Then con-

sult the instructions to authors as you prepare the paper. Following the instruc-
tions from the outset will save you time overall.

(“Piled Higher and Deeper” by Jorge Cham. www.phdcomics.com)

42  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Also, look at some recent papers in the journal—especially those present-

ing research analogous to yours. Viewing such examples can clarify points
from the instructions to authors. It also can help you see more generally what
is suitable for the journal.
Journals vary in their strictness of formatting requirements for submis-
sions. Many journals want all submitted manuscripts to adhere closely to a
specified style regarding items such as literature citation, headings and sub-
headings, and tables and figures. For initial submissions, however, some other
journals are flexible about such items; only if a paper is accepted for publica-
tion must the author revise it to comply in detail with the journal’s format.
Normally, the instructions for authors will either state the format require-
ments or say that the submission policy is format-neutral.
In any event, authors should know that unless the journal specifies other-
wise, they should not submit manuscripts that look like typeset papers in that
journal. Rather, the authors submit text and any tables and figures, and the
journal does the layout.
Shortly before submitting your manuscript, check the instructions to
authors again and ensure that they have been followed. If the instructions
include a checklist, use it. By following the instructions carefully, you will
facilitate publication of your manuscript from the time you begin to draft it.
PART II

Preparing the Text

This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 7

How to Prepare the Title

First impressions are strong impressions; a title ought therefore to be well stud-
ied, and to give, so far as its limits permit, a definite and concise indication of
what is to come.
—T. Clifford Allbutt

IMPORTANCE OF THE TITLE

In preparing a title for a paper, you would do well to remember one salient
fact: This title will be read by thousands of people. Perhaps few people, if any,
will read the entire paper, but many people will read the title, either in the
original journal, in one of the secondary (abstracting and indexing) databases,
in a search engine’s output, or somewhere else. Therefore, all the words in the
title should be chosen with great care, and their association with one another
must be carefully managed. Perhaps the most common error in defective
titles, and certainly the most damaging one in terms of comprehension, is
faulty syntax (word order).
What is a good title? We define it as the fewest possible words that ade-
quately describe the contents of the paper.
Remember that the indexing and abstracting services depend heavily on
the accuracy of the title, as do individual computerized literature-retrieval sys-
tems. An improperly titled paper may be virtually lost and never reach its
intended audience.
Some authors mistakenly sacrifice clarity in an attempt to be witty. The title
of a paper need not, and generally should not, be clever. It must, however, be
clear. An example (adapted from Halm and Landon 2007): “Association
Between Diuretic Use and Cardiovascular Mortality” could be an adequate

45
46  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

title. The authors of this paper should resist the temptation to use instead
“Dying to Pee.”

LENGTH OF THE TITLE

Occasionally, titles are too short. A paper was submitted to the Journal of
Bacteriology with the title “Studies on Brucella.” Obviously, such a title was not
very helpful to the potential reader. Was the study taxonomic, genetic, bio-
chemical, or medical? We would certainly want to know at least that much.
Much more often, titles are too long. Ironically, long titles are often less
meaningful than short ones. Over a century or so ago, when science was less
specialized, titles tended to be long and nonspecific, such as, “On the addition
to the method of microscopic research by a new way of producing colour-
contrast between an object and its background or between definite parts of the
object itself” (Rheinberg J. 1896. J. R. Microsc. Soc. 373). That certainly sounds
like a poor title; perhaps it would make a good abstract.
Not only scientists have written rambling titles. Consider this one from the
year 1705: A Wedding Ring Fit for the Finger, or the Salve of Divinity on the Sore
of Humanity with directions to those men that want wives, how to choose them, and
to those women that have husbands, how to use them. Ironically, this title appeared
on a miniature book (Bernard 1995).
Without question, most excessively long titles contain “waste” words. Often,
these waste words—such as “Studies on,” “Investigations on,” and “Observa-
tions on”—appear at the start of the title. An opening A, An, or The is also a
waste word. Certainly, such words are useless for indexing purposes.

NEED FOR SPECIFIC TITLES

Let us analyze a sample title: “Action of Antibiotics on Bacteria.” Is it a good
title? In form it is; it is short and carries no excess baggage (waste words).
Certainly, it would not be improved by changing it to “Preliminary Observa-
tions on the Effect of Certain Antibiotics on Various Species of Bacteria.”
However (and this brings us to the next point), most titles that are too short
are too short because they include general rather than specific terms.
We can safely assume that the study introduced by this title did not test the
effect of all antibiotics on all kinds of bacteria. Therefore, the title is essentially
meaningless. If only one or a few antibiotics were studied, they should be indi-
vidually listed in the title. If only one or a few organisms were tested, they should
be individually listed in the title. If the number of antibiotics or organisms was
 How to Prepare the Title  47

awkwardly large for listing in the title, perhaps a group name could have been
substituted. Examples of more acceptable titles are the following:

“Action of Streptomycin on Mycobacterium tuberculosis.”

“Action of Streptomycin, Neomycin, and Tetracycline on Gram-Positive
Bacteria.”
“Action of Polyene Antibiotics on Plant-Pathogenic Bacteria.”
“Action of Various Antifungal Antibiotics on Candida albicans and Aspergil-
lus fumigatus.”

Although these titles are more acceptable than the sample, they are not
especially good because they are still too general. If the “Action of” can be
defined easily, the meaning might be clearer. For example, the first title might
have been phrased “Inhibition of Growth of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by
Streptomycin.”
Long ago, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek used the word animalcules, a descrip-
tive but not very specific word. In the 1930s, Howard Raistrick published an
important series of papers under the title “Studies on Bacteria.” A similar
paper today would have a much more specific title. If the study featured an
organism, the title would give the genus and species, and possibly even the
strain. If the study featured an enzyme in an organism, the title would not be
anything like “Enzymes in Bacteria.” It would be something like “Dihydrofolate
Reductase Produced by Bacillus subtilis.”

IMPORTANCE OF SYNTAX
In titles, be especially careful of syntax. Most of the grammatical errors in
titles are matters of faulty word order.
A paper was submitted to the Journal of Bacteriology with the title
“Mechanism of Suppression of Nontransmissible Pneumonia in Mice Induced
by Newcastle Disease Virus.” Unless this author had somehow managed to
demonstrate spontaneous generation, it must have been the pneumonia that
was induced, not the mice. (The title should have read: “Mechanism of Sup-
pression of Nontransmissible Pneumonia Induced in Mice by Newcastle Dis-
ease Virus.”)
If you no longer believe that babies result from a visit by the stork, we offer
this title (Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 52:42, 1969): “Multiple Infections Among New-
borns Resulting from Implantation with Staphylococcus aureus 502A.” (Is this
the “Staph of Life”?)
Another example (Clin. Res. 8:134, 1960): “Preliminary Canine and Clinical
Evaluation of a New Antitumor Agent, Streptovitacin.” When that dog gets
48  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

through evaluating streptovitacin, we’ve got some work we’d like it to review.
A grammatical aside: Please be careful when you use using. The word using
might well be the most common dangling participle in scientific writing.
Either there are some more smart dogs, or using is misused in this sentence
from a manuscript: “Using a fiberoptic bronchoscope, dogs were immunized
with sheep red blood cells.”
Dogs aren’t the only smart animals. A manuscript was submitted to the
Journal of Bacteriology under the title “Isolation of Antigens from Monkeys
Using Complement-Fixation Techniques.”
Even bacteria are smart. A manuscript was submitted to the Journal of Clin-
ical Microbiology under the title “Characterization of Bacteria Causing Mastitis
by Gas-Liquid Chromatography.” Isn’t it wonderful that bacteria can use GLC?

THE TITLE AS LABEL

The title of a paper is a label. It normally is not a sentence. Because it is not a
sentence, with the usual subject-verb-object arrangement, it is simpler than a
sentence (or, at least, shorter), but the order of the words becomes even more
important.
Actually, a few journals do permit a title to be a sentence. An example of
such a title: “Babbling in a Vocal Learning Bat Resembles Human Infant Bab-
bling” (Fernandez et al. 2021). One might object to such a title because pres-
ence of a verb (in this case, resembles) makes the title seem like a loud assertion.
Such a title may sound dogmatic because we are not accustomed to seeing
authors present their results in the present tense, for reasons that are dis-
cussed in Chapter 30. Rosner (1990, p. 108) gave the name “assertive sentence
title (AST)” to this kind of title and presented a number of reasons why such
titles should not be used. In particular, ASTs are “improper and imprudent”
because “in some cases the AST boldly states a conclusion that is then stated
more tentatively in the summary or elsewhere” and “ASTs trivialize a scientific
report by reducing it to a one-liner.”
The meaning and order of the words in the title are important to the poten-
tial reader who sees the title in the journal table of contents. But these consid-
erations are equally important to all potential users of the literature, including
those (probably a majority) who become aware of the paper via secondary
sources. Thus, the title should be useful as a label accompanying the paper
itself, and it also should be in a form suitable for the machine-indexing sys-
tems used by Chemical Abstracts, MEDLINE, and others. In short, the terms
in the title should be those that highlight the significant content of the paper.
As an aid to readers, journals commonly print running titles or running
heads at the top of each page. Often the title of the journal or book is given at
 How to Prepare the Title  49

the top of left-facing pages and the article or chapter title is given at the top of
right-facing pages (as in this book). Usually, a short version of the title is
needed because of space limitations. (The maximum character count is likely
to be stated in the journal’s instructions to authors.) It can be wise to suggest
an appropriate running title on the title page of the manuscript.

ABBREVIATIONS AND JARGON

Titles should almost never contain abbreviations, chemical formulas, propri-
etary (rather than generic) names, jargon, and the like. In designing the title,
the author should ask: “How would I look for this kind of information in an
index?” If the paper concerns an effect of hydrochloric acid, should the title
include the words hydrochloric acid, or should it contain the much shorter and
readily recognizable HCl? The answer seems obvious. Most of us would look
under hy in an index, not under hc. Furthermore, if some authors used (and
journal editors permitted) HCl and others used hydrochloric acid, the user of
the bibliographic services might locate only part of the published literature,
not noting that additional references are listed under another, abbreviated
entry. Actually, the larger secondary services have computer programs that can
bring together entries such as deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA, and even ADN
(acide deoxyribonucleique). However, by far the best rule for authors (and edi-
tors) is to avoid abbreviations in titles. And the same rule should apply to
proprietary names, jargon, and unusual or outdated terminology.

MORE ABOUT TITLE FORMAT

Many editors are opposed to main title–subtitle arrangements and to hanging
titles. The main title–subtitle (series) arrangement (example: “Studies on Bac-
teria. IV. Cell Wall of Staphylococcus aureus”) was common decades ago. Today,
editors generally believe that it is important, especially for the reader, that each
published paper be sufficient by itself. Thus, series titles now are rare.
The hanging title (similar to a series title but with a colon instead of a
roman numeral) is considerably better. Some journals, especially in the social
sciences (Hartley 2007), seem to favor hanging titles, perhaps to get the most
important words of the title up to the front. (Example: “Debunking Misinfor-
mation About Genetically Modified Food Safety on Social Media: Can Heuris-
tic Cues Mitigate Biased Assimilation?” Science Communication 43:460, 2021).
Hanging titles may sometimes aid the reader, but they may appear pedantic,
emphasize the general term rather than a more significant term, require
punctuation, and scramble indexes. Views also vary as to whether questions
50  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

are appropriate to include in titles, as in the example just given. Looking at

titles in the journal to which you will submit your paper can help in discerning
what forms of titles are acceptable to it.
Use of a straightforward title does not lessen the need for proper syntax,
however, or for the proper form of each word in the title. For example, a title
reading “New Color Standard for Biology” would seem to indicate the develop-
ment of color specifications for use in describing plant and animal specimens.
However, the title “New Color Standard for Biologists” (Bioscience 27:762,
1977) makes us wonder whether the new standard might help in distinguish-
ing the green biologists from the blue ones.
CHAPTER 8

How to List the Authors and Addresses

The list of authors establishes accountability as well as credit.

—National Academies Committee
on Science, Engineering,
and Public Policy

DEFINITION OF AUTHORSHIP
The list of authors should include all those, and only those, who substantially
contributed to the overall conceptualization, design, execution, and interpreta-
tion of the research. It should not include those without considerable
contributions—whether to please them, help advance their careers, or try to
impress editors, referees, or readers. Nor should it omit those whose contribu-
tions merit authorship. In other words, as described by the Council of Science
Editors (2020), there should be no gift authors, guest authors, or ghost authors.
Colleagues and supervisors should not ask to have their names on manu-
scripts reporting research with which they themselves have not been intimately
involved. Nor should they allow their names to appear on such manuscripts.
Some individuals listed without valid reason have come to regret their inclu-
sion when the reported research was found deficient or even fraudulent.
Each listed author should have made an important contribution to the
study being reported, with the word important referring to those aspects of the
study that produced new information, the concept that defines an original
scientific paper. Qualification for authorship should be based on contribution,
not on rank or stage of education.
An author of a paper should take intellectual responsibility for the research
results being reported. However, this point must be tempered by realizing that

51
52  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

modern science in many fields is collaborative and multidisciplinary. It may

be unrealistic to assume that all authors can defend all aspects of a paper writ-
ten by contributors from a variety of disciplines. Even so, authors should be
held fully responsible for their choice of colleagues. In general, all those listed
as authors should have been involved enough to defend the paper or a sub-
stantial aspect thereof.
Admittedly, deciding on authorship is not always easy. It is often incredibly
difficult to analyze the intellectual input into a paper. Certainly, those who
have worked together intensively for months or years on a research problem
might have difficulty in remembering who had the original research concept
or whose brilliant idea was the key to the success of the experiments. And
what do these colleagues do when everything suddenly falls into place as a
result of a searching question by the traditional “guy (or gal) in the next lab”
who had nothing whatever to do with the research?
With the increase in collaborative research, the number of authors per
paper has tended to rise. In some fields, it is not rare to see 10 or more authors
listed at the head of a paper. For example, a paper by F. Bulos and others (Phys.
Rev. Letters 13:486, 1964) had 27 authors and only 12 paragraphs. Such papers
sometimes come from laboratories that are so small that 10 people couldn’t fit
into the lab, let alone make a meaningful contribution to the experiment.

(ScienceCartoonsPlus.com)
 How to List the Authors and Addresses  53

Occasionally, huge collaborations yield papers with hundreds of authors. A

paper on fruit-fly genomics listed more than 1,000 authors (Woolston 2015),
and a physics paper listed more than 5,000 (Castelvecchi 2015). (A confession:
We did not count the listed authors ourselves. Nor were we cruel enough to
inflict the task on a graduate student. Rather, we relied on counts reported as
news items in Nature.)
To repeat, the scientific paper should list as authors only those who contrib-
uted substantially to the work. Unjustified listing of multiple authors adversely
affects the real investigators and can lead to bibliographic nightmares. For
more on issues relating to the definition of authorship, see Davidoff (2000),
Claxton (2005), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2019),
and Council of Science Editors (2020).

THE ORDER OF THE NAMES

“If you have co-authors, problems about authorship can range from the trivial
to the catastrophic” (O’Connor 1991, p. 10).
The easiest part of preparing a scientific paper is simply entering the
bylines: the authors and addresses. Sometimes.
We haven’t yet heard of a duel being fought over the order of listing of
authors. But there have been instances in which otherwise reasonable, ratio-
nal colleagues have become bitter enemies solely because they could not agree
on whose names should be listed, and in what order.
What is the right order? Unfortunately, there are no agreed-upon rules or
generally accepted conventions. Some authors, perhaps to avoid arguments
among themselves, agree to list their names alphabetically. In the field of
mathematics, this practice appears to be common. Some pairs of researchers
who repeatedly collaborate take turns being listed first. If allowed by the jour-
nal, sometimes papers include a note indicating that the first two authors con-
tributed equally to the research.
In the past, there was a general tendency to list the head of the laboratory
(or head of the research group) as an author, whether or not that person
actively participated in the research. Often, the “head” was placed last (second
of two authors, third of three, etc.). Therefore, the terminal spot seemed to
acquire prestige. Thus, two authors, neither of whom was head of a laboratory
or even necessarily a senior professor, would vie for the second spot. If there
were three or more authors, the prestige-seeking author would want the first
or last position, but not one in between.
Commonly, the first author is the person who played the lead role in the
research. Qualification to be listed first does not depend on rank. A graduate
student, or even an undergraduate, may be listed first if they led the research
54  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

project. And even Nobel laureates are not to be listed first unless their contri-
butions predominate. Multiple authors may then be listed approximately in
order of decreasing contribution to the work. In some fields, the head of the
laboratory is still often listed last, in which case this position may continue to
command particular respect. However, the head should be included only if
they indeed at least provided guidance.
The sequence of authors on a published paper tends to be best decided
unanimously before the research begins. Accordingly, upon receiving a grant,
some research groups prepare a spreadsheet specifying what presentations
and publications are expected to result and stating the anticipated author list
for each. Changes may be required later, depending on which turn the research
takes, but it is foolish to leave this important question of authorship to the end
of the research process.

DEFINING THE ORDER: AN EXAMPLE

Perhaps the following example will help clarify the level of conceptual or tech-
nical involvement that should define authorship.
Suppose that Scientist A designs a series of experiments that might result
in important new knowledge, and then Scientist A tells Technician B exactly
how to perform the experiments. If the experiments work out and a manu-
script results, Scientist A should be the sole author, even though Technician B
did all the physical work. (Of course, the assistance of Technician B should be
recognized in the acknowledgments.)
Now let us suppose that the experiments just described do not work out.
Technician B takes the negative results to Scientist A and says something like,
“I think we might get this damned strain to grow if we change the incubation
temperature from 24°C to 37°C and if we add serum albumin to the medium.”
Scientist A agrees to a trial, and the experiments this time yield the desired
outcome. Technician B also provides some important insights that contribute
to the interpretation of the results. In the ensuing paper, Scientist A and Tech-
nician B, in that order, should both be listed as authors.
Let us take this example one step further. Suppose that the experiments at
37°C and with serum albumin work, but that Scientist A perceives that there is
now an obvious loose end; that is, growth under these conditions suggests that
the test organism is a pathogen, whereas the previously published literature
had indicated that this organism was nonpathogenic. Scientist A now asks Sci-
entist C, an expert in pathogenic microbiology, to test this organism for patho-
genicity. Scientist C runs a quick test by injecting the test substance into
laboratory mice, in a standard procedure that any medical microbiologist would
use, and confirms pathogenicity. A few important sentences are then added to
 How to List the Authors and Addresses  55

the manuscript, and the paper is published. Scientist A and Technician B are
listed as authors; the assistance of Scientist C is noted in the acknowledgments.
Suppose, however, that Scientist C gets interested in this peculiar strain
and proceeds to conduct a series of well-planned experiments that lead to the
conclusion that this particular strain is not just mouse-pathogenic, but is the
long-sought culprit in certain rare human infections. Thus, two new tables of
data are added to the manuscript, and parts of the manuscript are rewritten.
The paper is then published listing Scientist A, Technician B, and Scientist C
as authors. (A case could be made for listing Scientist C as the second author.)

SPECIFYING CONTRIBUTIONS
Some journals require a list of which author or authors did what—for exam-
ple, who designed the research, who gathered the data, who analyzed the data,
and who wrote the paper. Some journals publish this list of contributors with
the paper. Others just keep it for their own information. Sometimes there are
contributors who are not authors—for example, people who obtained some of
the data but did not participate more broadly in the research or who provided
technical or other guidance.
Listing contributions can have at least three advantages. First, it helps
ensure that everyone listed as an author deserves to be listed—and that no one
who ought to be listed has been left out. Second, it can help identify people to
thank in the acknowledgments. And third, if the list is published, it can help
readers determine which author to contact for which type of information.
Which contributions, though, should be identified? And how should those
contributions be designated? A system called CRediT (for Contributor Roles

(“Piled Higher and Deeper” by Jorge Cham. www.phdcomics.com)

56  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Taxonomy) now exists. The CRediT website, at credit.niso.org, lists and defines
14 roles that authors and other contributors may have. Many publishers now
require the use of these categories. Whether or not your paper is for a journal
that uses CRediT, the list can be a useful resource.

PROPER AND CONSISTENT FORM

As to names of authors, the preferred designation for English-language names
normally is given name, middle initial, surname (if an author indeed has a
middle initial). If an author uses only initials, which has been a regrettable
tendency in science, the scientific literature may become confused.
If there are two people named Janet B. Jones, the literature services can
probably keep them straight (by their addresses). But if dozens of people pub-
lished under the name J. B. Jones (especially if, on occasion, some of them use
Janet B. Jones), the retrieval services have a hopeless task in keeping things
neat and tidy. Many scientists decide not to change their names (for example,
after marriage), at least in part to avoid confusion in the literature.
Instead of given name, middle initial, and surname, wouldn’t it be better to
spell out the middle name? No. Again, we must realize that literature retrieval is
a computerized process, and computers can be easily confused. An author with
a common name (for example, Robert Jones) might be tempted to spell out his or
her middle name, thinking that Robert Smith Jones is more distinctive than Rob-
ert S. Jones. However, the resulting double name is a problem. Should the com-
puter index the author as “Jones” or “Smith Jones”? Because double names, with
or without hyphens, are common, especially in England and in Latin America,
this problem is not an easy one for computers (or for their programmers).
Knowing how to list one’s name on an English-language scientific paper
can be difficult for international authors, as different languages have different
formats for names and more than one form of transliteration can exist. For
authors with Chinese names, an article by Sun and Zhou (2002) offers recom-
mendations. And for authors of a variety of national origins, style manuals can
provide guidance, as can editors at journals. Whatever format a scientist
chooses, they should use it consistently in English-language scientific
papers—rather than, for example, using Shou-Chu Qian on some papers,
Shouchu Qian on others, and S. Chien on still others.
In general, scientific journals do not print degrees after authors’ names and
do not include titles such as Dr. (You may know what “B.S.” means. “M.S.” is
“More of the Same.” “Ph.D.” is “Piled Higher and Deeper.” “M.D.” is “Much
Deeper.”) However, most medical journals do list degrees after the names.
Even in medical journals, however, degrees are not given in the references.
Contributors should consult the journal’s instructions to authors or a recent
issue regarding preferred usage.
 How to List the Authors and Addresses  57

SOLUTIONS: ORCID AND MORE

Even when best practices for listing names are followed, authors can be diffi-
cult to distinguish from one another—for example, if two or more in the same
field have the same name. Listing authors’ institutions can help in distin-
guishing scientists with the same name. But sometimes scientists with the
same name work at the same institution. Also, some scientists move from one
institution to another or do not state their names the same way on all their
papers over the years, and so their work is hard to track. Fortunately, a mecha-
nism now exists to unambiguously identify each author.
This mechanism is ORCID, which stands for “Open Researcher and Con-
tributor ID.” An ORCID identifier is a persistent identification number that
you can obtain and include with your research communications. When you
apply at the ORCID website, you receive a unique identification number and
establish an ORCID record online. You can then associate this number with
your journal articles, grant proposals, and other writings, both in the future
and retroactively. Many journals and funding sources now ask authors to sup-
ply their ORCID identifiers. Information about the ORCID initiative and a
link through which to obtain an ORCID identifier appear at orcid.org.
Granted, ORCID doesn’t solve the “yes, that’s the same author” dilemma in
all regards. For example, if you saw the name Barbara J. Vogel and the ORCID
ID 0000-0003-0804-2953, would you realize that the person is Barbara Gastel
unless you knew that she is married to Tom Vogel? ORCID can, however,
greatly assist those taking the initiative to check authors’ identities.
Sometimes scientists who change their names want their new names to
replace their old ones on previously published work. Accordingly, journal pub-
lishers have increasingly been adopting policies that allow retroactive name
changes on digital editions of papers and other publications. The impetus for
this option came from a group of transgender scientists. Sometimes the option
also exists for other authors, such as those who change their names for marital
or religious reasons and wish all their work to appear under their new names
(DePaul 2021). Policies and procedures regarding name changes in the litera-
ture have been evolving. Authors considering seeking such changes should
consult resources such as publishers’ websites for the latest information.

LISTING AFFILIATIONS AND ADDRESSES

Listing authors’ affiliations and addresses serves two purposes. It helps to
identify the authors. It also indicates how to contact them. Because scientists
now communicate largely by email, an email address generally should be
included at least for the author to whom inquiries about the paper should be
conveyed. Some journals use asterisks, footnotes, or the acknowledgments to
58  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

identify this person. Authors should be aware of journal policy in this regard,
and they should decide in advance which author will serve in this role.
Scientific papers often have multiple authors, from multiple institutions or
departments. For example, there may be seven authors, from a total of three
institutions. In such instances, each author’s name and address should
include an appropriate designation, such as a superscript a, b, or c after the
author’s name and alongside the appropriate affiliation. (Sometimes a journal
may just request the affiliation of each author and then do the formatting
itself. In this regard, as in others regarding affiliations and addresses, follow
the instructions to authors from that particular journal.)
Sometimes graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, or others do research
at one institution and then move to another. In such situations, researchers
may wonder: Which one should I list? You should list the institution where the
research was done. Your new information should then appear in a “present
address” footnote.
The author who should receive inquiries about the paper is called the cor-
responding author. Journals ask that a corresponding author be designated for
each paper. The corresponding author typically submits the paper, receives the
editor’s decision whether to publish it, submits revisions, works with the edi-
torial office after acceptance (for example, by answering questions from the
manuscript editor and checking page proofs), and responds to inquiries from
readers. The corresponding author should be someone who expects to be
readily reachable during and after publication. Opinions vary as to whether
being a corresponding author is an honor or just a task.
Unless scientists wish to publish anonymously (or as close to it as possi-
ble), they should devote appropriate care to presenting their names, affilia-
tions, and contact information.
CHAPTER 9

How to Prepare the Abstract

I have the strong impression that scientific communication is being seri-

ously hindered by poor-quality abstracts written in jargon-ridden mumbo-
jumbo.
—Sheila M. McNab

DEFINITION
An abstract should be viewed as a miniature version of the paper it goes with.
The abstract should provide a brief summary of each of the main sections of
the paper: introduction, methods, results, and discussion. As Houghton (1975)
put it, “An abstract can be defined as a summary of the information in a
document.”
“A well-prepared abstract enables readers to identify the basic content of a
document quickly and accurately, to determine its relevance to their interests,
and thus to decide whether they need to read the document in its entirety”
(American National Standards Institute 1979b). The abstract should not
exceed the length specified by the journal (commonly, 250 words), and it
should be designed to define clearly what is dealt with in the paper. Typically,
the abstract should be typed as a single paragraph, as in Figure 9.1. Some
journals, however, run “structured” abstracts consisting of a few brief para-
graphs, each preceded by a standardized subheading, as in Figure 9.2. Many
people will read the abstract, either in the original journal or as retrieved in a
computer search.
The abstract should (1) state the principal objectives and scope of the inves-
tigation, (2) describe the methods employed, (3) summarize the results, and

59
60  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Effects of Scientific-Writing Training

on Knowledge and Publication Output

(An Imaginary Study)

Scientists must write to succeed, but few receive training in scientific writing.
We studied the effects of a scientific-communication lecture series, alone and
combined with feedback on writing, on scientific-communication knowledge
and publication performance. During the spring 2015 semester, 50 science PhD
students in their last year at Northeast Southwest University were randomly
assigned to receive no instruction in scientific writing, attend eight 1-hour lec-
tures on the topic, or attend these lectures and receive feedback from class-
mates and an instructor on successive parts of a scientific paper they drafted.
Members of each group then took a test of scientific-communication knowl-
edge, and the publication output of each group was monitored for 5 years.
Members of the groups receiving instruction scored between 80 and 98 percent
on the test of scientific-communication knowledge, whereas all but two mem-
bers of the control group scored below 65 percent. Although on average the
group receiving lectures and feedback scored higher than the lecture-only
group, the difference was not significant. During the 5-year follow-up, on aver-
age the control-group members submitted 6.1 papers to journals and had 4.1
accepted. The corresponding figures for the lecture group were 6.5 and 4.8, and
those for the lecture-plus-feedback group were 8.3 and 6.7. Higher proportions
of the latter two groups had papers accepted by the first journal to which they
were submitted. These findings suggest that instruction in scientific writing,
especially if it includes practice and feedback, can increase knowledge of scien-
tific communication and promote publication success.

Figure  9.1.  Abstract (in conventional format) of a fictional scientific paper. This abstract runs
slightly less than 250 words and so would comply with typical word limits. Were a real study being
reported, the statistical information probably would be more sophisticated. Note that the order of
information parallels that in a typical scientific paper.

(4) state the principal conclusions. Most or all of the abstract should be written
in the past tense because it refers to work already done.
The abstract should never give any information or conclusion that is not
in the body of the paper. Literature must not be cited in the abstract (except
in rare instances, such as the modification of a previously published method).
Likewise, normally the abstract should not include or refer to tables or
figures.
 How to Prepare the Abstract  61

Effects of Scientific-Writing Training

on Knowledge and Publication Output

(An Imaginary Study)

Background. Scientists must write to succeed, but few receive training in

scientific writing. We studied the effects of a scientific-communication lec-
ture series, alone and combined with feedback on writing, on scientific-
communication knowledge and publication performance.
Method. During the spring 2015 semester, 50 science PhD students in their
last year at Northeast Southwest University were randomly assigned to receive
no instruction in scientific writing, attend eight 1-hour lectures on the topic, or
attend these lectures and receive feedback from classmates and an instructor
on successive parts of a scientific paper they drafted. Members of each group
then took a test of scientific-communication knowledge, and the publication
output of each group was monitored for 5 years.
Results. Members of the groups receiving instruction scored between 80 and
98 percent on the test of scientific-communication knowledge, whereas all but
two members of the control group scored below 65 percent. Although on aver-
age the group receiving lectures and feedback scored higher than the lecture-
only group, the difference was not significant. During the 5-year follow-up, on
average the control-group members submitted 6.1 papers to journals and had
4.1 accepted. The corresponding figures for the lecture group were 6.5 and 4.8,
and those for the lecture-plus-feedback group were 8.3 and 6.7. Higher propor-
tions of the latter two groups had papers accepted by the first journal to which
they were submitted.
Conclusion. These findings suggest that instruction in scientific writing, espe-
cially if it includes practice and feedback, can increase knowledge of scientific
communication and promote publication success.

Figure 9.2.  Structured version of the abstract shown in Figure 9.1. The two abstracts are the same
except for division into paragraphs and inclusion of headings. As noted, the content is fictional.

TYPES OF ABSTRACTS
The preceding rules apply to the abstracts that are used in primary journals
and then often appear without change in the secondary services (Chemical
Abstracts, etc.). This type of abstract is called an informative abstract, and it is
designed to condense the paper. It should briefly state the problem, the
method used to study the problem, and the principal data and conclusions.
62  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Often, scientists skim multiple abstracts to help keep up with active areas of
research. (However, before citing a paper, you should read it in its entirety
because some abstracts—surely not yours, though!—do not convey an entirely
accurate picture of the research.) This type of abstract precedes the body of the
paper (thus serving as a “heading”) in most journals. Another type of abstract
is the indicative abstract (sometimes called a descriptive abstract). This type of
abstract (see Figure 9.3) is designed to indicate the subjects dealt with in a
paper, much like a table of contents, making it easy for potential readers to
decide whether to read the paper. Indicative abstracts should not be used as
“heading” abstracts in research papers, but they may be used in other types of
publications, such as review papers, conference reports, and government
reports. Such indicative abstracts can be of great value to reference librarians.
An effective discussion of the various uses and types of abstracts was pro-
vided by McGirr (1973, p. 4), whose conclusions are well worth repeating:
“When writing the abstract, remember that it will be published by itself, and
should be self-contained. That is, it should contain no bibliographic, figure, or
table references. . . . The language should be familiar to the potential reader.
Omit obscure abbreviations and acronyms. Write the paper before you write
the abstract, if at all possible.”

Teaching of Scientific Writing

(An Imaginary Review Article)

In this article we summarize and discuss the literature on teaching scientific

writing. Although we focus mainly on articles in peer-reviewed journals, we
also draw on material in professionally oriented magazines and newsletters
and in books. First we describe methods used for the literature review, includ-
ing databases searched, keywords used, and languages and dates included.
Then we present information on the history of teaching scientific writing and
on instructional designs reported, including single sessions, intensive short
courses, and semester-long courses; examples of instruction at specific insti-
tutions and under other auspices are noted. Also addressed are the teaching of
English-language scientific writing to non-native users of English, the use of
distance instruction in teaching scientific writing, issues in scientific-writing
instruction, and current trends in the field. Finally, we identify topics on which
further research appears advisable. Supplementary materials include anno-
tated lists of textbooks and websites useful in teaching scientific writing.

Figure 9.3.  Indicative (descriptive) abstract of a fictional review article. This abstract runs about
150 words. Like a table of contents, it lists topics but does not state what is said about them.
 How to Prepare the Abstract  63

Unless a long term is used several times within an abstract, do not abbrevi-
ate it. Wait and introduce the appropriate abbreviation at first use in the text
(probably in the introduction).

CLARITY AND CONCISENESS

Occasionally, a scientist omits something important from the abstract. By far,
the more common faults, though, are ambiguous wording and inclusion of
extraneous detail.
An abstract normally appears before the main text of the paper. Thus, dur-
ing the review process, it generally is the first part that editors and reviewers
encounter. (Indeed, editors often rely on it to identify main content and thus
choose suitable reviewers.) Therefore, it is crucial that the abstract be written
clearly and simply. If you cannot make a good and accurate impression in your
abstract, your cause may be lost. Usually, a good abstract is followed by a good
paper; a poor abstract is a harbinger of woes to come.
Most journals require abstracts. Likewise, conferences commonly require
an abstract to accompany each presentation; often, the choice of presentations
to include in a conference is based on abstracts of the proposed presentations.
Therefore, scientists should master the basics of abstract preparation.
When writing the abstract, examine every word carefully. If you can tell
your story in 100 words, do not use 200. Economically and scientifically, it
doesn’t make sense to waste words. The total communication system can
afford only so much verbal abuse. Of more importance to you, the use of clear,
significant words will impress the editors and reviewers (not to mention read-
ers), whereas the use of abstruse, verbose constructions might well contribute
to a check in the “Reject” box on the review form.
In rough-drafting an abstract, though, do not be paralyzed by the need to be
brief. Initially, just try to express your ideas. Then, if the abstract is too long
and wordy, go back and condense it. For example, in the fictional abstract in
Figure 9.1, the first sentence might initially have read “Individuals in the sci-
ences must do a considerable amount of writing in order to be successful in
their careers, but a relatively small proportion have received any formal educa-
tion in how to write about science” (35 words). After condensation, it reads,
“Scientists must write to succeed, but few receive training in scientific writ-
ing” (12 words).
Here’s an example of an especially brief abstract, which accompanied a
paper by M. V. Berry and colleagues published in 2011 (J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.
44:492001). The title of the paper: “Can Apparent Superluminal Neutrino
Speeds Be Explained as a Quantum Weak Measurement?” The abstract: “Prob-
ably not.” Should you write abstracts this short? Well, probably not. Normally,
64  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

an abstract should be more informative than this one. But at least, unlike
some meandering abstracts, this one answers the question that the research
addressed.

AKIN TO ABSTRACTS
Some journals include, in addition to abstracts, other components briefly con-
veying key points to readers, skimmers, or browsers. For example, some jour-
nals ask authors to provide a bulleted list of key messages of their articles,
either for posting only online or for publication as part of the article as well.
Others, for instance, request a nontechnical summary or a brief statement of
implications. Some journals require such items to accompany all papers sub-
mitted; others request them only for some or all of the papers accepted for
publication. Be aware that you may be asked to provide, in essence, an abstract
of your abstract.

KEYWORDS
Some journals require authors to provide keywords (terms indicating the con-
tent of the article, much as those in an index would). Keywords can help read-
ers find articles on desired topics. Generally, several keywords are provided.
Some journals specify lists of terms from which keywords should be taken.
Also, some journals say that keywords should be terms other than those in the
title, which already would be available to indexers and search engines. In a
published article, the keywords normally appear below the abstract. Looking at
keywords of articles on work similar to one’s own, and identifying major terms
in the abstract of your own article, can aid you in providing suitable keywords.

VISUAL VARIETIES
Traditionally, abstracts of journal articles have consisted only of text. Increas-
ingly, though, journals have been letting authors include a graphic in or with
an abstract or have been publishing or posting visual versions of abstracts. For
example, American Chemical Society journals require those publishing each
paper to submit a graphic that will appear in the abstract and table of contents
(ACS Publications 2020). Some other journals in various fields now include
visual summaries, commonly called visual abstracts or graphical abstracts, for at
least some articles. Sometimes the journal prepares this visual summary;
 How to Prepare the Abstract  65

commonly, the authors provide it. Visual abstracts often have a one-panel
format (see, for example, www.cell.com/pb/assets/raw/shared/figureguidelines
/GA_guide.pdf) or a three-panel format (see, for example, www.cdc.gov/pcd
/for_authors/visual_abstracts.htm).
Various resources (such as Aoki n.d.; Elsevier 2021; Ibrahim 2018) offer
guidance on preparing visual abstracts. Points to remember include the
following:

• Obtain (and follow) any instructions from the specific journal regarding
items such as dimensions, typeface, image resolution, and file type. Also,
look at examples in the journal. See whether the journal has a template to
use for visual abstracts.
• Consider enlisting assistance from a scientific illustrator or other visual-
communication expert. Many universities and research institutions have
such individuals available.
• Think about your audience. Define, and focus on, your main message to
that audience.
• Plan before you draft. Try to tell a story. Structure the visual abstract in an
easy-to-follow way—for example, to be read from left to right or from top
to bottom. Maybe break the visual abstract into sections or use arrows to
guide readers.
• Be concise, with uncluttered images and minimal words (far fewer than
in a regular abstract). Perhaps use icons or the like. Incorporate enough
white space.
• Use color effectively. For example, show related items in the same color
or use color to draw attention to key items.
• Revise, revise, revise. Get feedback, and revise some more.

In short, whether you are preparing a textual abstract or a visual one, be

focused, well organized, clear, and concise. You will then represent your work
effectively and serve readers well.
CHAPTER 10

How to Write the Introduction

A bad beginning makes a bad ending.

—Euripides

GUIDELINES
Now that we have the preliminaries out of the way, we come to the paper itself.
Some experienced writers prepare the title and abstract after the paper is writ-
ten, even though by placement, these elements come first. You should, how-
ever, have in mind (if not on paper or in the computer) a provisional title and
an outline of the paper you propose to write. You should also consider the
background of the audience you are writing for so that you can best determine
which terms and procedures need definition or description and which do not.
If you do not have a clear purpose in mind, you might go writing in six direc-
tions at once.
It is wise to begin writing the paper while the work is still in progress. This
makes the writing easier because everything is fresh in your mind. Further-
more, the writing process itself is likely to point to inconsistencies in the
results or perhaps to suggest interesting sidelines that might be followed.
Thus, start the writing while the experimental apparatus and materials are still
available. Starting to write early also helps ensure that your coauthors still will
be readily available to consult.
The first section of the text proper should, of course, be the introduction.
The main purpose of the introduction is to supply sufficient background infor-
mation to allow the reader to understand and evaluate the results of the pres-
ent study without needing to refer to previous publications on the topic. The
introduction should also provide the rationale for the present study. Above all,

66
 How to Write the Introduction  67

you should state briefly and clearly your purpose in writing the paper. Choose
the references carefully to provide the most important background informa-
tion. Much of the introduction should be written in present tense because you
are referring primarily to your problem and the established knowledge relat-
ing to it at the start of your work.
Guidelines for a good introduction are as follows:

1. The introduction should present first, with all possible clarity, the nature
and scope of the problem investigated. For example, it should indicate
why the overall subject area of the research is important.
2. It should briefly review the pertinent literature to orient the reader. It
also should identify the gap in the literature that the current research
was intended to address.
3. It should then make clear the objective of the research. In some disci-
plines or journals, it is customary to state here the hypotheses or research
questions that the study addressed. In others, the objective may be sig-
naled by wording such as “in order to determine.”
4. It should state the method of the investigation. If deemed necessary, the
reasons for the choice of a particular method should be briefly stated.
5. Finally, in some disciplines and journals, the standard practice is to end
the introduction by stating the principal results of the investigation and
the principal conclusions suggested by the results.

An introduction that is structured in this way (see, for example, Figure 10.1)
has a funnel shape, moving from broad and general to narrow and specific.
Such an introduction can comfortably direct readers toward reading about the
details of your research.

REASONS FOR THE GUIDELINES

The first four guidelines for a good introduction need little discussion, being
reasonably well accepted by most scientist-writers, even beginners. It is impor-
tant to keep in mind, however, that the purpose of the introduction is to intro-
duce the paper. Thus, the first rule (definition of the problem) is the cardinal
one. If the problem is not stated in a reasonable, understandable way, readers
will have no interest in your solution. Even if readers labor through your paper,
which is unlikely if you haven’t presented the problem in a meaningful way,
they will be unimpressed with the brilliance of your solution. In a sense, a
scientific paper is like journalism: In the introduction, you should have a
“hook” (a lead) to gain the reader’s attention. Why did you choose that subject,
and why is it important?
68  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Figure 10.1.  (Created with BioRender.com)

The second, third, and fourth guidelines relate to the first. The literature
review, specification of objectives, and identification of method should be pre-
sented in such a way that the readers will understand what the problem was
and how you tried to resolve it.
Although the conventions of the discipline and the journal should be fol-
lowed, persuasive arguments can be made for following the fifth guideline
and thus ending the abstract by stating the main results and conclusions. Do
not keep the readers in suspense; let them follow the development of the
evidence. A surprise ending like that in an O. Henry short story might make
good literature, but it hardly fits the mold of the scientific method.
To expand on that last point: Many authors, especially beginning authors,
make the mistake of holding back their more important findings until late in
the paper. In extreme cases, authors sometimes have omitted important find-
ings from the abstract, presumably in the hope of building suspense while
proceeding to a well-concealed, dramatic climax. However, this is a silly gam-
bit that, among knowledgeable scientists, goes over like a double negative at a
grammarians’ picnic. Basically, the problem with the surprise ending is that
readers become bored and stop reading long before they get to the punch line.
 How to Write the Introduction  69

“Reading a scientific article isn’t the same as reading a detective story. We want
to know from the start that the butler did it” (Ratnoff 1981, p. 96).
In short, the introduction provides a road map from problem to solution
(see Figure 10.2). This map is so important that a bit of redundancy with the
abstract is often desirable.

Introduction to an Imaginary Paper

Scientists must write to succeed, but few receive training in scientific writing.
According to recent surveys, only 9 percent of scientists in the United States,1
5 percent of scientists in China,2 and 3 to 12 percent of scientists attending
recent international conferences3-5 have taken a course in scientific writing.
Even when briefer forms of instruction, such as workshops, are included, only
about 25 percent of US scientists have received formal instruction in scientific
writing1. Discussions at a recent roundtable6 suggest that the figure tends to
be lower in other countries.
Further, relatively little information exists regarding the effectiveness of
such instruction. One study7 indicated that compared with peers without such
instruction, postdoctoral fellows who had taken a scientific-writing course as
graduate students felt more confident of their scientific-writing abilities and
received more comments of “well written” from peer reviewers. Another study8
suggested that the time from submission to final acceptance tended to be
shorter for papers by authors who had taken a course in scientific writing.
However, a third study9 found no difference in quality of scientific papers writ-
ten by early-career scientists who had completed a week-long workshop on
scientific writing and those who had spent the time vacationing at a national
park. The literature appears to contain little, if anything, on effects of scientific-
writing instruction on knowledge or on number of publications. Likewise, it
contains little or nothing on the relative effects of different forms of scientific-
writing instruction.
To help address these gaps, we compared outcomes in advanced graduate
students randomly assigned to receive no instruction in scientific writing, to
attend a lecture series on the topic, and to attend the lecture series and receive
feedback on a draft of a scientific paper. We then tested scientific-communication
knowledge and monitored publication output for 5 years. Outcome measures
included number of papers submitted, number of papers accepted for publica-
tion, and time from initial acceptance to publication.

Figure 10.2.  Introduction to an imaginary paper on effects of scientific-writing training. This intro-

duction, which runs about 300 words, follows the “funnel format,” moving from general to specific.
All content in this introduction is fictional.
70  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

EXCEPTIONS
Introductions to scientific papers generally should follow the guidelines that
we have noted. However, exceptions exist. For example, whereas the literature
review in the introduction typically should be brief and selective, journals in
some disciplines favor an extensive literature review, almost resembling a
review article within the paper. Some journals even make this literature review
a separate section after the introduction—yielding what might be considered
an ILMRAD structure.
A colleague of ours tells of reviewing an introduction drafted by a friend in
another field. The introduction contained a lengthy literature review, and our
colleague advised the friend to condense it. The friend followed the advice—
but after she submitted the paper to a journal, the peer reviewers and editor
asked her to expand the literature review. It turned out that, unknown to our
colleague, her field and her friend’s had different conventions in this regard. I
hope that the friend kept earlier drafts (as is a good habit to follow), so she
could easily restore some of what had been deleted.
In short, the conventions in your field and the requirements of your target
journal take precedence. See what, if anything, the journal’s instructions to
authors say about the content and structure of the introduction. Also, look at
some papers in the journal that report research analogous to yours and see
what the introductions are like.

CITATIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

If you have previously published a preliminary note or abstract of the work,
you should mention this (with the citation) in the introduction. If closely
related papers have been or are about to be published elsewhere, you should
say so in the introduction, customarily at or near the end. Such references
help to keep the literature neat and tidy for those who must search it.
In addition to the preceding rules, keep in mind that your paper may well
be read by people outside your narrow specialty. Therefore, in general you
should define in the introduction any specialized terms or abbreviations that
you will use. By doing so, you can prevent confusion, such as what one of us
experienced in the following situation: An acquaintance who was a law judge
kept referring to someone as a GC. Calling a lawyer a gonococcus (gonorrhea-
causing bacterium) seemed highly unprofessional. It turned out, however,
that in law, unlike in medicine, GC stands for “general counsel.”
CHAPTER 11
How to Write the Materials
and Methods Section

The greatest invention of the nineteenth century was the invention of the
method of invention.
—A. N. Whitehead

PURPOSE OF THE SECTION

In the first section of the paper, the introduction, you should have stated the
methodology employed in the study. If necessary, you also defended the rea-
sons for your choice of a particular method over competing methods.
Now, in “Materials and Methods” (also designated in some cases by other
names, such as “Experimental Procedures” or just “Methods”), you must give
the full details. Most of this section should be written in the past tense because
it reports actions already completed. Do not fall prey to the graduate student
error of cutting and pasting from a thesis proposal without changing the
tense.
The main purpose of the materials and methods section is to describe (and
if necessary, defend) the experimental design, and then provide enough detail
so that a competent worker can repeat the experiments. Other purposes
include providing information that will let readers judge the appropriateness
of the experimental methods (and thus the probable validity of the findings)
and assess the extent to which the results can be generalized. Many (perhaps
most) readers of your paper will skip or just skim this section because they
already know from the introduction the general methods you used, and they
probably have no interest in the experimental details. However, careful writing
of this section is critical because the cornerstone of the scientific method
requires that, to be of scientific merit, your results are reproducible—and, for

71
72  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

(www.CartoonStock.com)

the results to be adjudged reproducible, you must provide the basis for repeti-
tion of the experiments by others. That experiments are unlikely to be repro-
duced is beside the point; the potential for reproducing the same or similar
results must exist, or else your paper does not represent good science.
When your paper is subjected to peer review, a good reviewer will read the
materials and methods section carefully. If there is any serious doubt that your
experiments could be repeated, the reviewer will recommend rejection of your
manuscript or provision of more detail, no matter how awe-inspiring your results.

MATERIALS
For materials, include the exact technical specifications, quantities, and source
or method of preparation. Sometimes it is even necessary to list pertinent
chemical and physical properties of the reagents used. In general, avoid the
use of trade names; the use of generic or chemical names is usually preferred.
This approach avoids the advertising inherent in the trade name. Besides, the
nonproprietary name is likely to be known throughout the world, whereas the
 How to Write the Materials and Methods Section  73

proprietary name may be known only in the country of origin. However, if

there are known differences among proprietary products, and if these differ-
ences might be critical, then using the trade name, plus the name of the man-
ufacturer, is essential. When using trade names, which are usually registered
trademarks, capitalize them (Teflon, for example) to distinguish them from
generic names. Normally, the generic description should immediately follow
the trademark; for example, one would refer to Kleenex facial tissues. In gen-
eral, it is not necessary to include trademark symbols (such as ® and ™).
However, some journals ask authors to do so.
Experimental animals, plants, and microorganisms should be identified
accurately, usually by genus, species, and strain designations. Sources should be
listed and special characteristics (age, sex, and genetic and physiological status)
described. If human subjects were used, the criteria for selection should be
described, and an “informed consent” statement should be included in the man-
uscript. Likewise, if human or animal subjects were used, approval by the appro-
priate committee (such as an institutional review board in the former case or an
institutional animal care and use committee in the latter) should be noted.
Because the value of your paper (and your reputation) can be damaged if
your results are not reproducible, you must describe research materials with
great care. Examine the instructions to authors of the journal to which you
plan to submit the manuscript because important specifics are often detailed
there. Also, look at examples of methods sections in the journal, as journals
differ among themselves in the amount of detail provided about materials and
methods and in the structuring of the section.

METHODS
For methods, the usual order of presentation is chronological. However,
related methods should be described together, and straight chronological
order cannot always be followed. For example, even if a particular assay was
not done until late in the research, the assay method should be described
along with the other assay methods, not by itself in a later part of the materials
and methods section. Also, sometimes it is helpful to begin the methods sec-
tion with a general overview of the experimental design.

HEADINGS
The materials and methods section often has subheadings. To see whether
subheadings would indeed be suitable—and, if so, what types are likely to be
appropriate—look at analogous papers in your target journal. When possible,
construct subheadings that match those to be used in the results section. The
74  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

writing of both sections will be easier if you strive for internal consistency, and
the reader will be able to grasp quickly the relationship of a particular method
to the related results.

MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS

Be precise. Methods are similar to cookbook recipes. If a reaction mixture was
heated, give the temperature. Questions such as “How?” and “How much?”
should be precisely answered by the author and not left for the reviewer or the
reader to puzzle over.
Statistical analyses are often necessary, but your paper should emphasize
the data, not the statistics. Generally, a lengthy description of statistical meth-
ods indicates that the writer has recently acquired this information and
believes that the readers need similar enlightenment. Ordinary statistical
methods generally should be used without comment; advanced or unusual
methods may require a literature citation. In some fields, statistical methods
and statistical software customarily are identified at the end of the materials
and methods section.
And again, be careful of your syntax. A manuscript described what could be
called a disappearing method. The author stated, “The radioactivity in the
tRNA region was determined by the trichloroacetic acid-soluble method of
Britten et al.” And then there is the painful method: “After standing in boiling
water for an hour, examine the flask.”

NEED FOR REFERENCES

In describing the methods of the investigations, you should give (or direct
readers to) sufficient details so that a competent worker could repeat the
experiments. If your method is new (unpublished), you must provide all of the
needed detail. (Indeed, if the method is a substantial advance, you may find it
worthwhile to publish and cite a separate paper about it.) If the method has
been published in a journal, however, the literature reference should be given.
For a method well known to readers, only the literature reference is needed.
For a method with which readers might not be familiar, a few words of descrip-
tion tend to be worth adding, especially if the paper in which the method was
described might not be readily accessible.
If several alternative methods are commonly employed, it is useful to iden-
tify your method briefly, as well as to cite the reference. For example, it is
better to state, “Cells were broken by ultrasonic treatment as previously
described (9)” rather than “Cells were broken as previously described (9).”
 How to Write the Materials and Methods Section  75

TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables and figures can aid in presenting materials and methods clearly and
concisely.
For example, if many microbial strains or mutants have been used in a
study, prepare strain tables identifying the source and properties of mutants,
bacteriophages, plasmids, and other materials. Likewise, the properties of
multiple chemical compounds or the experimental conditions for different
groups in a study can be presented in tabular form, often benefiting both the
author and the reader.
Figures also can aid in presenting methods. Examples include flowcharts of
experimental protocols, diagrams of experimental apparatus, and maps of
study locations. Such items can help readers understand your methods at a
glance.

CORRECT FORM AND GRAMMAR

Do not make the common error of including some of the results in this sec-
tion. There is only one rule for a properly written materials and methods sec-
tion: Enough information must be given so that the experiments could be
reproduced by a competent colleague.
A good test (and a good way to avoid rejection of your paper), is to give a
copy of your finished manuscript to a colleague and ask whether they can fol-
low the methodology. In reading about your materials and methods, your col-
league might well notice an error that you missed simply because you were too
close to the work. For example, you might have described your distillation
apparatus, procedure, and products with infinite care—but then neglected to
define the starting material or to state the distillation temperature.
Mistakes in grammar and punctuation are not always serious; the meaning
of general concepts, as expressed in the introduction and discussion, can often
survive a bit of linguistic mayhem. In materials and methods, however, exact
and specific items are being dealt with, and precise use of English is a must.
Even a missing comma can cause havoc, as in this sentence: “Employing a
straight platinum wire rabbit, sheep, and human blood agar plates were
inoculated. . . .” That sentence was in trouble right from the start because the
first word is a dangling participle. Comprehension was not totally lost, how-
ever, until the author neglected to put a comma after “wire.”
Authors often are advised, quite rightly, to minimize the use of passive
voice. However, in the materials and methods section—as in the current
paragraph—passive voice often can validly be used, for although what was
done must be specified, who did it is often irrelevant. Thus, you may write, for
76  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

example, “Mice were injected with . . .” rather than “I injected the mice
with . . .,” “A technician injected the mice with . . .,” or “A student injected the
mice with. . . .” Alternatively, you may say, “We injected . . .,” even if a single
member of the team did that part of the work. (Although the belief persists
that journals prohibit use of first person, many journals permit and even
encourage use of “I” and “we.”)
Because the materials and methods section usually gives short, discrete
bits of information, the writing sometimes becomes too condensed, with
details essential to the meaning omitted. The most common error is to state
the action without, when necessary, stating the agent of the action. In the sen-
tence “To determine its respiratory quotient, the organism was . . .” the only
stated agent of the action is “the organism,” and we doubt that the organism
was capable of making such a determination. Here is a similar sentence:
“Having completed the study, the bacteria were of no further interest.” Again,
we doubt that the bacteria “completed the study”; if they did, their lack of
“further interest” was certainly an act of ingratitude.
“Blood samples were taken from 48 informed and consenting patients . . .
the subjects ranged in age from 6 months to 22 years” (Pediatr. Res. 6:26, 1972).
There is no grammatical problem with that sentence, but the lack of detail
leaves the reader wondering just how the 6-month-old infants gave informed
consent.
And, of course, always watch for spelling errors, both in the manuscript
and in the proofs. We are not astronomers, but we suspect that a word is mis-
spelled in the following sentence: “We rely on theatrical calculations to give
the lifetime of a star on the main sequence” (Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.
1:100, 1963). Although they might have been done with a flourish, presumably
the calculations were theoretical, not theatrical.
Be aware that a spell-checker can introduce such errors and therefore can-
not substitute for careful proofreading. One recent example: A spell-checker
converted “pacemakers in dogs” to “peacemakers in dogs.” We have known
some dogs that could benefit from peacemakers, but we rightly suspected that
this wording was not intended in writing about canine cardiology.
CHAPTER 12

How to Write the Results

Results! Why, man, I have gotten a lot of results. I know several thousand
things that won’t work.
—Thomas A. Edison

CONTENT OF THE RESULTS

So now we come to the core of a paper—the data. This part of the paper is
called the results section.
Contrary to popular belief, you shouldn’t start the results section by describ-
ing methods that you inadvertently omitted from the materials and methods
section. The results section usually has two ingredients. First, you should give
some kind of overall description of the experiments, providing the big picture
without repeating the experimental details previously provided in materials and
methods. Second, you should present the data. Your results should be presented
in the past tense. (See the section “Tense in Scientific Writing” in Chapter 30.)
Of course, it isn’t quite that easy. How do you present the data? A simple
transfer of data from laboratory notebook to manuscript will hardly do.
As elsewhere in a scientific paper, good organization is crucial. Chrono-
logical organization often works well. So does topic-by-topic organization,
with headings parallel to those in the methods section (if any). Another option
is to present the most important results first, followed by results of decreasing
importance. In some fields, and for some types of studies, conventions exist as
to which types of results to present in which order. Consult any guidelines
from the journal or elsewhere, perhaps see how results were reported in
articles on research similar to yours, and consider in what order you could
most logically present your results.

77
78  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Importantly, in the manuscript you should present representative data

rather than endlessly repetitive data. The fact that you could perform the same
experiment 100 times without significant divergence in results might be of
considerable interest to your professor, but editors, not to mention readers,
prefer a little bit of predigestion. Aaronson (1977, p. 10) said it another way:
“The compulsion to include everything, leaving nothing out, does not prove
that one has unlimited information; it proves that one lacks discrimination.”
Exactly the same concept, and it is an important one, was stated almost a cen-
tury earlier by John Wesley Powell, a geologist who served as president of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1888. In Powell’s
words: “The fool collects facts; the wise man selects them.”

HOW TO HANDLE NUMBERS

If one determination or only a few determinations are to be presented, the
determination(s) should be reported in the text. Repetitive determinations
should be given in tables or graphs.
Any determinations, repetitive or otherwise, should be meaningful. Suppose
that in a particular group of experiments, a number of variables were tested (one
at a time, of course). Those variables that affect the reaction become determina-
tions or data, and if extensive, they are tabulated or graphed. Those variables that
do not seem to affect the reaction need not be tabulated or presented; however,
it is often important to note even the negative aspects of your experiments.
Knowing what did not occur can be as important as knowing what did.
If statistics are used to describe the results, they should be meaningful. A
prominent journal editor told of a paper that reputedly read: “33 1/3% of the
mice used in this experiment were cured by the test drug; 33 1/3% of the test
population were unaffected by the drug and remained in a moribund condi-
tion; the third mouse got away.”
Beware of including overly many decimal places when reporting percent-
ages. If 17 of 59 squirrels showed a given response, it is not meaningful to say
that 28.8136% percent of squirrels did so; saying 29% would be more appro-
priate. Just because your calculator can show it doesn’t mean you should
say it.

STRIVE FOR CLARITY

The results should be short and sweet, without verbiage. Mitchell (1968) quoted
Einstein as having said, “If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to
the tailor.” Although the results section is the most important part of the paper,
 How to Write the Results  79

it is often the shortest, particularly if it is preceded by a well-written materials

and methods section and followed by a well-written discussion.
The results need to be clearly and simply stated because it is the results that
constitute the new knowledge that you are contributing to the world. The ear-
lier parts of the paper (introduction and materials and methods) are designed
to tell why and how you got the results; the later part of the paper (discussion)
is designed to tell what they mean. Obviously, therefore, the whole paper must
stand or fall on the basis of the results. Thus, the results must be presented
with crystal clarity.

AVOID REDUNDANCY
Do not be guilty of redundancy in the results. The most common fault is the
repetition in words of what is already apparent to the reader from examining
the figures and tables. Even worse is the actual presentation, in the text, of all
or many of the data shown in the tables or figures. This grave sin is committed
so frequently that it is commented on at length, with examples, in the chapters
on how to prepare tables and illustrations (Chapters 16 and 17).
Do not be verbose in citing figures and tables. Do not say, “It is clearly
shown in Table 1 that nocillin inhibited the growth of N. gonorrhoeae.” Say,
“Nocillin inhibited the growth of N. gonorrhoeae (Table 1).” The latter format
has multiple benefits. Because it is briefer, it helps authors comply with jour-
nals’ word limits. It also is more readable. Further, it directs attention to what
is most important: the findings, not the table or figure.
Some writers go too far in avoiding verbiage, however. In particular,
they often fail to provide clear antecedents for the pronoun “it.” Here is an
item from a medical manuscript: “The left leg became numb at times and
she walked it off. . . . On her second day, the knee was better, and on the
third day it had completely disappeared.” In both instances, the antecedent
of “it” is presumably “the numbness,” but the wording seems a result of
dumbness.

A SUPPLEMENT ON SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL ONLINE

Increasingly, journals are electronically posting material that is supplemen-
tary to papers being published. Although sometimes this material is about
methods, most commonly it provides information about the results. For
example, additional data may be posted, or additional tables and figures may
be provided online. Whether authors may submit such supplementary
material, and if so how, varies among journals. Also, norms regarding what
80  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

supplementary materials to provide online vary among research fields. If you

think that providing supplementary material for online posting would be
desirable, consult the instructions to authors given by your target journal. If
possible, also see what papers analogous to yours have done in this regard.
Keep in mind, too, that the journal editor may ask you to place some of your
material in an online supplement.
CHAPTER 13

How to Write the Discussion

Free and fair discussion will ever be found the firmest friend to truth.
—George Campbell

DISCUSSION AND VERBIAGE

The discussion is harder to define than the other sections. Thus, it is usually
the hardest section to write. And, whether you know it or not, many papers are
rejected by journal editors because of a faulty discussion, even though the data
of the paper might be both valid and interesting. Even more likely, the true
meaning of the data may be obscured by the interpretation presented in the
discussion, again resulting in rejection.
Many, if not most, discussion sections are too long and verbose. As Doug
Savile said, “Occasionally, I recognize what I call the squid technique: the
author is doubtful about his facts or his reasoning and retreats behind a pro-
tective cloud of ink” (Tableau, September 1972). Another reason some discus-
sions are long and hard to follow is that many authors think they must avoid
using the first person. If you mean “I found that . . .” or “We conclude that, . . .,”
say so. Try to avoid wordier, and sometimes more ambiguous, constructions
such as “It was found in the present investigation that . . .” and “It is con-
cluded that . . .”
Some discussion sections remind one of the diplomat, described by Allen
Drury in Advise and Consent (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959, p. 47), who
characteristically gave “answers which go winding and winding off through
the interstices of the English language until they finally go shimmering away
altogether and there is nothing left but utter confusion and a polite smile.”

81
82  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

COMPONENTS OF THE DISCUSSION

What are the essential features of a good discussion? The following advice will
help ensure that all main components are present:

• Try to present the principles, relationships, and generalizations shown by

the results. And bear in mind that in a good discussion, you discuss—you
do not recapitulate—the results.
• Point out, and reflect on, any exceptions or any lack of correlation and
define unsettled points. Never take the high-risk alternative of trying to
cover up or fudge data that do not quite fit into your paper.
• Show how your results and interpretations agree (or contrast) with previ-
ously published work. Consider reasons for discrepancies.
• Don’t be shy; discuss the theoretical implications of your work, as well as
possible practical applications.
• State your conclusions as clearly as possible.
• Summarize your evidence for each conclusion. Or, as the wise old scien-
tist will tell you, “Never assume anything except a low-interest mortgage.”

Much as the methods and the results should correspond to each other, the
introduction and the discussion should function as a pair. At least implicitly,
the introduction should have posed one or more questions. The discussion
should indicate what the findings say about the answers. The failure to address
the initial questions commonly afflicts discussions. Be sure that the discus-
sion answers what the introduction asked.
Whereas the content of the introduction commonly moves from the gen-
eral topic to your specific research, in sort of a funnel format, the discussion
tends to do largely the reverse, much like an inverted funnel (Figure 13.1).
For example, a well-structured discussion may first restate the main find-
ings, then discuss how they relate to findings of previous research, then note
the implications and applications, then identify limitations of the current
study, and perhaps finally identify unanswered questions well suited for
future research. In the introduction, you invited readers into your research
venue; in the discussion, you usher them out, now well informed about your
research and its meaning.

NOTING STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

The discussion is a place to note substantial strengths and limitations of the
research being reported. Some authors feel awkward about including such
content. However, doing so can aid readers, and it can make the case to editors
and referees (peer reviewers) that your work is publishable.
 How to Write the Discussion  83

Figure 13.1.  (Created with BioRender.com)

Some authors consider it immodest to note the strengths of their work—

for example, superior experimental techniques, a large sample size, or long
follow-up. However, such information can aid readers in determining how
definitive the findings are.
What if the research has significant limitations—such as difficulties with a
technique, a relatively small sample size, or relatively short follow-up? Some
authors might try to hide such limitations. However, doing so runs counter to the
openness that should characterize science. And astute reviewers, editors, or read-
ers might well notice the limitations anyway—and assume, either to themselves
or in writing, that you were too naive to notice them. It is better, therefore, to iden-
tify limitations yourself. In doing so, you may be able to discuss what impact, if
any, the limitations are likely to have on the conclusions that can be drawn.
Not every discussion needs to discuss strengths or limitations of the
research. However, if a study has strengths or limitations major enough to be
worthy of note, consider addressing them in the discussion.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PAPER

Too often, the significance of the results is not discussed or not discussed ade-
quately. If readers of the paper finds themselves asking “So what?” after read-
ing the discussion, the chances are that the authors became so engrossed with
84  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

the trees (the data) that they didn’t really notice how much sunshine had
appeared in the forest.
The discussion should end with a short summary or conclusion regarding
the significance of the work. We like the way Anderson and Thistle (1947) said
it: “Finally, good writing, like good music, has a fitting climax. Many a paper
loses much of its effect because the clear stream of the discussion ends in a
swampy delta.” Or, in the words of T. S. Eliot, many scientific papers end “Not
with a bang but a whimper.”

CONCLUSIONS
Some journals require or allow papers to end with a conclusions section rather
than providing conclusions at the end of the discussion. Such a section (or the
conclusion of a discussion) commonly consists of a single paragraph recapping
what was done, then what was found, and finally what the findings imply. Although
a conclusions paragraph appears last, some readers read it first. Whenever they
read it, they should easily come away with the paper’s take-home message.
Speaking of reading the conclusions first: In writing or revising your scien-
tific paper, be aware that, quite likely, the sections will be read in different
orders by different people or in different circumstances. (Have you ever jumped
straight to the methods section? Begun by looking at the tables and figures? Or
maybe started by skimming the discussion?) Each part should therefore be
clear in and of itself. Such clarity can require some redundancy from part to
part. But it can help greatly in communicating your research to readers—
which, after all, is why you are writing and publishing a scientific paper.

DEFINING SCIENTIFIC TRUTH

In showing the relationships among observed facts, you do not need to reach
cosmic conclusions. Seldom will you be able to illuminate the whole truth;
more often, the best you can do is shine a spotlight on one area of the truth.
Your one area of truth can be illuminated by your data; if you extrapolate to a
bigger picture than that shown by your data, you may appear foolish to the
point that even your data-supported conclusions are cast into doubt.
One of the more meaningful thoughts in poetry was expressed by Sir Rich-
ard Burton in The Kasidah:

All Faith is false, all Faith is true;

Truth is the shattered mirror strown
In myriad bits; while each believes
His little bit the whole to own.
 How to Write the Discussion  85

So exhibit your little piece of the mirror, or shine a spotlight on one area of
the truth. The “whole truth” is a subject best left to the ignoramuses, who
loudly proclaim its discovery every day.
When you describe the meaning of your little bit of truth, do it simply. The
simplest statements evoke the most wisdom; verbose language and fancy tech-
nical words are used to convey shallow thought.
CHAPTER 14

How to State the Acknowledgments

Life is not so short but that there is always time enough for courtesy.
—Ralph Waldo Emerson

INGREDIENTS OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The main text of a scientific paper is usually followed by two additional
sections—namely, the acknowledgments and the references.
As to the acknowledgments, two possible ingredients require consideration.
First, you should acknowledge any significant technical help you received
from individuals in your research group or elsewhere. These individuals may
include both fellow scientists (and scientists-in-training) and others who
helped with your research and its reporting—for example, librarians, statisti-
cians, and any editors who refined your paper before submission. (The listed
individuals, however, should be only those providing professional assistance.
Unlike in a thesis or book, you should not acknowledge the support of your
family, friends, or pets.) You should also acknowledge the source of special
equipment, cultures, or other materials.
Second, it is commonly in the acknowledgments that you should note any
outside financial assistance, such as grants, contracts, or fellowships. (In this
time of scarce funding, we can be especially appreciative of such support.)
An acknowledgments section might include, for example, a statement such
as “We thank J. Gomez for assistance with the experiments and R. Liao for
valuable discussion.” (Of course, most of us who have been around for a while
recognize that this is simply a thinly veiled way of admitting that Gomez did
the work and Liao explained what it meant.)

86
 How to State the Acknowledgments  87

(“Piled Higher and Deeper” by Jorge Cham. www.phdcomics.com)

BEING COURTEOUS
As well as providing transparency, acknowledgments show courtesy. There
isn’t anything really scientific about this section of a scientific paper. The same
rules that would apply in any other area of civilized life should apply here. If
you borrowed a neighbor’s lawn mower, you would (we hope) remember to
express thanks for it. If your neighbor gave you a really good idea for landscap-
ing your property and you then put that idea into effect, you would (we hope)
remember to say thank you. It is the same in science; if your neighbor (your
colleague) provided important ideas, important supplies, or important equip-
ment, you should thank him or her. And you must say thanks in print, because
that is how scientific landscaping is presented to its public.
88  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

A word of caution is in order. Before mentioning someone in an acknowl-

edgment, obtain permission to do so. Often, it is wise to show the proposed
wording to the person whose help you are acknowledging. State specifically
what is being acknowledged, lest the person seem to be endorsing the entire
paper.
We wish that the word wish would disappear from acknowledgments. Wish
is a perfectly good word when you mean wish, as in “I wish you success.” How-
ever, if you say, “I wish to thank John Jones,” you are wasting words. You may
also be introducing the implication that “I wish that I could thank John Jones
for his help, but it wasn’t all that helpful.” “I thank John Jones” is sufficient.
CHAPTER 15

How to Cite the References

Manuscripts containing innumerable references are more likely a sign of inse-

curity than a mark of scholarship.
—William C. Roberts

RULES TO FOLLOW
There are two rules to follow in the references section, just as in the acknowl-
edgments section.
First, list only, or almost only, significant published references. References
to unpublished data, abstracts, theses, and other secondary materials should
not clutter up the references or literature-cited section. If such a reference
seems essential, you may add it parenthetically or, in some journals, as a
footnote in the text. A paper that has been accepted for publication can be
listed in the literature cited, citing the name of the journal, followed by “in
press” or “forthcoming.” Increasingly, journals have been allowing preprints
to be cited. If, however, a published version of the paper exists, it should be
cited instead.
Second, ensure that all parts of every reference are accurate. Doing so may
entail checking every reference against the original publication before the
manuscript is submitted, and perhaps again at the proof stage. Take it from an
erstwhile librarian: There are far more mistakes in the references section of a
paper than anywhere else.
Authors sometimes ask whether they can cite their own work. The answer:
Yes, when relevant. Do not cite your own work, or that of friends and colleagues,
to inflate your or others’ citation counts or egos. However, if the work is

89
90  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

relevant, it should indeed be cited. A good guideline is as follows: If you would

cite the paper if it had other authors, cite it; otherwise, don’t. Whether to cite a
paper should be based on what the paper said, not who said it.
Don’t forget, as a final check, to ensure that all references cited in the text
are indeed listed in the literature cited, and that all references listed in the
literature cited are indeed cited somewhere in the text.

CHECKING AGAINST THE ORIGINAL

Some authors (certainly not you) may be tempted to state a fact referenced in
another paper and copy the bibliographic reference without looking at the
source originally cited. Beware of doing so. Sometimes authors have inaccu-
rately stated what the original source said. And sometimes references contain
errors. Thus, such copying has perpetuated errors in the literature. Obtain
the original source, check its content, and note the correct bibliographic
information.
What if the paper you want isn’t immediately accessible online? If you have
access to an academic or other library, it may well have the journal of interest.
Even if the library lacks the journal, quite likely it can obtain the wanted paper
through interlibrary loan. Some authors’ websites contain some of their
papers; ditto for online repositories at their institutions. Papers normally list
corresponding authors (remember those?); you generally can request from the
corresponding author a copy of the paper for personal scholarly use. Thus,
with a little perseverance, you can obtain almost any paper. If, despite your
best efforts, you still cannot obtain a paper you need, the safest tack is to iden-
tify the fact as “as cited in” and list in your references the source where you
found it.

ELECTRONIC AIDS TO CITATION

Checking that every reference is accurate and that all cited items appear in the
reference list has become much easier in the electronic era. Common word-
processing programs include features for tasks such as creating, numbering,
and formatting footnotes and endnotes. These features can aid in citing refer-
ences and developing reference lists. Some journals, however, say not to use
these features, which can interfere with their publishing process. Check the
journal’s instructions to authors in this regard.
Perhaps more notably, citation-management software programs such as
EndNote, RefWorks, and Zotero let a researcher develop a database of refer-
ences and use it to create reference lists in the formats of many journals.
 How to Cite the References  91

Rather than keying in the information for each reference, you may be able to
import it from bibliographic databases. Once the information is accurately
entered, it should remain correct whenever it appears in a reference. Do, how-
ever, still check references. Electronic gremlins sometimes lurk. So does
human error; if somehow you indicated the wrong reference, the wrong refer-
ence will appear.
If you are not using reference-management software, consider looking into
doing so. Using such software can save you time, especially if you will cite
some of the same references in multiple publications or if journals in your
field have a variety of reference styles. If you study or work at a university or
other research institution, you might easily be able to obtain such software
through it. Also, some reference-management software, such as Zotero, is
available for free. Conveniently, some university libraries provide instruction
in using reference-management software. Consider checking whether you
have access to such instruction.

CITATIONS IN THE TEXT

Many authors use slipshod methods in citing literature. A common offender
is the “handwaving reference,” in which the reader is glibly referred to “Smith’s
elegant contribution” without any hint of what Smith reported or how Smith’s
results relate to the present author’s results. If a reference is worth citing, the
reader should be told why.
Even worse is the nasty habit some authors have of insulting the authors of
previous studies. It is probably all right to say, “Smith (2015) did not study. . . .”
But it is not all right to say, “Smith (2015) totally overlooked, . . .,” “Smith
(2015) ignored, . . .,” or “Smith (2015) failed to. . . .”
Some authors get into the habit of putting all citations at the end of sen-
tences. This is wrong. The reference should be placed at that point in the
sentence to which it applies. Michaelson (1990, p. 92) gave this example:

We have examined a digital method of spread-spectrum modulation

for multiple-access satellite communication and for digital mobile
radiotelephony.1,2

Note how much clearer the citations become when the sentence is recast as
follows:

We have examined a digital method of spread-spectrum modulation for

use with Smith’s development of multiple-access communication1 and
with Brown’s technique of digital mobile radiotelephony.2
92  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

REFERENCE STYLES
Journals vary considerably in their style of handling references. O’Connor
(1978) looked at 52 scientific journals and found 33 different styles for listing
references. Some journals include article titles within references, and some do
not. Some insist on inclusive pagination (listing of the full page range),
whereas others print the numbers of first pages only.
If you use an electronic reference management system, and if that system
includes the styles of all the journals in which you might like to publish, you
might not need to concern yourself in detail with differences among reference
styles. In that case, perhaps just skim—or even skip—the sections of this
chapter that discuss formats for citing and listing references. If, however, you
might at least occasionally be preparing and citing references by traditional
means, we advise you to read these sections.
Whether electronically or otherwise, smart authors retain full information
about every item that might be cited. Then, in preparing a manuscript, they
have all the needed information. It is easy to edit out information; it is indeed
laborious to track down 20 or so references to add article titles or ending pages
when a journal editor requires you to do so. Even if you know that the journal
to which you plan to submit your manuscript uses a short form (no article
titles, for example), you would still be wise to establish your reference list in
the complete form. This is good practice because (1) the journal you selected
may reject your manuscript, and you may then decide to submit the manu-
script to another journal, perhaps one with more demanding requirements;
and (2) it is likely that you will use some of the same references again in later
research papers, review papers (and most review journals demand full refer-
ences), or books. When you submit a manuscript for publication, make sure
that the references are presented according to the instructions for authors. If
the references are radically different, the editor and referees may assume that
this is a sign of previous rejection or, at best, carelessness.
Although there is an almost infinite variety of reference styles, most jour-
nals cite references in one of three general ways: name and year, alphabet-
number, and citation order.

Name and Year System

The name and year system (sometimes called the Harvard system) has been
very popular for many years and is used by many journals and books, includ-
ing this book. Disciplines in which it is popular include the social sciences. Its
big advantage is convenience to the author. Because the references are unnum-
bered, references can be added or deleted easily. No matter how many times
 How to Cite the References  93

the reference list is modified, “Smith and Jones (2015)” remains exactly that.
If there are two or more “Smith and Jones (2015)” references, the problem is
easily handled by listing the first as “Smith and Jones (2015a),” the second as
“Smith and Jones (2015b),” and so on. The disadvantages of name and year
relate to readers and publishers. The disadvantage to readers occurs when
(often in the introduction) many references must be cited within one sentence
or paragraph. Sometimes readers must jump over several lines of parentheti-
cal references before being able to again pick up the text. Even two or three
references, cited together, can distract readers. The disadvantage to publishers
is increased cost. When “Higginbotham, Hernandez, and Chowdhary (2022)”
can be converted to “(7),” printing costs can be reduced.
Because some papers are written by an unwieldy number of authors, most
journals that use name and year have an “et al.” (meaning “and others”) rule.
Commonly, it works as follows: Names are always used in citing papers with
either one or two authors, such as “Smith (2015)” and “Smith and Jones
(2015).” If the paper has three authors, list all three the first time that the
paper is cited, such as “Smith, Jones, and Nguyen (2015).” If the same paper
is cited again, it can be shortened to “Smith et al. (2015).” When a cited paper
has four or more authors, it should be cited as “Smith et al. (2015)” even in the
first citation. In the references section itself, some journals prefer that all
authors be listed (no matter how many); other journals cite only the first three
authors and follow with “et al.”

Alphabet-Number System
This system, citation by number from an alphabetized list of references, is a
modification of the name and year system. Citation by numbers keeps print-
ing expenses within bounds; the alphabetized list is relatively easy for authors
to prepare and readers (including librarians) to use.
Some authors who have habitually used name and year tend to dislike the
alphabet-number system, claiming the citation of numbers cheats the reader.
The reader should be told, the argument goes, the name of the person associ-
ated with the phenomenon; sometimes, the reader should also be told the
date, on the grounds that a 1921 reference might be viewed differently than a
2021 reference.
Fortunately, these limitations can be overcome. As you cite references in the
text, decide whether names or dates are important. If they are not (as is usually
the case), use only the reference number: “Pretyrosine is quantitatively con-
verted to phenylalanine under these conditions (13).” If you want to feature the
name of the author, do it within the context of the sentence: “The role of the
carotid sinus in the regulation of respiration was discovered by Heymans (13).”
94  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

If you want to feature the date, you can also do that within the sentence: “Strep-
tomycin was first used in the treatment of tuberculosis in 1945 (13).”

Citation Order System

The citation order system simply involves citing the references (by number) in
the order in which they appear in the paper. This system avoids the substantial
printing expense of the name and year system, and readers often like it because
they can quickly refer to the references in one-two-three order as they come to
them in the text. It is a useful system for a journal that is basically a “note”
journal, each paper containing only a few references. For long papers, with
many references, the citation order system can have disadvantages. It a can be
burdensome for authors who do not use reference-management software, as
adding or deleting references may entail a substantial renumbering chore. It
might not be ideal for the reader either because the nonalphabetical presenta-
tion of the reference list may result in the separation of various references to
works by the same author.

Regardless of which citation system is used, readers of papers online can often
link from a citation to the full reference on the list, or even the full paper cited.
And authors using reference-management software can use various citation
systems with approximately equal ease. In this regard, the electronic age has
decreased the burden on authors and readers of scientific papers. And it has
diminished arguments in favor of one citation system or another.

TITLES AND INCLUSIVE PAGES

Should article titles be given in references? Normally, you must follow the
style of the journal; if the journal allows a choice (and some do), we recom-
mend that you give complete references. By denoting the overall subjects, the
article titles make it simple for interested readers (and librarians) to decide
whether they need to consult none, some, or all of the cited references.
The use of inclusive pagination (first and last page numbers) makes it easy
for potential users to distinguish between 1-page notes and 50-page review
articles. Users may wish to proceed differently depending on the number of
pages involved.
Even if a journal does not require titles and inclusive pages, note them. If the
journal decides not to publish your paper, a journal to which you later submit
your paper may require them. Also, you might later wish to cite the item again
when writing for a publication that does require titles, inclusive pages, or both.
 How to Cite the References  95

JOURNAL ABBREVIATIONS
Although journal styles vary widely, one aspect of reference citation has been
standardized: abbreviations of journal names. As the result of widespread
adoption of a standard (American National Standards Institute 1969), almost
all major journals and secondary services now use the same system of abbre-
viation. Previously, most journals abbreviated journal names (significant
printing expense can be avoided by abbreviation), but there was no uniformity.
The Journal of the American Chemical Society was variously abbreviated to
“J. Amer. Chem. Soc.,” “Jour. Am. Chem. Soc.,” “J.A.C.S.,” and so forth. These
differing systems posed problems for authors and publishers alike. Now there
is essentially only one system, and it is uniform. The word “Journal” is now
always abbreviated “J.” (Some journals omit the periods after the abbrevia-
tions.) By noting a few of these standard rules, authors can abbreviate many
journal titles, even unfamiliar ones, without referring to a source list. It is
helpful to know, for example, that all “ology” words are abbreviated at the “l.”
(“Bacteriology” is abbreviated “Bacteriol.,” “Physiology” is abbreviated
“Physiol.,” etc.) Thus, if one memorizes the abbreviations of words commonly
used in titles, most journal titles can be abbreviated with ease. An exception to
remember is that one-word titles (such as Science and Biochemistry) are never
abbreviated.
Appendix 1 lists the abbreviations for commonly used words in periodical
titles. If you are unsure how to abbreviate a journal title, you can often discern
the correct abbreviation from a listing in a bibliographic database, from infor-
mation in the journal, or from a previous citation of the journal. Abbreviations
for the titles of many journals in the biomedical sciences and related fields
can be obtained from the PubMed journals database (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
/nlmcatalog/journals).

SOME TRENDS IN REFERENCE FORMAT

Not all journals abbreviate journal titles in references. For example, American
Psychological Association (APA) style (Publication Manual of the American Psy-
chological Association 2020, p. 294) calls for stating periodical titles in full. More
generally, journals may increasingly be including full journal titles in refer-
ences. Earlier, when journals appeared only in print, publishers favored abbre-
viating journal titles because it saved valuable space, thus saving paper costs
or allowing more papers to be published. Today, with many journals appearing
mainly or solely online, the space saved may be less of a consideration than are
convenience to authors and clarity to readers. Writing out journal titles in full
may serve especially well in journals that publish interdisciplinary papers, and
96  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

thus have readers who might not understand the abbreviations of some words
in the titles of cited journals.
If a journal article has been published online, either exclusively or as well
as in print, the publisher quite likely has assigned it a digital object identifier
(DOI), which specifies a persistent link to its location on the internet. If an
article has a DOI, it commonly appears on the first page. Some reference for-
mats include providing the DOI, if one exists, at the end of the reference.
Additional information about DOIs is available at www.doi.org.

EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT REFERENCE STYLES

So that you can see at a glance the differences among the three main systems
of referencing, here are three sample references as they might appear in the
references section of a journal. (In some journals, references in these systems
will look somewhat different from those here because journals differ among
themselves in such aspects as how, if at all, they use italics and boldface in
references.)

Name and Year System

Bonetti P, Leuz C, and Michelon G. 2021. Large-sample evidence on the
impact of unconventional oil and gas development on surface waters.
Science 373:896–902.
Ingelfinger JR. 2021. Hematuria in adults. N. Engl. J. Med. 385:153–163.
Steen DA. 2019. Secrets of snakes: the science beyond the myths. Texas
A&M University Press.

Alphabet-Number System
1. Bonetti, P., Leuz, C., and Michelon, G. 2021. Large-sample evidence on
the impact of unconventional oil and gas development on surface waters.
Science 373:896–902.
2. Ingelfinger, J.R. 2021. Hematuria in adults. N. Engl. J. Med. 385:
153–163.
3. Steen, D.A. 2019. Secrets of snakes: the science beyond the myths. Texas
A&M University Press.

Citation Order System

1. Bonetti P, Leuz C, Michelon G. Large-sample evidence on the impact of
unconventional oil and gas development on surface waters. Science.
2021;373:896–902.
 How to Cite the References  97

2. Steen DA. Secrets of snakes: the science beyond the myths. Texas A&M
University Press, 2019.
3. Ingelfinger JR. Hematuria in adults. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:153–163.

In addition to its nonalphabetical arrangement of references, the citation

order system tends to differ from the others in its advocacy of eliminating
periods after abbreviations (of journal titles, for example) and commas after
authors’ surnames.

CITING ELECTRONIC MATERIAL

The internet contains more and more material appropriate for citation. In
particular, scientific papers commonly are appearing in electronic journals or
being posted online as well as appearing in print. The number of papers
posted on preprint servers has been burgeoning. In addition, some reports,
databases, and other items accessed online can be valid to cite.
Accordingly, formats have been developed, and are continuing to be devel-
oped, for citing electronic materials. These formats appear in recent editions of
style manuals and in the instructions to authors of some journals. If you wish to
cite electronic material, begin by consulting the instructions to authors of your
target journal. These instructions may show the formats to use or direct you to
a source of guidance in print or online. Also, you may find it useful to look in the
journal for examples of reference entries that list electronic materials.

ONE MORE REASON TO CITE CAREFULLY

Accurate citation is part of being a rigorous researcher. Whether you use
reference-management software or prepare references by other means, ensure
that the right reference is cited in the right place, all information in every cita-
tion is accurate, and content from the cited sources is accurately reported.
Such accuracy is important in ensuring that your paper is useful to readers.
And, on a very practical note, careful citation helps keep you from alienat-
ing those evaluating your paper. Commonly, some of the referees (peer review-
ers) chosen by editors are researchers whose work your paper cites. If your
reference section lists their writings inaccurately, or if your text misrepresents
their findings or conclusions, they might well question whether you are a care-
ful researcher.
So, take the same care with your references that you do with other aspects
of your work. The effort is likely to serve you well.
This page intentionally left blank
PART III

Preparing the Tables and Figures

This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 16

How to Design Effective Tables

A tabular presentation of data is often the heart or, better, the brain, of a
scientific paper.
—Peter Morgan

WHEN TO USE TABLES

Before proceeding to the “how to” of tables, let us first examine the question
of “whether to.”
As a rule, do not construct a table unless repetitive data must be presented.
There are two reasons for this general rule. First, it is simply not good science
to regurgitate reams of data just because you have them in your laboratory
notebooks; only samples and breakpoints need be given. Second, the cost of
publishing tables can be high compared with that of text, and all of us involved
with the generation and publication of scientific literature should worry about
costs.
If you made (or need to present) only a few determinations, give the data in
the text. Tables 16.1 and 16.2 are useless, and yet they are typical of many
tables that are submitted to journals.
Table 16.1 is faulty because two of the columns give standard conditions,
not variables and not data. If temperature is a variable in the experiments, it
can have its own column. If all experiments were done at the same tempera-
ture, however, this single bit of information should be noted in the materials
and methods section and perhaps as a footnote to the table, but not in a col-
umn in the table. The data presented in the table can be given in the text itself
in a form that is readily comprehensible to the reader without taking up space
with a table. Very simply, these results would read: “Aeration of the growth

101
102  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

­Table 16.1.  Effect of Aeration on Growth of Streptomyces coelicolor

Temp (°C) No. of Expts. Aeration of Growth Medium Growtha
24 5 +b 78
24 5 − 0
a
As determined by optical density (Klett unit).
b
Symbols: +, 500-ml Erlenmeyer flasks ­were aerated by having a gradu­ate students blow into the
bottles for 15 min out of each hour; −, identical test ­conditions, except that the aeration was
provided by an el­derly professor.

­Table 16.2.  Effect of Temperature on Growth of Oak (Quercus)

Seedlingsa
Temp (°C) Growth in 48 h (mm)
−50 0
−40 0
−30 0
−20 0
−10 0
0 0
10 0
20 7
30 8
40 1
50 0
60 0
70 0
80 0
90 0
100 0
a
Each individual seedling was maintained in an individual round pot, 10 cm in
dia­meter and 100 cm high, in a rich growth medium containing 50 percent
Michigan peat and 50 percent dried ­horse manure. Actually, it ­wasn’t
“50 percent Michigan”; the peat was 100 percent “Michigan,” all of it coming
from that state. And the manure ­wasn’t half-­dried (50 percent), it was all
dried. And, come to think about it, I should have said “50 percent dried
manure (horse)”; I ­didn’t dry the ­horse at all.
 How to Design Effective Tables  103

medium was essential for the growth of Streptomyces coelicolor. At room tem-
perature (24°C), no growth was evident in stationary (unaerated) cultures,
whereas substantial growth (OD, 78 Klett units) occurred in shaken cultures.”
Table 16.2 has no columns of identical readings, and it looks like a good
table. But is it? The independent variable column (temperature) looks reason-
able enough, but the dependent variable column (growth) has a suspicious
number of zeros. You should question any table with a large number of zeros
(whatever the unit of measurement) or a large number of 100s when percent-
ages are used. Table 16.2 is a useless table because all it tells us is that “The oak
seedlings grew at temperatures between 20°C and 40°C; no measurable growth
occurred at temperatures below 20°C or above 40°C.”
In addition to zeros and 100s, be suspicious of plus and minus signs.
Table 16.3 is of a type that often appears in print, although it is obviously not
very informative. All this table tells us is that “S. griseus, S. coelicolor, S. every-
color, and S. rainbowensky grew under aerobic conditions, whereas S. nocolor
and S. greenicus required anaerobic conditions.” Whenever a table, or columns
within a table, can be readily put into words, do it.
Some authors believe that all numerical data must be put in a table.
Table 16.4 is a sad example of this phenomenon. It gets sadder when we learn
(at the end of the footnote) that the results were not statistically significant

­Table 16.3.  Oxygen Requirement of Vari­ous Species of Streptomyces

Growth Under Growth Under anaerobic
Organism Aerobic Conditionsa Conditions
Streptomyces griseus + –­
Streptomyces coelicolor + –­
Streptomyces nocolor –­ +
Streptomyces everycolor + –­
Streptomyces greenicus –­ +
Streptomyces rainbowensky + –­
a
See T
­ able 16.1 for explanation of symbols. In this experiment, the cultures ­were aerated by a
shaking machine (New Brunswick Shaking Co., Scientific, NJ).

­Table 16.4.  Bacteriological Failure Rates

Nocillin K Penicillin
5/35 (14) a
9/34 (26)
a
Results expressed as number of failures/total, which is then
converted to a percentage (within parentheses). P = 0.21.
104  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

anyway (P = 0.21). If these data were worth publishing (which seems doubt-
ful), one sentence in the results would have done the job: “The difference
between the failure rates—14 percent (5 of 35) for nocillin and 26 percent (9 of
34) for potassium penicillin V—was not significant (P = 0.21).”
In presenting numbers, give only significant figures. Nonsignificant fig-
ures may mislead the reader by creating a false sense of precision; they also
make comparison of the data more difficult. Unessential data, such as labora-
tory numbers, results of simple calculations, and columns that show no sig-
nificant variations, should be omitted.
Another very common but often useless table is the word list. Such a list
might be suitable for a slide in a presentation, but it does not belong in a sci-
entific paper. Table 16.5 is an example. This information could easily be pre-
sented in the text. A good copy editor will kill this kind of table and incorporate
the data into the text. Yet, when copy editors do so (and this leads to the next
rule about tables), they often find that much or all of the information was
already in the text. Thus, the rule: Present the data in the text, or in a table, or
in a figure. Never present the same data in more than one way. Of course,
selected data from a table can be singled out for discussion in the text.
Tables 16.1 to 16.5 provide typical examples of the kinds of material that
should not be tabulated. Now let us look at material that should be tabulated.

HOW TO ARRANGE TABULAR MATERIAL

Having decided to tabulate, you ask yourself the question: “How do I arrange
the data?” Since a table has both left-right and up-down dimensions, you have
two choices: The data can be presented either horizontally or vertically. But can

­Table 16.5.  Adverse Effects of Nicklecillin in 24 Adult Patients

No. of Patients Side Effect
14 Diarrhea
5 Eosinophilia (≥5 eos/mm3)
2 Metallic tastea
1 Yeast vaginitisb
1 Mild rise in urea nitrogen
1 Hematuria (8–10 rbc/hpf)
a
Both of the patients who tasted metallic worked in a zinc mine.
b
The infecting organism was a rare strain of Candida albicans that ­causes
vaginitis in yeasts, but not in ­humans.
 How to Design Effective Tables  105

does not mean should; the data should be organized so that the like elements
read down, not across.
Examine Tables 16.6 and 16.7. They are equivalent, except that Table 16.6
reads across, whereas Table 16.7 reads down. Table 16.7 is the preferred for-
mat because it allows the reader to grasp the information more easily, and it is
more compact and thus less expensive to print. The point about ease for the
reader would seem to be obvious. (Did you ever try to add numbers that were
listed horizontally rather than vertically?) The point about reduced printing
costs refers to the fact that all columns must be wide or deep in the across
arrangement because of the diversity of elements, whereas some columns
(especially those with numbers) can be narrow without runovers in the down
arrangement. Thus, Table 16.7 appears to be smaller than Table 16.6, although
it contains the same information.
Words in a column are lined up on the left. Numbers are lined up on the
right (or on the decimal point). Table 16.7, for example, illustrates this point.

­Table 16.6.  Characteristics of Antibiotic-Producing Streptomyces

Determination S. fluoricolor S. griseus S. coelicolor S. nocolor
Optimal growth –10 24 28 92
temperature (°C)
Color of mycelium Tan Gray Red Purple
Antibiotic produced Fluoricillinmycin Streptomycin Rholmondelaya Nomycin
Yield of antibiotic 4,108 78 2 0
(mg/ml)
a
Pronounced “Rumley” by the British.

­Table 16.7.  Characteristics of Antibiotic-Producing Streptomyces

Optimal Growth Yield of
Temperature Color of Antibiotic Antibiotic
Organism (°C) Mycelium Produced (mg/ml)
S. fluoricolor –10 Tan Fluoricillinmycin 4,108
S. griseus 24 Gray Streptomycin 78
S. coelicolor 28 Red Rholmondelay a
2
S. nocolor 92 Purple Nomycin 0
a
Where the flying fishes play.
106  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Table 16.8 is an example of a well-constructed table. It reads down, not

across. Its title and headings are clear enough for readers to understand
the data without referring to the text. Items in the body of the table appear
in a logical order. The footnote provides supplementary information on
how the data were obtained rather than repeating excessive methodologi-
cal detail.

Table 16.8.  Hospitalizations and Total Charges for Neglected Tropical

Diseases and Malaria, United States, 2003–2012*
Hospitalizations Total Charges
US$,
millions
Disease No. (SE) 95% CI (SE) 95% CI
Cysticercosis 23,266 (778) 21,741–24,792 1,149 (56) 1,039–1,259
Malaria 14,319 (434) 13,469–15,169 387 (18) 351–423
Echinococcosis 3,919 (170) 3,586–4,252 206 (16) 174–237
Soil-transmitted 3,256 (151) 2,959–3,552 201 (19) 162–239
helminth-associated
infections
Dengue 2,644 (135) 2,379–2,909 89 (9) 70–107
Leprosy 2,055 (135) 1,791–2,319 94 (9) 76–111
Lymphatic filariasis 1,836 (106) 1,629–2,044 86 (9) 68–103
Schistosomiasis 1,811 (120) 1,576–2,046 101 (12) 78–125
Chagas disease 1,686 (151) 1,389–1,982 118 (17) 84–152
Leishmaniasis 1,022 (92) 841–1,203 52 (7) 38–66
Trachoma 649 (69) 514–784 20 (4) 13–28
Foodborne trematode- 610 (60) 492–729 41 (7) 28–54
associated infections
Onchocerciasis 380 (47) 287–473 29 (12) 5–53
Yaws 161 (28) 106–216 7 (2) 3–11

*National estimates were determined from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample by using diagnos-
tic codes from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification. A
complete list of ICD-9-CM codes used in this study is provided in the online Technical Appendix
(http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/EID/article/21/6/14-1324-Techapp1.pdf).

Source: O’Neal SE, Flecker RH. Hospitalization frequency and charges for neurocysticercosis,
United States, 2003–2012. Emerg. Infect. Dis.21:969-976, 2015. Available at wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid
/article/21/6/14-1324_article. Accessed August 27, 2015.
 How to Design Effective Tables  107

Note that these tables have three horizontal rules (lines) but no vertical
rules. Virtually all tables are constructed this way. Occasionally, straddle rules
(as below “Hospitalizations” and “Total charges” in Table 16.8) are used. Verti-
cal rules normally are not used in tables at all.

EXPONENTS IN TABLE HEADINGS

If possible, avoid using exponents in table headings. Confusion has resulted
because some journals use positive exponents and some use negative expo-
nents to mean the same thing. For example, some have used “cpm × 103” to
refer to thousands of counts per minute, whereas others have used “cpm ×
10−3” for the same thousands of counts. If it is not possible to avoid such labels
in table headings (or in figures), it may be worthwhile to state in a footnote (or
in the figure legend), in words that eliminate the ambiguity, what convention
is being used.

FOLLOWING THE JOURNAL’S INSTRUCTIONS

Instructions to authors commonly include a section about tables. Before pre-
paring your tables, check the instructions to authors of your target journal.
These instructions may indicate such items as the dimensions of the space
available, the symbols or form of lettering for indicating footnotes to tables,
and the electronic tools to use in preparing tables. Looking at tables in the
journal as examples also can aid in preparing suitable tables.
Style manuals in the sciences provide guidance in preparing not only text,
but also tables and figures. If your target journal specifies a style manual that
it follows, consult it in this regard. Even if the journal does not specify a style
manual, looking at one relevant to your field can aid considerably in preparing
effective tables and figures.
Traditionally, journals have asked authors to submit each table on a sepa-
rate page at the end of the text. In addition, some journals have said to identify
in the margin of the text the first mention of each table, for example, by writ-
ing “Table 3” and circling it. This procedure helps ensure that the author has
indeed cited each table in the text, in numerical order. It also indicates to the
compositor, at the page makeup stage, where to break the text to insert the
tables. Today, some journals ask authors to embed tables in the text near their
first mention. And some journals ask authors to submit tables as separate
files. To determine whether tables should be placed within the text, placed at
the end, or provided in separate files (and to determine how, if requested, to
indicate their placement), consult the instructions to authors.
108  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

TITLES, FOOTNOTES, AND ABBREVIATIONS

The title of the table (or the legend of a figure) is like the title of the paper
itself. That is, the title or legend should be concise and generally not divided
into two or more clauses or sentences. Unnecessary words should be omitted.
Give careful thought to the footnotes to your tables. If abbreviations must
be defined, you often can give all or most of the definitions in the first table.
Then, later tables can carry the simple footnote: “Abbreviations as in Table 1.”
Note that “temp” (Tables 16.1, 16.2, 16.6, and 16.7) is used as an abbrevia-
tion for “temperature.” Because of space limitations in tables, almost all jour-
nals encourage abbreviating certain words in tables that would not be
abbreviated in the text. Capitalize any such abbreviations used as the first word
in a column heading; do not use periods (except after “No.,” which might be
misread without the period). To identify abbreviations that your target journal
considers acceptable in tables, you can look at tables published in the journal.
Also, some journals list in their instructions to authors the abbreviations that
can be used without definition in tables that they publish.

ADDITIONAL TIPS ON TABLES

The following are some further tips to help ensure that you design and use
tables effectively.
Use wording that will be clear without reference to the text. For example, a
table should not just refer to “Group 1” and “Group 2.” Rather, it should iden-
tify each group by a more meaningful designation (examples: “High-Dose
Group” and “Low-Dose Group,” “REM Sleep Group” and “NREM Sleep
Group,” and “Graduate Students” and “Professors”).
If a paper includes a series of tables presenting analogous data, use an
analogous format for each. For example, if several tables compare the same
four groups from different standpoints, list the four groups in the same order
in each table. Or if different tables present data on the same variables at differ-
ent times, keep listing the variables in the same order. Such consistency saves
readers effort. (And it is easier for you, too.)
Finally, remember to mention every table in the text. Do so as soon as read-
ers are likely to want to see the table. You have gone to the effort of preparing
good tables. Be sure that readers can benefit fully from them.
CHAPTER 17

How to Prepare Effective Graphs

A good illustration can help the scientist to be heard when speaking, to be read
when writing. It can help in the sharing of information with other scientists.
It can help to convince granting agencies to fund the research. It can help in
the teaching of students. It can help to inform the public of the value of the
work.
—Mary Helen Briscoe

WHEN NOT TO USE GRAPHS

In chapter 16, we discussed certain types of data that should not be tabulated.
They should not be turned into graphs either. Basically, graphs are pictorial
tables.
The point is this: Certain types of data, particularly the sparse type or the
type that is monotonously repetitive, do not need to be brought together in
either a table or a graph. The facts are still the same: Preparing and printing
an illustration can be time-consuming and expensive, and you should con-
sider illustrating your data only if the result is a real service to the reader.
This point bears repeating because many authors, especially those who are
beginners, think that a table, graph, or chart somehow adds importance to the
data. Thus, in the search for credibility, they tend to convert a few data ele-
ments into what they think is an impressive-looking graph or table. Don’t do
it. Your more experienced peers and most journal editors will not be fooled;
they will soon deduce that (for example) three of the four curves in your graph
are simply the standard conditions and the meaning of the fourth curve could
have been stated in just a few words. Attempts to dress up scientific data are
usually doomed to failure.

109
110  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

If a proposed graph will contain only one curve, can you describe it in
words? Possibly only one value is really meaningful, either a maximum or a
minimum; the rest is window dressing. If you determined, for example, that
the optimum pH value for a particular reaction was 8.1, it would probably be
sufficient to state something like “Maximum yield was obtained at pH 8.1.” If
you determined that the maximum growth of an organism occurred at 37°C, a
simple statement to that effect is better economics (and better science) than a
graph showing the same thing.

Figure 17.1.  Incidence of hospital-acquired infections.

 How to Prepare Effective Graphs  111

If the choice is not graph versus text but graph versus table, your choice might
relate to whether you want to impart to readers exact numerical values or a picture
of the trend or shape of the data. Rarely, there might be a reason to present the
same data in both a table and a graph, the first presenting the exact values and
the second showing a trend not otherwise apparent. Most editors would resist
this obvious redundancy, however, unless the reason for it was compelling.
An example of an unneeded bar graph is shown in Figure 17.1. This figure
could be replaced by one sentence in the text: “Among the test group of 56 patients
who were hospitalized for an average of 14 days, 6 acquired infections.”
When is a graph justified? There are no clear rules, but let us examine
some indications for their effective use.

WHEN TO USE GRAPHS

Graphs resemble tables in that they are a means of presenting data in an orga-
nized way. In fact, the results of many experiments can be presented either as
tables or as graphs. How do we decide which is preferable? This is often a dif-
ficult decision. A good rule might be this: If the data show pronounced trends,
making an interesting picture, use a graph. If the numbers just sit there, with
no exciting trend in evidence, a table should be satisfactory (and perhaps eas-
ier and cheaper for you to prepare). Tables are also preferred for presenting
exact numbers.
Examine Table 17.1 and Figure 17.2, both of which record exactly the same
data. Either format would be acceptable for publication, but Figure 17.2 clearly
seems superior to Table 17.1. In the figure, the synergistic action of the two-
drug combination is immediately apparent. Thus, the reader can quickly grasp
the significance of the data. It also appears from the graph that streptomycin
is more effective than is isoniazid, although its action is somewhat slower; this
aspect of the results is not readily apparent from the table.

­Table 17.1. Effect of Streptomycin, Isoniazid, and Streptomycin Plus

Isoniazid on Mycobacterium tuberculosisa
Percentage of Negative Cultures at
Treatment b
2 weeks 4 weeks 6 weeks 8 weeks
Streptomycin 5 10 15 20
Isoniazid 8 12 15 15
Streptomycin + Isoniazid 30 60 80 100

The patient population, now somewhat less so, was described in a preceding paper (61).
a

Highest quality available from our supplier (Town Pharmacy, Podunk, IA).
b
112  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Figure 17.2.  Effect of streptomycin (), isoniazid (), and streptomycin plus isoniazid () on
Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

HOW TO PREPARE GRAPHS

Early editions of this book included rather precise directions for using graph
paper, India ink, lettering sets, and the like. Graphs had been prepared with
these materials and using these techniques for generations.
Today, though, we prepare graphs by computer. However, the principles
of producing good graphs have not changed. The sizes of the letters and
 How to Prepare Effective Graphs  113

symbols, for example, must be chosen so that the final published graph in the
journal is clear and readable.
The size of the lettering must be based on the anticipated reduction that
will occur in the publishing process. This factor can be especially important if
you are combining two or more graphs into a single illustration. Remember:
Text that is easy to read on a large computer screen may become illegible when
reduced to the width of a journal column. If you are preparing a graph on a
computer, reduce it to the size at which you would expect it to appear in the
journal (or the size at which you would expect readers to read it on a small
screen), and make sure that it still is legible.
Each graph should be as simple as possible. “The most common disaster in
illustrating is to include too much information in one figure. Too much infor-
mation in an illustration confuses and discourages the viewer” (Briscoe 1996,
p. 6).
Figure 17.3 is a nice graph. The lettering is large enough to read easily. It is
boxed, rather than two-sided (compare with Figure 17.2), making it a bit easier
to estimate the values on the right side of the graph. The scribe marks point
inward rather than outward.
If your paper contains two or more graphs that are most meaningful when
viewed together, consider grouping them in a single illustration. To maximize
readability, place the graphs above and below each other rather than side by side.
For example, in a two-column journal, placing three graphs in an “above and
below” arrangement allows each graph to be one or two columns in width. If the
graphs appear side by side, each can average only one third of a page wide.
Whether or not you group graphs in such a composite arrangement, be
consistent from graph to graph. For example, if you are comparing interven-
tions, keep using the same symbol for the same intervention. Also, be consis-
tent in other aspects of design. Both conceptually and aesthetically, the graphs
in your paper should function as a set.
Do not extend the axes (or the explanatory wording) beyond what the graph
demands. For example, if your data points range between 0 and 78, your top-
most index number should be 80. You might feel a tendency to extend the
graph to 100, a nice round number; this urge is especially difficult to resist if
the data points are percentages, for which the natural range is 0 to 100. Resist
this urge, however. If you do not, parts of your graph will be empty; worse, the
live part of your graph will then be restricted in dimension because you have
wasted perhaps 20 percent or more of the width (or height) with white space.
In the preceding example (data points ranging from 0 to 78), your reference
numbers should be 0, 20, 40, 60, and 80. You should use short index lines at
each of these numbers, and also at the intermediate 10s (10, 30, 50, 70). Obvi-
ously, a reference stub line halfway between 0 and 20 could only be 10. Thus,
you need not label the 10s, and you can then use larger lettering for the 20s,
114  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Figure 17.3.  Effect of spermidine on the transformation of B. subtilis BR 151. Competent cells
were incubated for 40 min with spermidine prior to the addition of 5 μg of donor DNA per ml ()
or 0.5 μg of donor DNA per ml (). DNA samples of 5 μg () or 0.5 μg per ml (∆) were incubated
for 20 min prior to the addition of cells. (Redrawn from Fig. 1 in Clark PO and Leach FR. Stimulation
of Bacillus subtilis transformation by spermidine. Mol. Gen. Genet. 178:21–25, 1980. © by
Springer-Verlag 1980. With permission of Springer.)

without squeezing. By using such techniques, you can make graphs simple
and effective instead of cluttered and confusing.

SYMBOLS AND LEGENDS

If there is space in the graph itself, use it to present the key to the symbols. In
the bar graph in Figure 17.1, the shadings of the bars would have been a bit
difficult to define in the legend; given as a key, they need no further definition
(and any additional typesetting, proofreading, and expense are avoided).
If you must define the symbols in the figure legend, you should use only
symbols that are considered standard and are widely available. Perhaps the
 How to Prepare Effective Graphs  115

most standard symbols are open and closed circles, triangles, and squares
(, , , , , ). If you have just one curve, use open circles for the reference
points; use open triangles for the second, open squares for the third, closed
circles for the fourth, and so on. If you need more symbols, you probably have
too many curves for one graph, and you should consider putting some of the
curves in one graph and the rest in another. Different types of connecting lines
(solid, dashed, etc.) can also be used. But do not use different types of connect-
ing lines and different symbols.
As to the legends, they should normally be provided on a separate page, not
at the bottom or top of the illustrations themselves. The main reason is that
the two portions commonly are processed separately during journal produc-
tion. Consult the instructions to authors of your target journal regarding this
matter and other requirements for graphs.

A FEW MORE TIPS ON GRAPHS

Design graphs, like tables, to be understandable without the text. For example,
use meaningful designations (not just numbers) to identify groups. And refer
to each graph as soon as readers are likely to want to see it. Do not leave read-
ers trying to visualize your findings by sketching them on a napkin—only to
find that a graph is displaying them three pages later.
Use graphs that depict your findings fairly and accurately. For example, do
not adapt the scales on the axes to make your findings seem more striking
than they are. With rare exceptions, avoid beginning a scale at anything other
than zero. And if you interrupt a scale line to condense a graph, make the
interruption obvious. Also, if the standard deviation is the appropriate way to
show the variability in your data, do not substitute the standard error of the
mean, which might make the data seem more consistent than they are. In
general, avoid using pie charts, which can be confusing and are not consid-
ered very suitable for scientific papers. Also, unless you are presenting three-
dimensional data, do not use three-dimensional graphs.
Note that some journals (mainly the larger and wealthier ones) redraw
graphs and some other types of figures to suit their own format. Whether or
not a journal will do so, prepare your graphs well. Doing so will help make your
findings and their value clear and show the care with which you do your work.

BEYOND GRAPHS
Many journal articles include illustrations other than graphs. For example,
they may have diagrams, flowcharts, or maps. In some fields (for example,
descriptive biology), line drawings are superior to photographs in showing
important details. Such illustrations are also common in medicine, especially
116  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

in presenting anatomic views, and indeed these have become virtually an art
form. Some scientists prepare such graphics themselves, while others enlist
professionals such as scientific illustrators, medical illustrators, or cartogra-
phers.
The specifics of preparing such graphics exceed the scope of this chapter.
However, the principles of preparing good scientific graphics are much the
same as those of preparing good scientific text: Know your audience and the
conventions in your field. Obtain and follow your target journal’s instructions.
Follow good models. Organize the item well. Define the point that you want to
make, and focus on communicating it. Minimize clutter. Revise your work.
Get feedback and revise some more. And always keep learning.

SOURCES OFFERING FURTHER ASSISTANCE

Various resources can aid in learning to prepare—and in preparing—graphs
and other scientific graphics. Some style manuals, such as the AMA Manual
of Style (Christiansen et al. 2020) and the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (2020), have extensive sections on tables and figures,
including examples of well-designed figures of various types. The Clinical
Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing (www.aacc.org/science-and-research
/clinical-chemistry/clinical-chemistry%C2%A0guide-to-scientific-writing)
contains excellent articles (Annesley 2010a, Annesley 2010b) on the basics of
preparing good graphs. Other articles (for example, Rougier, Droettboom, and
Bourne 2014) also provide helpful guidance in this regard.
Some style manuals (such as American Psychological Association 2020 and
Banik et al. 2020) include advice on creating color visuals that colorblind indi-
viduals can follow. A piece by Collinge (2017) on this topic includes a list of
color combinations to avoid. It also includes the following advice: In addition
to colors, use symbols to distinguish items. For example, if different lines on
a graph are different colors, also make the data points on them different
shapes. Similarly, use not only colors but also patterns to distinguish bars on
a bar graph. Also, to minimize confusion, use only a few colors.
Professional designers commonly keep “swipe files,” which are collections
of examples to consider emulating. Likewise, if you encounter a well-designed
table or figure presenting work akin to yours, consider keeping a copy to con-
sult. Also consider, where permitted for free or affordably, literally swiping
elements to use. Sources of free-to-use images include the Noun Project (the-
nounproject.com) and the Servier Medical Art collection (smart.servier.com).
For biological scientists wanting to create scientific illustrations, the commer-
cial resource BioRender contains icons and templates and includes tutorials
 How to Prepare Effective Graphs  117

on how to use them. Somewhat similarly, ScienceDraw includes images and

templates to use in creating illustrations in a variety of sciences.
For scientists seeking professional illustrations (or consultation in prepar-
ing their own illustrations), many universities and other research-oriented
institutions have scientific illustrators or other professionals specializing in
visual communication of science. In addition, such illustrators can be identi-
fied through degree programs in scientific or medical illustration and through
organizations such as the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators and the Asso-
ciation of Medical Illustrators.
With the resources available and your own resourcefulness, you can pre-
pare graphs and other illustrations that effectively communicate your science.
CHAPTER 18

How to Prepare Effective Photographs

Life is not about significant details, fixed in a flash, fixed forever. Photographs are.
—Susan Sontag

PHOTOGRAPHS AND MICROGRAPHS

If your paper is to be illustrated with one or more photographs, there are sev-
eral factors to keep in mind.
The most important factor to worry about is the value of the photographs for
the story you are presenting. The value can range from essentially zero (in
which case, like useless tables and graphs, they should not be submitted) to a
value that transcends that of the text itself. In many studies of cell ultrastruc-
ture, for example, the significance of the paper lies in the photographs. If pho-
tographs (such as electron micrographs) are of prime importance to your story
and you are publishing in a journal with a print version, ensure that the journal
you choose has high-quality reproduction standards, as discussed in Chapter 6.
As with graphs, the size (especially the width) of the photograph in relation
to the column and page width of the journal can be important. Try to avoid
dimensions that will require excessive reduction of the photograph to suit the
journal page.

SUBMISSION FORMATS
Today, journals normally request photographs in electronic format. To ascer-
tain requirements for photographs, see the instructions to authors for your
target journal. For example, check what formats (such as EPS, JPEG, or TIFF)

118
 How to Prepare Effective Photographs  119

are acceptable and what resolution is required. As indicated in Chapter 5, care

must be taken to avoid making unwarranted changes to digital images, includ-
ing photographs. Sources of guidance on using digital images ethically include
Cromey (2010, 2012). Authors should be aware that journals watch for inap-
propriately manipulated images and sometimes use software to detect them.

CROPPING AND COMBINING

Whatever the quality of your photographs, you want to have them published
legibly. To some degree, you can control this process yourself.
If you are concerned that detail might be lost by excessive reduction, there
are several ways you might avoid this. Seldom do you need the whole photo-
graph, right out to all four edges. Therefore, crop the photograph to include
only the important part. Figures 18.1 and 18.2 show photographs with and
without cropping.
Composite images consisting of two or more photographs, or of photo-
graphs and other elements such as graphs, also can aid in conveying one’s
message. If, for example, readers should compare photographs, consider this
option. Do not, however, prepare composites merely to evade a journal’s limit
on number of figures. Images should be combined only if substantive reason
exists to do so. Advice on designing composite figures, as well as on many
other aspects of using photographs and related images, appears in the exten-
sively illustrated article “Creating Clear and Informative Image-Based Figures
for Scientific Publications” (Jambor et al. 2021).

NECESSARY KEYS AND GUIDES

If you can’t crop down to the features of special interest, consider superimpos-
ing arrows or letters on the photographs, as shown in Figure 18.3. In this way,
you can draw the reader’s attention to the significant features. Having arrows
or letters to refer to can aid in writing clear, concise legends.
Unless your journal requests that photographs and other illustrations be
embedded in the text, it is a good idea to indicate the preferred location for
each illustration. In this way, you will be sure that all illustrations have been
referred to in the text, in one-two-three order, and the designer will know how
to weave the illustrations into the text so that each one is close to the text
related to it.
With electron micrographs, put a micrometer marker directly on the micro-
graph. In this way, regardless of any reduction (or even enlargement) in the
printing process, the magnification factor is clearly evident. The practice of
120  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Figure  18.1.  Uncropped (top) and cropped versions of a photograph. (Courtesy of Media
Resources, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University)
 How to Prepare Effective Photographs  121

Figure 18.2.  Uncropped (top) and cropped versions of a photograph. In this case, publication of both
versions may be warranted, to both show the tumor in context and display detail. (Courtesy of Media
Resources, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University)

putting the magnification in the legend (for example, × 50,000) is not advis-
able, and some journals no longer allow it, precisely because the size (and thus
magnification) is likely to change in printing. And, usually, the author forgets
to change the magnification at the proof stage.
In other photographs where the size of the object is important, likewise
include a scale bar. Sometimes showing a familiar object, such as a paper clip,
122  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Figure 18.3.  An example of adding arrows to direct readers’ attention to structures of interest.

(Courtesy of Media Resources, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas
A&M University)
 How to Prepare Effective Photographs  123

near the object can help readers discern an object’s size. Remember, though,
that some objects (such as coins of given denominations) that are familiar to
readers in one country might be unfamiliar to readers elsewhere.

COLOR
Until fairly recently, journals seldom published color photographs and other
color illustrations, because of the high cost of printing them. Today, however,
color printing has become more affordable. And for articles online, color does
not increase cost at all. Thus, more color illustrations are appearing, and the
use of color has become relatively common in some fields and journals. If you
have the option of including color, consider whether doing so will improve
your scientific paper. Would color help to tell your story? Or would it be merely
decorative, or even distracting? Have you made sure, as discussed near the
end of chapter 17, that readers who are colorblind would be able to understand
the images?
If you are considering using color, see the instructions to authors of your
target journal for specifications regarding color illustrations and for informa-
tion on any charges for color. If color illustrations are to appear in print,
authors commonly must pay a fee. Some journals, however, do not charge for
color. For example, the author guidelines for American Chemical Society jour-
nals state: “Color may be used to enhance the clarity of complex structures,
figures, spectra, and schemes, etc., and color reproduction of graphics is pro-
vided at no cost to the author.”
This page intentionally left blank
PART IV

Publishing the Paper

This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 19

Rights and Permissions

Take away from English authors their copyrights, and you would very soon
take away from England her authors.
—Anthony Trollope

WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
Before you submit your paper to a journal, you should be aware of two items
regarding copyright. First, if your paper includes illustrations or other materi-
als that have been published elsewhere, you will need permission to republish
them unless you hold the copyright or they are in the public domain. Second,
you may need to transfer the copyright for your paper to the journal (or, for
some journals, transfer limited rights while retaining copyright). The copy-
right information in this chapter focuses mainly on U.S. copyright laws. How-
ever, international agreements have provided considerable consistency among
countries in this regard. Information on such agreements can be accessed
online (for example, U.S. Copyright Office n.d.). Likewise, information on
copyright policies of individual countries can be accessed online.
Copyright is the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the mat-
ter and form of a literary or artistic work. (Here, “literary and artistic” is broadly
defined to include scientific papers.) Copyright protects original forms of
expression, but not the ideas being expressed. The data you are presenting are
not protected by copyright; however, the collection of the data and the way you
have presented them are protected. You own the copyright of a paper you
wrote for the length of your life plus 70 years, so long as it was not done for an
employer or commissioned as work for hire. If you have collaborated on the
work, each person is a co-owner of the copyright, with equal rights.

127
128  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Copyright is divisible. The owner of the copyright may, for example, grant
one person a nonexclusive right to reproduce the work and another the right
to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work. Copyright can also
be transferred. Transfers of the copyright must be made in writing by the
owner. If you wish to copy, reprint, or republish all or portions of a copyrighted
work that you do not own, you must get permission from the copyright owner.
If you, as an author, have transferred the complete copyright of your work to a
publisher, you must obtain permission for use of your own material from the
publisher.
Fair use of copyrighted material, according to the 1976 Copyright Act, allows
you to copy and distribute small sections of a copyrighted work. In keeping
with guidance from the U.S. Copyright Office (2021), it also can permit mak-
ing or providing some copies for purposes such as “teaching, scholarship, and
research.” It does not allow you to republish complete articles without permis-
sion, whether for profit or otherwise.

COPYRIGHT OF UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

Copyright automatically begins the moment a work is created; it goes into
effect the instant the pen leaves the paper or the fingers leave the keyboard. If
you write a paper, design a figure, create a slide set, or the like, the copyright
remains yours unless you transfer it to someone else.
Accordingly, if you post your materials on your website or share them in
your institutional repository, they are already copyrighted. Ditto if you post
your unpublished article in a preprint server. Journals vary as to whether they
want materials that already have been posted. But the issue is separate from
copyright.

CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSES

An increasingly popular alternative to transferring copyright has been to pro-
vide a Creative Commons license. Under this type of license, authors retain
copyright but permit the sharing of a given item, such as a scientific paper, so
long as the source is identified. As well as allowing sharing, the license indi-
cates the conditions under which the item can be shared—for example,
whether adaptations are allowed and whether commercial uses are permitted.
Creative Commons licenses can readily be generated via the Creative Com-
mons website (creativecommons.org). Some journals now obtain Creative
Commons licenses rather than copyright transfer. For the most current and
 Rights and Permissions  129

complete information about a journal’s copyright policies, consult the jour-

nal’s website.
One can also search the Creative Commons website for images available
under Creative Commons licenses. If you are seeking freely usable images,
creativecommons.org can be a place to look.

OBTAINING PERMISSIONS
If you want your work to include an image or other item for which you do not
hold copyright and that is not available through means such as a Creative
Commons license, you will need to obtain permission from the copyright
holder. In some instances, you also must pay a permissions fee. For example,
we followed such procedures regarding cartoons for this book. We would not
want to make unauthorized use of others’ work. Nor do we wish to deprive
cartoonists of their livelihoods.
Obtaining permissions is often straightforward. Websites of many journal
publishers include sections for seeking permissions. Also, permissions for
materials from many journals and other sources can be obtained online
through the Copyright Clearance Center (www.copyright.com). When neither
option exists, contact the publisher or the creator of the item to identify the
copyright holder and find out how to proceed.
If you republish an image or other material from elsewhere, you generally
must include a credit line, such as “Reprinted with permission from (journal
or book reference); copyright (year) by (owner of copyright).” Commonly, the
copyright holder will specify the wording of the credit line. If not, the venue in
which you are republishing the item may provide guidance in this regard.
Some style manuals also provide such guidance, and looking at examples of
credit lines in your target journal can clarify expectations as well.
CHAPTER 20

How to Submit the Manuscript

Great journals are born in the hands of the editors; they die in the hands of
businessmen.
—Bernard DeVoto

CHECKING YOUR MANUSCRIPT

Before submitting your manuscript, review the instructions to authors from
the journal. If the journal provides a manuscript-submission checklist,
remember to use it. Make sure that you have followed all the instructions. If a
manuscript deviates substantially from what is required, it may be returned
for correction of the problems before it even undergoes review on its merits.
Unless the journal (or the style manual that it says to use) instructs other-
wise, follow these guidelines:

• Double-space.
• Use margins of at least 1 inch (at least about 25 mm).
• Left-justify the text; leave a “ragged” right margin.
• Start each section of the manuscript on a new page. The title and authors’
names and addresses are usually on the first page, which should be num-
bered 1. The abstract is on the second page. The introduction starts on
the third page, and each succeeding section (materials and methods,
results, etc.) then starts on a fresh page. Figure legends are grouped on a
separate page. Traditionally, the tables, figures, and figure legends have
been assembled at the back of the manuscript. Currently, though, some
journals ask authors to insert them in the text or to provide them as sepa-
rate files.

130
 How to Submit the Manuscript  131

Grammar-checking and spell-checking software can help, but you should

not rely on them too heavily. Grammar checkers can alert you to possible
problems in grammar and style. But given their limitations, you should
accept their suggestions only if you confirm that they are correct. Almost all
spell-checkers provide for the creation of custom dictionaries—for example,
for scientific terms and unusual words; also, some specialized spell-checkers
are commercially available. Spell-checkers recognize definite misspellings,
but not those typographical errors that result in a word that exists but is
wrong (for example, as occurs embarrassingly often, pubic instead of public).
Thus, proofreading is still necessary to make sure that the correct word has
been used and to detect errors such as missing words. In addition to proof-
reading the manuscript yourself, try to have someone do so who has not seen
the manuscript before and therefore may notice problems that you miss.
Consider also reading the manuscript aloud, as doing so can aid in noticing
difficulties.

SUBMITTING YOUR MANUSCRIPT

For most of the history of scientific publication, researchers submitted their
papers by mail. Yes, physical mail. Yes, the postal service, not email. In fact,
early editions of this book advised readers on how to package a manuscript for
mailing and what class of mail to use. Today, if a journal asks you to submit a
hard copy of your manuscript by post, take a clue: The journal probably still is
still stuck in the last century—which presumably is not where you want the
output of your new research to be.
Today, journals commonly have online submission systems through which
authors must submit their manuscripts. Journals that are small or are not
associated with major publishers sometimes request manuscripts simply as
email attachments. Over the years, online systems for electronic submission
have become relatively easy to use. And conveniently, they can allow authors
to track the progress of their papers as they head toward publication. For guid-
ance on how to submit your manuscript, consult the journal’s instructions to
authors and look at the journal’s website.

THE COVER LETTER

Finally, you should submit a cover letter with the manuscript (or provide
equivalent information if an online submission system prompts you to do so).
This letter, which is from the corresponding author, provides context for con-
sidering your paper. Most basically, it identifies the title of the article, the
132  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

(PEANUTS © 1975 Peanuts Worldwide LLC. Dist. By ANDREWS MCMEEL

SYNDICATION. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.)

authors, and the journal to which the paper is being submitted. It may also
identify the type of submission (for example, scientific paper or review article)
and, if applicable, indicate the intended subject-matter section of the journal.
Commonly, the letter must attest that the work is original and that the manu-
script is not being considered by other journals. (Whereas one may apply to
multiple graduate schools for admission and accept the best offer, standard
practice is to submit a paper to one journal at a time. If the paper is not
accepted, it can then be submitted to another journal.)
The letter also may attest that all the listed authors qualify to be listed and
that no one meeting the criteria for authors was excluded. In addition, it may
indicate whether the authors have conflicts of interest and, if so, what these
 How to Submit the Manuscript  133

conflicts are. If some content of the paper has appeared previously (for exam-
ple, in a conference abstract), the cover letter typically should state that. The
letter also may do other things, such as mention a photograph or other image
in the paper that may be well suited to appear on the cover of the journal.
Sometimes cover letters also suggest potential peer reviewers of the paper—
or identify individuals whom the authors do not want as peer reviewers. Sug-
gested reviewers should be scientists who can review the paper knowledgeably
and without bias. They should not be people with conflicts of interest (for
example, colleagues at the authors’ institution or mentors, close friends, or
family members of the authors). They can, however—as may be inevitable in
small fields—be people whom the authors have met at conferences or other-
wise know casually. Only if serious reason exists to believe that someone will
be biased or otherwise unsuitable should a request be made to exclude a
potential reviewer. Such a request may be made if, for example, someone in
the authors’ research area has had a major professional conflict with an author,
is suspected of unscrupulous behavior, or is a spouse—or former spouse—of
an author. Suggestions regarding reviewers are simply that: suggestions. The
journal may follow them or not; commonly, they may use some reviewers sug-
gested by authors plus some other reviewers. Journals often appreciate, and
sometimes request or require, names and contact information of potential
reviewers.
Explaining why the paper is believed to merit publication in the journal can
also be useful in the cover letter. Doing so may be especially helpful if the rel-
evance of the subject matter to the journal or the novelty or value of the
research may not be immediately apparent. It also may be especially valuable
if the journal is of broad scope, in which case the editor who first sees the
paper might not be very familiar with the research topic and so might not
readily recognize the importance of the contribution.
Some journals’ instructions to authors include guidance on what to include
in the cover letter. If so, of course proceed accordingly.

SAMPLE COVER LETTER

This is a model of a brief, simple cover letter:

Dear Dr. ________:

Accompanying this letter is a manuscript by Mary Q. Smith and Adam B.
Appiah titled “Fatty Acid Metabolism in Cedecia neteri,” which is being sub-
mitted for possible publication in the “Physiology and Metabolism” section
of the Journal of Bacteriology.
134  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

This manuscript is new, is not being considered elsewhere, and reports

new findings that extend results we reported earlier in the Journal of Bio-
logical Chemistry (284:112–117, 2020). An abstract of this manuscript was
presented earlier (Abstr. Annu. Meet. Am. Soc. Microbiol., p. 406, 2021).
Sincerely,
Mary Q. Smith

A more extensive example appears at journals.lww.com/greenjournal

/Documents/SampleCoverLetter.pdf. You may find this letter, which intro-
duces the (fictional) paper “Primary Cesarean Delivery Among Pandas,” both
instructive and amusing.

ELECTRONIC COVER LETTERS

If you are submitting your manuscript electronically, the manuscript-
submission website may supply a mechanism for providing your cover letter.
Alternatively, it may prompt you for the information the journal wants to
receive, thus automatically generating a cover letter or the equivalent. This
electronic option saves you the trouble of composing a letter and helps ensure
that the journal receives the information it requires.

CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT
Most journals send out an acknowledgment of receipt by email or other means
when the manuscript is received, or they have a mechanism by which authors
check the journal website to see whether submission is complete. Indeed,
many journals now have online means by which authors can track the prog-
ress of their manuscripts from receipt, through review, to publication. If you
do not receive acknowledgment within 2 weeks (or less for electronically sub-
mitted manuscripts), call or write to the editorial office to verify that your man-
uscript was indeed received. We know of one author whose manuscript was
lost in transit, and not until 9 months later was the problem brought to light
by his meek inquiry as to whether the reviewers had reached a decision about
his manuscript. Do be sure that your manuscript was received.
CHAPTER 21
The Review Process
(How to Deal with Editors)

Many editors see themselves as gifted sculptors, attempting to turn a block of

marble into a lovely statue, and writers as crude chisels. In actual fact, the
writers are the statues, and the editors are pigeons.
—Doug Robarchek

FUNCTIONS OF EDITORS, MANAGING EDITORS,

AND MANUSCRIPT EDITORS
Editors and managing editors have impossible jobs. What makes their work
impossible is the attitude of some authors. This attitude was well expressed by
Earl H. Wood of the Mayo Clinic in his contribution to a panel on the subject
“What the Author Expects from the Editor.” Dr. Wood said, “I expect the editor
to accept all my papers, accept them as they are submitted, and publish them
promptly. I also expect him to scrutinize all other papers with utmost care,
especially those of my competitors.”
Somebody once said, “Editors are, in my opinion, a low form of life—
inferior to the viruses and only slightly above academic deans.”
Returning to the first sentence in this chapter, let us distinguish between
editors and managing editors. Authors should know the difference, if for no
other reason than knowing to whom to complain when things go wrong.
An editor (some journals have several) decides whether to accept or reject
manuscripts. Thus, the editor of a scientific journal is a scientist, often of pre-
eminent standing. Editors not only make the final “accept” and “reject” deci-
sions, but they also designate the peer reviewers upon whom they rely for
advice. When you have reason to object to the quality of the reviews of your
paper (or the decision reached), your complaint should be directed to the

135
136  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

(PEANUTS © 1974 Peanuts Worldwide LLC. Dist. By ANDREWS MCMEEL

SYNDICATION. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.)

editor. (Adlai Stevenson joked that the role of the editor is to separate the
wheat from the chaff and then make sure that the chaff gets printed.)
Especially at larger journals, there may be several such editors. For exam-
ple, there may be an editor-in-chief (the top editor, in charge of overall journal
content), a second in command known as a deputy editor, and a few associate
or assistant editors. Sometimes different associate or assistant editors oversee
the review of papers in different subject areas covered by the journal. Collec-
tively, the editor-in-chief and other editors involved in evaluating and choosing
papers sometimes are called scientific editors.
The managing editor is normally a full-time paid professional, whereas edi-
tors commonly are unpaid volunteer scientists. (A few large scientific and
medical journals do have full-time paid editors. Some other journals, espe-
cially those that are in medical fields or are published commercially, pay sala-
ries to their part-time editors.) Normally, managing editors are not directly
involved with the accept-or-reject decisions. Instead, they attempt to relieve
the editor of all the clerical and administrative details of the review process,
 The Review Process (How to Deal with Editors)  137

and they are responsible for the later events that convert accepted manuscripts
into published papers. Thus, when problems occur at the proof and publica-
tion stages, you should communicate with the managing editor.
In short, preacceptance problems are normally within the province of the
editor, whereas postacceptance problems are within the bailiwick of the man-
aging editor. However, managing editors have observed that there seems to be
one fundamental law that everybody subscribes to: “Whenever anything goes
wrong, blame the managing editor.”
Another editor you may encounter once your paper is accepted is a manu-
script editor, also known as a copy editor. This individual may be a staff member
working at the journal office or publishing company or a freelance contractor
working at home in pajamas. A manuscript editor edits your paper for consis-
tency with the journal’s style and format. In addition, manuscript editors cor-
rect errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and usage. At some journals,
they also work to improve expression in other ways, such as by making the
wording clearer and more concise. If manuscript editors have questions (for
instance, about inconsistencies between numbers in a table and in the text),
they will ask the author for clarification by submitting what are called queries.
View the manuscript editor as an ally in communicating your research to your
readers and presenting yourself well to your professional community. Or, as
one author told a manuscript editor, “Until I saw your edited version of my
paper, I didn’t realize how brilliant I was.”

THE REVIEW PROCESS

You, as an author, should have some idea of the whys and wherefores of the
review process. Therefore, we will describe the policies and procedures that
are typical in most editorial offices. If you understand (and perhaps even
appreciate) some of the reasons for the editorial decisions that are made, per-
haps you can facilitate publication of your papers simply by knowing how to
deal with editors.
When your manuscript arrives at the journal’s editorial office, the editor (or
the managing editor, if the journal has one) makes several preliminary
decisions. First, is the manuscript concerned with a subject area within the
scope of the journal? If it clearly is not, the manuscript is immediately returned
to the submitting author, along with a short statement of the reason for the
action. Seldom would an author be able to challenge such a decision success-
fully, and it is usually pointless to try. It is an important part of the editor’s job
to define the scope of the journal, and editors seldom take kindly to sugges-
tions by authors, no matter how politely the comments are phrased, that the
editor is somehow incapable of defining the basic character of their journal.
138  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Remember, however, that such a decision does not constitute rejection of your
data or conclusions. Your course of action is obvious: Try another journal.
Second, if the subject of the manuscript is appropriate for the journal, is the
manuscript itself in suitable form for consideration? Is the manuscript com-
plete, with no sections, tables, or figures missing? Is the manuscript in the
editorial style of the journal, at least as to the basics? If the answer to either of
the preceding questions is no, the manuscript may be immediately returned
to the author, or at least the review will be delayed while the deficiencies are
rectified. Most journal editors will not waste the time of their valued peer
reviewers by sending poorly prepared manuscripts to them for review.
Only after these two preconditions (a proper manuscript on a proper
subject) have been met is the editor ready to consider the manuscript for
publication.
At this point, the editor must perform two very important functions. First,
the basic housekeeping must be done. That is, careful records should be estab-
lished so that the manuscript can be followed throughout the review process
and (if the manuscript is accepted) the publication process. If the journal has
a managing editor, as most large ones do, this activity is normally a part of
their assignment. It is important that this work be done accurately, so that the
whereabouts of manuscripts are known at all times. It is also important that
the system include a number of built-in signaling devices so the inevitable
delays in reviewing and other problems can promptly be brought to the atten-
tion of the editor or managing editor. The electronic systems that many jour-
nals use for manuscript submission and tracking facilitate this work.
Second, the editor must decide whether the paper will be peer reviewed
(evaluated by other experts in the same research field) and, if so, choose peer
reviewers. At many journals, all manuscripts reaching this stage are sent for
peer review. At some journals—especially the larger and more competitive
ones, which receive very many papers—the editors decide which manuscripts
will be peer reviewed. If the editors know they would not publish the paper, for
example because the research is too weak or the topic is too narrow, they
return the paper to the author without peer review. Such return generally hap-
pens quickly; thus, the author does not waste weeks or more awaiting the
unfavorable decision, as could well occur if the paper went for peer review. If
you receive a rapid rejection—sometimes known as a “desk rejection” or “desk
reject”—realize that you are not alone, and submit your paper to another, per-
haps more specialized journal. Of course, carefully consult the new journal’s
instructions to authors, and revise your manuscript accordingly before sub-
mitting it.
If the paper will be sent for peer review, the editor or editors must choose
the peer reviewers (also known as referees). Commonly, two or three reviewers
are selected for each manuscript; in some fields, however, more reviewers
 The Review Process (How to Deal with Editors)  139

sometimes are used, especially for interdisciplinary papers, and in some

fields, the use of a single reviewer is the norm. The reviewers must be peers of
the author—that is, fellow experts—or their recommendations will be of little
value.
Frequently, the editor starts with the editorial board of the journal. Who on
the board has the appropriate subject expertise to evaluate a particular manu-
script? Often, because of the highly specialized character of modern science,
only one member (or no member) of the board has the requisite familiarity
with the subject of a particular manuscript. The editor must then obtain one
or more reviews from nonboard members, often called ad hoc reviewers or edi-
torial consultants. (Also, some journals depend entirely on ad hoc reviewers.)
Sometimes the editor must make many inquiries before appropriate review-
ers for a given manuscript are identified.
How do journals choose ad hoc reviewers? Often, the editors or editorial
board members know suitable candidates. Some journals keep databases of
researchers who have served as reviewers or could do so; as well as noting
areas of expertise, such databases sometimes include information on the
promptness and quality of reviews received from each person. Editors often
invite authors of works cited in the manuscript to serve as reviewers. They also
search the literature on the topic to identify appropriate candidates. As dis-
cussed in chapter 20, some journals allow authors to suggest potential
reviewers—and let them list people they consider unsuited to serve as peer
reviewers for such reasons as conflicts of interest. (Editors get suspicious,
though, when authors include in the latter list most of the researchers in their
fields!) Also, when researchers who are invited to review a paper are not avail-
able, they typically are asked to identify others who are qualified to do so. (And
if you have a paper accepted by a journal, you may be added to its pool of
potential reviewers.)
Does the peer review system work? According to Bishop (1984, p. 45), “The
answer to this question is a resounding, Yes! All editors, and most authors,
will affirm that there is hardly a paper published that has not been improved,
often substantially, by the revisions suggested by referees.” Research (for
example, Goodman et al. 1994) supports the conclusion that peer review and
editing improve manuscripts.
Most journals in the sciences use anonymous reviewers. Some, however,
disclose the names of reviewers or give reviewers the option of revealing their
identities. A few journals make the authors anonymous by deleting their
names from the copies of manuscripts sent to reviewers.
If the reviewers have been chosen wisely, their reviews will soundly identify
strengths and limitations of the paper and will contain substantial construc-
tive feedback. Thus, the editor will be in a good position to arrive at a decision
regarding publication of the paper. Also, whether the paper is accepted or not,
140  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

the author will receive the reviewers’ suggestions and thus can use them to
improve the paper.
Peer review has been a subject of considerable research and reflection, and
a number of international congresses have focused on the topic. Resources for
those interested in peer review include books on the subject (Godlee and Jef-
ferson 2003; Lock 1985) and the website of the International Congress on Peer
Review and Biomedical Publication (peerreviewcongress.org).

THE EDITOR’S DECISION

Sometimes the editor’s decision is easy. If all reviewers advise “accept” with no
or only slight revision, and they all state solid reasons for their recommenda-
tion, the editor has no problem. Ditto if there’s a unanimous and persuasive
recommendation to reject the paper. Unfortunately, there are many instances
in which the opinions of the reviewers are contradictory or unaccompanied by
strong evidence. In such cases, the editor must either make the final decision
or send the manuscript to one or more additional reviewers. Editors are likely
to take the first approach if they are reasonably expert in the subject area of the
manuscript and can thus serve as additional reviewers. At journals with many
more submissions than they can publish, even papers receiving all “accepts”
may be rejected if strong arguments cannot be mustered for their inclusion
(much like when a grant application is “approved but not funded”).
The review process being completed, and the editor having made a deci-
sion, the author is now notified of the editor’s decision. And it is the editor’s
decision. Editorial board members and ad hoc reviewers can only recommend;
the final decision is and must be the editor’s. This is especially true for those
journals (the majority) that use anonymous reviewers. The decisions will be
presented to the authors as though they were the editor’s own, and indeed
they are.
The editor’s decision will be one of three general types, commonly expressed
in one word: accept, reject, or modify. Commonly, one of these three decisions
will be reached within 4 to 6 weeks after submission of the manuscript. If you
are not advised of the editor’s decision within 8 weeks, or provided with an
explanation for the delay, do not be afraid to contact the journal. You have the
right to expect a decision, or at least a report, within a reasonable length of time;
also, your inquiry might bring to light a problem. Perhaps the editor’s decision
was made, but notification did not reach you. If the delay was caused within the
editor’s office (usually by lack of response from one of the reviewers), your
inquiry is likely to trigger an effort to resolve the problem, whatever it is.
Besides, you should never be afraid to contact editors. With rare exceptions,
editors are very nice people. Never consider them adversaries. They are on
 The Review Process (How to Deal with Editors)  141

your side. Their only goal is to publish good science in understandable lan-
guage. If that is not also your goal, you will indeed be dealing with a deadly
adversary; however, if you share the same goal, you will find the editor to be a
resolute ally. You are likely to receive advice and guidance that you could not
possibly buy at any price.

THE ACCEPT LETTER

Finally, you get the word. Suppose that the editor’s letter announces that
your manuscript has been accepted for publication. When you receive such
a letter, you have every right to treat yourself to a glass of champagne, a hot
fudge sundae, or whatever you choose to indulge in when you have cause
both to celebrate and to admire yourself. The reason that such a celebration
is appropriate is the relative rarity of the event. In the good journals
(in biology, at least), only a tiny percentage of the papers are accepted as
submitted.

THE MODIFY LETTER—AND HOW TO RESPOND TO IT

More likely, you will receive from the editor a cover letter and two or more lists
labeled “reviewers’ comments.” The letter may say something like, “Your
manuscript has been reviewed, and it is being returned to you with the
attached comments and suggestions. We believe these comments will help
you improve your manuscript.” If the editor feels confident that the research
is publishable in the journal but believes that the paper’s content, presenta-
tion, or both should be improved, the letter may go on to say that the paper will
be published if modified as requested. Alternatively, if the author thinks the
research might be publishable in the journal but cannot validly decide until
the paper is revised (for example, by describing the methods in more detail or
clarifying some points), the letter may say only that the paper will be reconsid-
ered if the modifications are made. Especially if different reviewers made con-
tradictory requests, the editor might say which requests to follow. Editors also
may list requests of their own.
By no means should you feel disconsolate when you receive a “modify let-
ter.” Realistically, you should not expect that rarest of all species—the accept
letter without a request for modification. The vast majority of submitting
authors will receive either a modify letter or a reject letter, so you should be
pleased to receive the former rather than the latter.
Nevertheless, you might not feel very pleased at first. You worked so hard
on the paper. To you, maybe it seemed perfect, or nearly so. The revisions
142  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

(© Vivian S. Hixson, reproduced by permission)

would require even more work. And maybe they look unreasonable. If this is
your reaction—as it commonly is—take some time to cool down. On reread-
ing the requests after a day or two, you may realize that they are not really so
burdensome. You may also find that items with you disagreed contain at
least some truth.
 The Review Process (How to Deal with Editors)  143

Your first decision, then, is whether to proceed with the revisions or instead
submit the paper elsewhere. In the case of a “publish if revised” letter, the bet-
ter choice almost always is to proceed with the revisions. After all, publication
of your paper is now almost guaranteed. In the case of a “reconsider if revised”
letter, perhaps weigh your choices more thoroughly. If you can readily make
the changes (for example, by describing or discussing your study in more
detail), resubmission tends to be wise. If, however, the suggested revisions
would entail much more work (such as conducting extensive experiments that
you do not consider warranted) or would greatly change the nature of your
paper, perhaps consider whether to proceed as advised or to try submitting the
paper elsewhere.
In proceeding with revisions, remember that the reviewers and journal edi-
tor are your allies. Their goal, like yours, is for the paper to achieve its full
potential. Rather than resenting the request to revise, realize that the review-
ers and editor are helping you to excel. In fact, remembering their comments
when writing future papers can minimize the need for such revision then.
Also, remember that, like writing a paper, revising a paper is likely to be a
team effort. The corresponding author will receive the request to revise. How-
ever, different members of the author list may be best suited to help address
requests about different parts or aspects of the paper.
As you read the requests, you might find that some are unsuitable because
the editor or reviewer misunderstood what you were trying to say. Do not dis-
regard such requests. Instead, take them as evidence that clarification is
needed. After all, the editors and reviewers probably read your paper more
carefully than almost anyone else would; if they misunderstood a point, others
might be especially likely to do so. So, revise the writing in question to make
it unambiguous.
In some other cases, the editors or reviewers might understand what you
were saying but make a request with which you disagree. For example, they
might ask for a change that you believe would introduce an inaccuracy. Or
they might suggest an addition that you consider unwarranted. Do not just
ignore these requests either; such behavior might well prevent publication of
your paper. Rather, respectfully address such requests. For example, if a
request was intended to solve a problem with the paper, propose another way
to solve it. Or if an addition seems unwarranted, calmly explain why you con-
sider it so. Editors want to publish papers with which both they and the authors
are satisfied. Sometimes they will even arrange a phone or video call to work
out a mutually acceptable solution.
Journals commonly state a deadline for submitting revisions. If at all pos-
sible, meet this deadline. If you cannot do so, inform the editor as soon as
possible, so schedules can be revised accordingly.
Sometimes only the editor reviews the revisions and determines whether
they are acceptable. In other instances, one or more of the reviewers also
144  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

evaluate the revisions. Accordingly, papers sometimes undergo more than one
round of revision. If additional revisions are needed, persevere. Quite likely,
you are almost there.
When you submit a revised manuscript, make it easy for the editor to iden-
tify the changes. For example, if the editor supplied a numbered list of revi-
sions to make, state, by number, how each was addressed. Perhaps use the
Track Changes feature of Microsoft Word to show your revisions. Or if the
editor asked you to indicate your revisions in another way, such as by high-
lighting, carefully follow the instructions. Clearly identifying the changes
made can speed the final decision about your paper. It also can help earn you
a reputation as a good author to work with—a fact that can facilitate further
interactions with the editorial office.

THE REJECT LETTER

Now let us suppose that you get a reject letter. (Almost all editors say “unac-
ceptable” or “unacceptable in its present form”; seldom is the harsh word
“reject” used.) Before you begin to weep, do two things. First, remind yourself
that you have a lot of company; good journals commonly have rejection rates
of 50 percent or considerably more. If your paper receives peer review but is
not accepted, you will still receive the reviewers’ comments. These comments
can guide you in how to proceed. For example, upon reading the comments,
you might conclude that additional research is needed to yield a paper accept-
able to a journal of the current type. Or you may realize that if you make some
of the suggested revisions, the paper might be well suited for a more special-
ized journal. Learn from the feedback, and proceed accordingly.
Most of all, do not be discouraged. Papers often are rejected by the first jour-
nal to which they were sent; always having one’s papers accepted on the first try
probably means that one is not aiming high enough. If you do good research,
work hard on presenting it well, are responsive to feedback from editors and
reviewers, and persevere, almost certainly your paper will appear in a journal.

EDITORS AS GATEKEEPERS
An important point to remember is that the editor is a mediator between you
and the reviewers. If you deal with editors respectfully and can defend your
work scientifically, you can facilitate your paper’s acceptance. The editor and
the reviewers are usually on your side. Their primary function is to help you
express yourself effectively and provide you with an assessment of the science
involved. It is to your advantage to cooperate with them in all ways possible.
 The Review Process (How to Deal with Editors)  145

(“Piled Higher and Deeper” by Jorge Cham. www.phdcomics.com)

146  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

The possible outcomes of the editorial process were neatly described by

Morgan (1986, p. vii): “A modern metaphor for editing would be a car wash . . .
through which all cars headed for a goal must pass,” he wrote. “Very dirty cars
are turned away; dirty cars emerge much cleaner; clean cars are little changed.”
Work with editors and reviewers to ensure that your vehicle passes expedi-
tiously through the car wash and emerges as shiny as it can be.
CHAPTER 22
The Publishing Process (How to Deal
with Proofs)—and After Publication

If life had a second edition, how I would correct the proofs.

—John Clare

THE COPYEDITING AND PROOFING PROCESSES

The following is a brief description of the process that your manuscript fol-
lows after it has been accepted for publication.
The manuscript usually goes through a copyediting procedure, during
which errors in spelling and grammar are corrected. In addition, the copyedi-
tor will standardize all abbreviations, units of measure, punctuation, and
spelling in accord with the style of the journal in which your manuscript is to
be published. At some journals, copyeditors also revise writing to increase
readability, such as by improving sentence structure and making wording
more concise. Many English-language journals with sufficient staff to do so
devote extra effort to copyediting papers by nonnative speakers of English in
order to promote clear international communication. The copyeditor may
direct questions to you if any of your wording is not clear or if any additional
information is needed. These questions may appear as author queries written
on or accompanying the proofs (typeset pages) sent to the author. Alternatively,
the queries may appear on or with the copyedited manuscript if the journal
sends it to the author for approval before preparing the proofs.
Typically, the edited version of the electronic file that you provided is
loaded into a computer system that can communicate with a typesetting sys-
tem, which will produce the proofs of your article. The copyeditor or com-
positor enters codes that indicate the typefaces and page layout of the various
elements.

147
148  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

The output of this effort is your set of proofs, which is then returned to you
so that you may check the editorial work that has been done on your article,
look for typographical errors, and answer any further questions by the copy-
editor. Commonly, you will receive the proofs of your article as a PDF file.
Finally, someone at the journal will enter the corrections that you make on
your proofs. The final version will be what you see when your paper is pub-
lished in the pages of the journal.

WHY PROOFS ARE SENT TO AUTHORS

Some authors seem to forget their manuscripts as soon as they are accepted
for publication, paying little attention to the proofs when they arrive and
assuming that their papers will magically appear in the journals without error.
Why are proofs sent to authors? Authors are provided with proofs of their
papers for one main reason: to check the accuracy of the type composition. In
other words, you should examine the proofs carefully for typographical errors.
Even if you carefully proofread and spell-checked your paper before submit-
ting it, errors can remain or can be introduced when editorial changes are
input. And sometimes the typesetting process mysteriously converts Greek
letters into squiggles or corrupt characters, cuts off lines of text, or causes
other mischief. No matter how perfect your manuscript might be, it is only the
printed version in the journal that counts. If the printed article contains seri-
ous errors, all kinds of later problems can develop, not the least of which may
be serious damage to your reputation.
The damage can be real, in that many errors can destroy comprehension.
Something as minor as a misplaced decimal point can make a published paper
almost useless. In this world, we can be sure of only three things: death, taxes,
and typos.

MISSPELLED WORDS
Even if an error does not greatly affect comprehension, it won’t do your repu-
tation much good if it turns out to be funny. Readers will know what you mean
if your paper refers to a “nosocomical infection,” and they will get a laugh out
of it, but you won’t think it is funny.
A major laboratory-supply corporation submitted an ad with a huge, bold-
face headline: “Quality is consistant because we care.” We certainly hope that
they cared more about the quality of their products than about the quality of
their spelling.
 The Publishing Process (How to Deal with Proofs)—and After Publication  149

Although all of us in publishing occasionally lose sleep worrying about

typographical errors, we can take comfort in the realization that whatever slips
past our eye is probably less grievous than some of the monumental errors
committed by our publishing predecessors.
The best way to read proofs is first, read them, and second, study them.
Reading will miss 90 percent of the errors, but it will catch errors of omission.
If the printer has dropped a line, reading for comprehension is the only likely
way to catch it. Alternatively, or additionally, it can be helpful for two people to
read the proofs, one reading aloud while the other follows the manuscript.
To catch most errors, however, you must slowly examine each word. If you
let your eye jump from one group of words to the next, as it does in normal
reading, you will not catch very many misspellings. In particular, you should
study the technical terms. A good keyboarder might be able to type the word
cherry 100 times without error; however, there was a proof in which the word
Escherichia was misspelled 21 consecutive times (in four different ways). One
might also wonder about the possible uses for a chemical whose formula was
printed as C12H6Q3. One way to look at each word without distraction is to read
the proof backward, from last word to first.
As a safeguard, consider having someone else review the proofs in addition
to doing so yourself. But do not delegate the proofreading solely to others, lest
you suffer the plight of a colleague of ours who, tired of the publication pro-
cess, had an office worker review the proofs. Only after the journal was pub-
lished did the colleague find that the article title contained a misspelling.
We mentioned the havoc that could occur from a misplaced decimal point.
This observation leads to a general rule in proofreading. Examine each and
every number carefully. Be especially careful when proofing the tables. This
rule is important for two reasons. First, errors frequently occur when typing
numbers, especially in tabular material. Second, you are the only person who
can catch such errors. Most spelling errors are caught in the printer’s proof
room or in the journal’s editorial office. However, professional proofreaders
catch errors by “eyeballing” the proofs. The proofreader has no way of know-
ing that “16” should be “61.”

MARKING THE CORRECTIONS

Like much else in scientific publishing, correction of proofs has been chang-
ing in the electronic era. No longer do authors receive galley proofs (long
strips of type) to correct before page proofs are prepared. And rather than
being sent proofs by mail, authors receive them electronically or access them
through websites. Accordingly, procedures for indicating corrections have
150  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

been evolving. Be sure to follow the current instructions that the journal pro-
vides with the proof.
The long-established procedure is to mark each error twice on a hard copy
of a proof, once at the point where it occurs and once in the margin opposite
where it occurs. The compositor uses the margin marks to find the errors, as
a correction indicated only in the body of the text can easily go unnoticed.
Standard proofreading marks, the most common of which are listed in
Table 22.1, should be used to indicate corrections. Normally, if you are to print
out a hard copy and indicate corrections on it, the publisher provides a list of
such marks along with the proofs. Learning the main proofreading marks can

­Table 22.1.  Frequently Used Proofreaders’ Marks

 The Publishing Process (How to Deal with Proofs)—and After Publication  151

facilitate reviewing the proofs of your papers and proofing typeset versions of
other items you write.
Other options have been developing as well. Some journals, for example,
ask authors to use tools in Adobe Acrobat to indicate corrections on PDF ver-
sions of the proofs. Some have their own online proofreading systems for
authors to use.
Whatever approach is used, return the proofs quickly, by the deadline given
you by the journal. Failure to do so disrupts the publication schedule of the
journal and can result in delay or even withdrawal of your paper. If you think
that you might be unreachable when the proofs become available, inform the
journal so the timetable can be revised or the proofs can be sent to a coauthor
or other colleague to review.

ADDITIONS TO THE PROOFS

Earlier in this chapter, we stated that authors are sent proofs so that they can
check the accuracy of the typesetting. Stated negatively, the proof stage is not
the time for revising, rewriting, rephrasing, adding more recent material, or
making any other significant changes to the final edited manuscript. There are
three good reasons why you should not make substantial changes in the
proofs.
First, an ethical consideration: Since neither proofs nor changes in the
proofs are seen by the editor unless the journal is a small, one-person opera-
tion, it simply is not proper to make substantive changes. The paper approved
by the editor, after peer review, is the one that should be printed, not some new
version containing material not seen by the editor or the reviewers.
Second, it is not wise to disturb typeset material, unless it is really neces-
sary, because new typographical errors may be introduced.
Third, corrections can be expensive. Therefore, you should not abuse the
publisher (possibly a scientific society of which you are an otherwise loyal
member) by requesting unessential changes; in addition, you just might
receive a substantial bill for author’s alterations. Most journals absorb the cost
of a reasonable number of author’s alterations, but sooner or later, many, espe-
cially those with managing editors or business managers, will crack down on
you if you are patently guilty of excessive alteration of proofs.
One type of addition to the proofs is sometimes allowed. The occasion
arises when a paper on the same or a related subject is published while yours
is undergoing the publication process. In light of the new study, you might be
tempted to rewrite several portions of your paper. You must resist this tempta-
tion, for the reasons stated previously. What you may do, though, is prepare a
short addendum to the proofs (at most a few sentences), describing the general
152  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

nature of the new work and giving the literature reference. If the editor
approves including it, the addendum can then be printed at the end, without
disturbing the body of the paper.

ADDITION OF REFERENCES
Sometimes a new paper appears that you would like to add to your references;
in doing so, you would not need to make any appreciable change to the text
other than adding a few words, perhaps, and the number of the new reference.
If you are unsure how the journal would like you to proceed, consult its edito-
rial office.
If the journal employs the numbered, alphabetized reference system, you
may be asked to add the new reference with an “a” number. For example, if the
new reference would alphabetically fall between references 16 and 17, the new
reference would be listed as “16a.” In that way, the numbering of the rest of
the list can remain the same, thus avoiding the cost and the potential for error
of renumbering the references in the reference list and the text. An analogous
procedure may be requested for references in the citation order system. Con-
veniently, if the new reference is cited in an addendum, it would appear last in
the citation order system, thus not disrupting the rest of the reference list.

PROOFING THE ILLUSTRATIONS

It is important to examine the proofs of the illustrations carefully. In the era
when authors submitted photographic prints and other hard-copy illustra-
tions, one needed to check carefully for quality of reproduction. Now that illus-
trations are being submitted electronically, such a need has diminished.
Nevertheless, checking illustrations remains important. Make sure that all
illustrations are present, complete, and appropriately placed. Also, make sure
that electronic gremlins have not somehow disturbed or distorted the illustra-
tions. If you perceive problems with the illustrations, report them as instructed
by the journal.

WHEN TO COMPLAIN
If you have learned nothing else from this chapter, we trust that you now know
that you must provide quality control. Too many authors have complained
after the fact (after publication) without ever realizing that only they could
have prevented whatever it is they are complaining about. For example, many
 The Publishing Process (How to Deal with Proofs)—and After Publication  153

authors have complained that their pictures were printed upside down or side-
ways. When such complaints have been checked, it has commonly been found
that the authors failed to note that the photos were oriented incorrectly in their
proofs.
So, if you are going to complain, do it at the proof stage. And, believe it or
not, your complaint is likely to be received graciously. Publishers have invested
heavily in setting the specifications that can provide quality reproduction. They
need your quality control, however, to ensure that their money is not wasted.
Good journals with hard-copy versions are printed by good printers, hired
by good publishers. The published paper will have your name on it, but the
reputations of both the publisher and the printer are also at stake. They expect
you to work with them in creating a superior product. Likewise, if a journal is
solely electronic, the publisher wants to ensure that the product is of high
quality, and depends on your collaboration in that regard. (If, however, the
published version of your paper contains an error despite your best efforts,
inform the journal. Depending on the situation, they may be able to correct
the paper online, publish a correction, or both.)
Because managing editors of such journals must protect the integrity of the
product, those we have known would never hire a printer exclusively because
it was the lowest bidder. John Ruskin was no doubt right when he said, “There
is hardly anything in the world that somebody cannot make a little worse and
sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this person’s
lawful prey.”
A sign in a printing shop made the same point:

PRICE
QUALITY
SERVICE
Pick any two of the above

REPRINTS
Historically, authors received with their proofs a form for ordering hard-copy
reprints of their articles. Older scientists remember the days—before wide-
spread electronic access to journal articles, and indeed before widespread
access to photocopying—when obtaining reprints from authors served as an
important way to keep up with the literature. As well as giving researchers
access to articles, reprint requests helped authors learn who was interested in
their work (Wiley 2009). Today, however, reprints are much less a part of scien-
tific culture.
154  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Some journals make available “electronic reprints,” which allow authors to

grant one-time electronic access to their articles. Someday, scientists may ask
why articles that authors share are called reprints at all.

PUBLICIZING AND ARCHIVING YOUR PAPER

In the era when paper reprints prevailed, scientists commonly sent them to col-
leagues worldwide soon after publishing a paper. Today, many scientists alert
others to their new articles largely through social media. Depending on their
preferences and the scientific cultures where they work, they may, for instance,
tweet news of the publication on Twitter or post it on Facebook. They also may
add listings (and links) to their ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID)
records, LinkedIn profiles, and profiles on science-related networking sites such
as ResearchGate. Sometimes they may appear on podcasts produced by their
journal, their institution, or others. When you publish an article, such steps—
and the follow-up by those who thus notice the article and inform others in their
networks—can inform those potentially interested in your paper.
General media too can aid in publicizing your newly published research,
both to the public and to fellow researchers. Many universities and other

(www.CartoonStock.com)
 The Publishing Process (How to Deal with Proofs)—and After Publication  155

research institutions have public information officers (PIOs), whose role is

largely to publicize the research done there. When you have a paper accepted,
alert a PIO at your institution. The PIO can then consider whether to publicize
the research to journalists and others (for instance, through news releases,
institutional websites and publications, and the use of social media networks).
PIOs know that some journals place articles under embargoes; in other words,
research reported in them is not to appear in the media until the release date
for the issue in which they are published. A PIO can aid in obtaining timely
coverage without violating embargoes. Advice on working with PIOs appears
in an article by Tracy Vence (2015) in The Scientist.
Publicizing a newly published paper—through social media, mass media,
or other means—can benefit a scientist in multiple ways, notes PIO Matt
Shipman (2015a). For example, it can lead to citations, please funding agen-
cies, engender collaborations, and more generally expand one’s professional
network. It also may attract potential graduate students—or perhaps, earlier in
one’s career, attract the attention of employers or postdoctoral-fellowship sites.
And if your findings have applications outside the research sector, publicity
may bring them to the attention of those who can use them. Indeed, if research
is supported with public funds, scientists may be morally obligated to get the
word out. In fact, some public and other sources of research funds require that
grant recipients make their work openly available.
Whether required or not, making your journal articles (and reports based on
them) widely available can benefit science, society, and your career. Follow, of
course, the policies of relevant funding agencies regarding public access to
papers resulting from your research. (An example is the U.S. National Institutes
of Health public access policy, publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm.) If your univer-
sity or other institution has an institutional archive, explore depositing electronic
copies of your publication there. Also, consider linking publications to your own
website or your curriculum vitae. The Sherpa Romeo website (v2.sherpa.ac.uk/
romeo) includes information on journal publishers’ policies on self-archiving.
In short, publishing a journal article, though a major accomplishment, is
not the last step in getting word out about your research. In a way, it is just the
beginning. You have invested great effort in doing a study, writing a paper
about it, and publishing the paper. Now take the additional steps to help
ensure that, in the broadest sense, your paper has maximum impact.

CELEBRATING PUBLICATION
As noted, publishing a scientific paper is a major accomplishment. By the
time a paper comes out, you may well be working on the next one—or even
the one after that. But take some time to celebrate your success. Some scien-
tists or research groups have traditions for doing so. For example, some gather
156  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

for a celebration dinner and post a photo taken there. Some treat themselves
to a good bottle of wine and collect the labels as reminders of their successes.
Some may attend a concert, play, or athletic event and keep the ticket or the
program as a memento. Perhaps best of all is to spend some time—perhaps at
a favorite park—with the family members or friends who tolerated our
absences, insecurities, and complaints as we struggled to write about and pub-
lish the work. Whatever you choose, you deserve to celebrate. Congratulations
on publishing your paper!
PART V

Doing Other Writing for Publication

This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 23

How to Write a Review Paper

Review articles constitute a form of original research, albeit done in the library
rather than in the laboratory or at the bedside.
—Bruce P. Squires

CHARACTERISTICS OF A REVIEW PAPER

A review paper (also known as a review article) is not an original publication in
the usual sense, though it can be valuable scholarship. On rare occasions, a
review may contain new data (from the author’s own laboratory) that have not
yet appeared in a primary journal. However, the purpose of a review paper is
to review previously published literature and to put it into perspective.
A review paper tends to be long, often ranging between 10 and 50 pub-
lished pages. (Some journals, however, now print short “mini-reviews.”) The
subject usually is fairly general compared with that of research papers, and the
literature review is, of course, the principal product. However, the really good
review papers are much more than just annotated bibliographies. They offer
critical evaluation of the published literature and often provide important orig-
inal conclusions based on that literature.
The organization of a review paper usually differs from that of a research
paper. The IMRAD (introduction, materials and methods, results, and dis-
cussion) arrangement traditionally has not been used for the review paper.
However, some review papers are prepared more or less in the IMRAD for-
mat; for example, they may contain a methods section describing how the
literature review was done. In particular, systematic review articles, which
methodically identify and integrate literature on a focused question, com-
monly follow the IMRAD format or a variant thereof. Indeed, multiple

159
160  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

varieties of review articles, each with certain conventions, have now arisen. A
review article on the types of review articles (Grant and Booth 2009) analyzes
14 such types.
If you have previously written research papers and are now about to write
your first conventional review paper (sometimes known as a narrative review),
it might help you conceptually if you visualize the review paper as a research
paper, as follows: Greatly expand the introduction; delete the materials and
methods (unless original data are being presented or you will say how you
identified and chose the literature to include); delete the results; and expand
the discussion.
Actually, you may have already written the equivalent of many review
papers. In format, a review paper is not very different from a well-organized
term paper or the literature review section of a thesis.
As in a research paper, however, it is the organization of the review paper
that is important. The writing will almost take care of itself once you get the
thing organized.

PREPARING AN OUTLINE
Unlike research papers, there is no prescribed organization for conventional
review papers. Therefore, you will have to develop your own. A cardinal rule
for writing a review paper is to prepare an outline.
The outline must be prepared carefully. It will assist you in organizing your
paper, which is all-important. If your review is organized properly, its overall
scope will be well defined and the integral parts will fit together in a logical
order.
Obviously, you must prepare the outline before you start writing
(although you may end up revising it as you write). Moreover, before you
start writing, it is wise to determine whether a journal (either a review
journal or a primary journal that includes review articles) would be inter-
ested in considering a review article that you submit on the topic. Possibly,
the editor will want to limit or expand the scope of your proposed review or
add or delete specific subtopics. Or perhaps the journal is already publish-
ing a review on the subject, in which case you should direct your efforts
elsewhere.
Not only is the outline essential for the preparer of the review, it is also very
useful to potential readers of the review. Therefore, many review journals
print the outline at the beginning of the article, where it serves as a convenient
table of contents for prospective readers.
Also to guide readers, review papers make considerable use of subheadings
(which, if an outline is published, correspond to the subjects that it lists). For
 How to Write a Review Paper  161

example, the review paper “Mechanics of Cytokinesis in Eukaryotes,” by

Thomas D. Pollard (2010), contains the following subheadings:

Introduction
Origins of cytokinesis genes
Mechanisms specifying the position of the division plane
Fission yeast
Budding yeast
Animal cells
Mechanism of contractile ring assembly
Fission yeast
Animal cells
Architecture of the ring
Mechanism of constriction and disassembly of the contractile ring
Actin filaments
Myosin-II
Mechanism of constriction
Sources of drag
Modeling
Conclusions

In 2015, Pollard, the author of this review paper, received the National
Academy of Sciences Award for Scientific Reviewing “for his many review
articles describing the molecular mechanisms of the protein actin in cell
motility and cell division”; it was noted that these articles “have been cited
hundreds and even thousands of times.” This award, given in different years
to authors in different fields, was presented from 1979 through 2020. Infor-
mation on its recipients appears on the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
website (nasonline.org/programs/awards/scientific-reviewing.html). To see
some review papers by masters, look on this site to identify recipients in your
field, and then search the literature to find their reviews.

TYPES OF REVIEWS
Before actually writing a review, you also need to determine the requirements
of the journal to which you plan to submit it. Some journals demand critical
evaluation of the literature, whereas others are more concerned with biblio-
graphic completeness. There are also matters of organization, style, and
emphasis that you should consider before you proceed anyfurther.
By and large, the old-line review journals prefer (and some demand)
authoritative and critical evaluations of the published literature on a subject.
162  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Many of the “book” series (Annual Review of, Recent Advances in, Yearbook of,
etc.), however, publish reviews designed to compile and annotate, but not nec-
essarily evaluate, the papers published on a particular subject during a defined
time period. Some active areas of research are reviewed yearly. Both of these
types of review papers serve a purpose, but the different purposes need to be
recognized.
At one time, review papers tended to present historical analyses. In fact, the
reviews were often organized chronologically. Although this type of review is
now less common, one should not deduce that the history of science has
become less important. There is still a place for history.
Today, however, most review media prefer either “state of the art” reviews
or reviews that provide a new understanding of a rapidly moving field. Mainly,
the recent literature on the subject is catalogued or evaluated. If you are review-
ing a subject that has not previously been reviewed or one in which misunder-
standings or polemics have developed, a bit more coverage of the historical
foundations would be appropriate. If the subject has been effectively reviewed
before, the starting point for your review might well be the date of the previous
review (not the publication date, but the date up to which the literature was
reviewed). And, of course, your review should begin by citing the previous
review.
Another type of review paper, known as a systematic review article, has become
common in some fields. A systematic review addresses “a clearly formulated
question using systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically
appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyse data from the studies that
are included in the review” (epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files
/public/uploads/SURE-Guides-v2.1/Collectedfiles/source/glossary.html).
Commonly, systematic review articles follow a variant of the IMRAD format;
for example, they include a methods section specifying such items as databases
searched, search terms used, dates and languages included, and criteria for
including and excluding studies. Academic librarians, some of whom special-
ize in literature searching for systematic reviews, can be well worth consulting
when preparing such a review. Written sources of guidance for preparing sys-
tematic review articles include the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Page et al. 2021).

WRITING FOR THE AUDIENCE

Another basic difference between review papers and primary scientific papers
is the audience. The primary scientific paper is highly specialized, and so is its
audience (mainly peers of the author). The review paper will probably encom-
pass a number of specialized subjects in your field, so it will be read by many
 How to Write a Review Paper  163

peers. The review paper will also be read by many people in related fields
because reading good review papers is the best way to keep up in one’s broad
areas of interest—or to start preparing to enter related areas of research.
Finally, review papers are valuable in teaching, so student use is likely to
be high.
Because the review paper is likely to have a wide and varied audience, your
style of writing should be much less technical than for a research paper. Jar-
gon and specialized abbreviations must be eliminated or carefully explained.
Your writing style should be expansive rather than telegraphic (condensed).

IMPORTANCE OF INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS

Readers are much influenced by the introduction of a review paper. They are
likely to decide whether to read further on the basis of what they find in the
first few paragraphs (if they haven’t already been repelled by the title).
Readers are also influenced by the first paragraph of each major section of
a review, deciding whether to read, skim, or skip the rest of the section depend-
ing on what they find in the first paragraph. If the first paragraphs are well
written, all readers, including skimmers and skippers, will be able to achieve
some comprehension of the subject.

IMPORTANCE OF CONCLUSIONS
Because the review paper typically covers a wide subject for a wide audience,
some form of conclusion is worth taking the trouble to write. Doing so is espe-
cially important for a highly technical, advanced, or obscure subject. Painful
compromises must be made sometimes if one really tries to summarize a dif-
ficult subject to the satisfaction of both expert and amateur. Yet in time, good
summaries and simplifications will find their way into textbooks and mean a
great deal to students yet to come.

ADDITIONAL TIPS FOR WRITING REVIEW ARTICLES

Other pointers for writing review articles include the following:

• Consider using a spreadsheet to keep track of articles for potential inclu-

sion. The spreadsheet can include columns for bibliographic information
and for elements such as methods, main findings, and comments.
164  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

• Do not feel compelled to cite everything written on a topic. If a paper is

obscure for good reason, let it remain so. If, however, a prominent paper
has substantial limitations, include it, but tactfully note the limitations.
• Integrate rather than catalog. For example, include paragraphs that com-
bine different studies’ findings on a given topic and reflect on the simi-
larities and differences. Do not just summarize each study in a separate
paragraph; a review article is not a string of abstracts.
• If appropriate, include figures or tables. Systematic reviews often contain
flowcharts showing the literature selection process and tables summariz-
ing the studies included. Depending on their content, conventional (nar-
rative) reviews also can benefit from figures and tables; possibilities
include drawings of structures and diagrams of processes. At some major
journals, scientific illustrators prepare final versions of such graphics.
• Indicate not only what the literature contains, but also what it doesn’t; an
important function of review articles can be to identify gaps in knowl-
edge. Such identification can lead to new research, producing new scien-
tific papers and ultimately more complete reviews.

A review article is both scholarship and service. By giving its preparation

the attention it deserves, you can produce an informative, insightful, accessi-
ble article that increases your prominence as a scholar and serves your readers
well.
CHAPTER 24

How to Write Opinion (Letters to

the Editor, Editorials, Book Reviews,
and Essays)

It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my

reasons for them!
—Friedrich Nietzsche

WRITING INFORMED OPINION

As you become known in your field, editors of journals and other publications
may invite you to write pieces expressing your professional judgment. In par-
ticular, you may be asked to write editorials and book reviews. Chances to
write the latter also may arise earlier in your career. And whatever your senior-
ity (or lack thereof), you may submit letters to the editor for potential publica-
tion or posting. Some journals also publish personal essays.
All these pieces express opinion. But not just any opinion: your scientifi-
cally informed opinion. Although sometimes allowing more creativity in writ-
ing style, they should display the same rigor as a scientific paper. Evidence
should support the views expressed, and logic should be tight. In short, scien-
tific opinion pieces should clearly evidence the mind of a researcher.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Many journals print or post letters to the editor. Usually, not all letters received
are published.
Often, letters comment on papers recently published in the journal, thus
serving as postpublication peer review. Sometimes they deal independently
with issues of professional interest to readers. In some journals, brief research

165
166  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

reports or case reports can appear as letters; an editor who decides not to pub-
lish a paper may offer to publish a condensed version as a letter to the editor.
When a letter comments on a paper, the authors of the paper may have the
opportunity to prepare a reply for publication.
Before drafting a letter, check the journal’s instructions, which commonly
appear in the letters section of the journal and on the journal website. Among
items that the instructions may specify are maximum length, number of fig-
ures and tables allowed, number of references allowed, and acceptable means
of submission. Increasingly, journals have been requesting or requiring that
letters be submitted electronically. Some journals’ websites include a section
through which letters can be submitted.
If you are writing a letter to the editor about a published article, submit it
shortly after the article appeared. Some journals consider for publication only
those letters received within a stated interval. If you criticize an article, do so
in a constructive and respectful tone. (Remember: The author might peer-
review your next scientific paper or grant proposal.) Similarly, if you are
responding to a letter noting a possible shortcoming of your work, word your
reply calmly—no matter what your initial reaction might have been.
Especially because of length limitations, word your letter concisely, in keep-
ing with principles presented later in this book in Part VII, “Scientific Style.”
Focus on a single point (or a group of closely related points) and relate the
other content to that central focus. Whatever your message, support it clearly.
Your letter may then be a fine addition to the literature.

EDITORIALS
Some journals include invited editorials and other opinion pieces by scien-
tists. In addition, scientists sometimes write opinion pieces for professional
venues such as The Scientist, for op-ed pages of newspapers read by the gen-
eral public, or for other popular venues.
Invited editorials in journals can include both “perspective editorials” and
“persuasive editorials.” A perspective editorial provides context for and com-
ments on a scientific paper in the same issue of the journal. Often, a scien-
tist who peer-reviewed the paper is invited to write it. The beginning of such
an editorial commonly resembles a miniature review paper on the subject.
The end can then serve somewhat as an independently written discussion
section—noting, for example, strengths and limitations of the research
reported in the paper and discussing the implications. For a perspective edi-
torial to appear in the same issue as the paper it comments on, it may need
to be submitted quickly. Therefore, along with the honor of being invited to
write such a piece, you might receive a stringent deadline.
 How to Write Opinion (Letters to the Editor, Editorials, Book Reviews, and Essays)  167

A persuasive editorial, in a journal or elsewhere, argues for a specific point

of view (for example, on science policy). How to structure your argument can
depend on your audience. If your audience seems largely to agree with your
main point, presenting it early and then supporting it can be most effective. If,
however, many readers are likely to be opposed initially, you might gain the
most agreement by starting with mutually supported ideas and relatively
unexceptionable data and then showing how they lead to your conclusions.
Whatever your approach, include arguments for and against your point of
view and competing points of view. Acknowledging other viewpoints and
showing that yours is superior is scientifically sounder, and thus more credi-
ble, than acting as if other viewpoints do not exist.
Some journals publish unsolicited opinion pieces, sometimes called sound-
ing boards. The principles of writing them tend to be much the same as for
writing persuasive editorials. For guidelines on writing such items, consult
the journal’s instructions to authors. Similarly, if you wish to submit an opin-
ion piece to a newspaper op-ed page or other popular venue, check that publi-
cation’s requirements by looking at its website or contacting its editorial office.

BOOK (AND OTHER MEDIA) REVIEWS

Textbooks. Reference books. Specialized monographs for scientists. Trade
books for the public. Science abounds with books. And many journals, maga-
zines, and other publications include reviews of books on science. As well as
helping readers choose books to obtain or consult, book reviews can inform
readers by sharing content from the books. They also can provide useful feed-
back to authors and publishers and help guide future authors. Reviews of
other media—such as journals, electronic resources, and museum exhibits—
can serve similar functions. Regardless of whether a book or other item is
reviewed, the principles are much the same. Thus, guidelines for writing book
reviews generally apply to other types of reviews.
At journals, book review editors typically take the initiative in recruiting
reviewers. However, they usually are glad to have potential reviewers volun-
teer, either to be approached as needed or to review specific books. Of course,
if you have a conflict of interest (for example, because a book is by a close col-
league), you should not offer to review the book or accept an invitation to
do so.
A good review should both describe and evaluate the book. Among ques-
tions it may address are the following (Gastel 1991): What is the goal of the
book, and how well does the book accomplish it? From what context did
the book emerge? What is the background of the authors or editors? What is
the scope of the book, and how is the content organized? What main points
168  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

does the book make? If the book has special features, what are they? What are
the strengths and weaknesses of the book? How does the book compare with
other books on the same topic or with previous editions of the book? Who
would find the book valuable?
Normally, answering these questions entails reading the book thoroughly.
For a reference work, however, sampling the content is more feasible and bet-
ter reflects the intended use. If you take such an approach, consider drawing
on your skills in research design in determining how to proceed. For instance,
when reviewing a multivolume encyclopedia, you might evaluate randomly
selected entries, evaluate entries on topics you know best, or both. You might
also have potential users, such as students, read some entries and share their
reactions.
To facilitate writing, take notes as you read or mark passages of interest in
the book; tagging with self-adhesive notes can help you easily locate relevant
pages later. Write down ideas for points to make as they occur to you. To help
formulate your ideas, perhaps talk to someone about the book.
Although some journals have featured structured book reviews, with stan-
dardized headings for specified types of content, the reviewer generally can
choose how to organize the book review. One format that can work well is a
variant of the IMRAD (introduction, methods, results, and discussion) struc-
ture commonly used for scientific papers. In this format, the “introduction”
presents an opening comment on the book, the “results” section describes the
book, and the “discussion” evaluates it. No “methods” section may be needed
if you read the book from cover to cover and did not otherwise test it. But if, for
example, you systematically sampled content in a reference book, you would
summarize your procedure in the “methods.”
A review is not an advertisement; it should not gush with praise. Neither
should it nitpick or ridicule the writing (or the author). Rather, it should take a
reasoned tone. By presenting information about the book and drawing careful
conclusions, you will serve the readers of your review well.

ESSAYS
Some journals and other media include personal essays by scientists or others
in science-related fields. These essays commonly focus on professionally
related personal experiences and the insights gained from them. Venues con-
taining such essays include “Working Life” in Science magazine, “A Piece of
My Mind” in the medical journal JAMA, and the cleverly titled “Narrative Mat-
ters” in Health Affairs.
If you have an experience to share, consider submitting an essay. Some
pointers: Just as for other submissions, read the instructions from the journal.
Also, read essays published in the journal to get a sense of the norm. Write
 How to Write Opinion (Letters to the Editor, Editorials, Book Reviews, and Essays)  169

(www.CartoonStock.com)

about an experience to which the journal’s readers can relate. For example,
your essay may show how you addressed an issue that many readers contend
with, depict how your experience transformed your understanding of a profes-
sionally related situation, or maybe share an especially heartwarming experi-
ence from your career. Do not use such an essay only to complain. Save rants
for your significant other, your dog, or maybe your therapist.
Regarding the writing itself: Begin the essay strongly. One way is to start
with an especially engaging part of the tale. You can then provide background
and tell the rest of the story. Give the story a beginning, middle, and end.
Include both narrative and reflection. As writers often are told, show rather
than tell. For example, rather than saying that stress was affecting you physi-
cally, describe (briefly) your sleeplessness, headaches, and lack of appetite.
Consider thinking cinematically. Write simply, concisely, and vividly (though
in general not melodramatically). Use lively verbs and minimize the use of
adjectives and adverbs. Be clear, clear, clear. And revise, revise, revise. Perhaps
get feedback from colleagues or others.
170  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Realize that acceptance of essays, like that of other journal submissions,

can be very competitive. Therefore, do not be discouraged if your essay is not
accepted. If your essay is indeed accepted, realize that even if you have strong
writing skills, the journal might request considerable revision, and you may
have extensive back-and-forth with an editor.
Over the years, personal essays in journals have addressed a wide range of
subjects—including communication of science. “Working Life” essays about
such communication include the following:

• “Paper Writing Gone Hollywood” (DOI: 10.1126/science.355.6320.102)

• “How I Became Easy Prey to a Predatory Publisher” (DOI:10.1126
/science.caredit.aax9725)
• “Reviewers, Don’t Be Rude to Nonnative English Speakers” (DOI:
10.1126/science.caredit.aaz7179)
• “How I Conquered My Fear of Public Speaking and Learned to Give
Effective Presentations” (DOI:10.1126/science.caredit.aaz2161)
• “Poster Presentations Are a Great Way to Showcase Your Science” (DOI:
10.1126/science.caredit.aba1279)
• “How I Learned to Speak Up for Myself about Authorship” (DOI: 10.1126
/science.caredit.abd2832)
• “Don’t Erase Undergrad Researchers and Technicians from Author Lists”
(DOI: 10.1126/science.caredit.abf8865)
• “Two Surnames, No Hyphen: Claiming My Identity as a Latin American
Scientist” (DOI: 10.1126/science.caredit.abj4464)
• “How I Transformed Myself into a Confident Presenter—Thanks to Lady
Gaga” (DOI:10.1126/science.caredit.abh2491)

Blogs and podcasts designed for one’s professional community or more

general audiences also can be fine forums for personal essays relating to sci-
ence. In particular, scientists’ tales in such venues can engagingly convey sci-
ence to members of the general public. For advice in this regard, and more
generally on writing science-related personal essays, see “Science and the Art
of Personal Storytelling” by Ben Lillie (2016).
Especially if you have an enlightening science-related experience to share,
consider venturing beyond the usual formats in which scientists write. You
may find yourself with your largest readership.
CHAPTER 25

How to Write a Book Chapter or a Book

I’m writing a book. I’ve got the page numbers done.

—Steven Wright

HOW TO WRITE A BOOK CHAPTER

Congratulations! You have been invited to write a chapter in a multiauthored
book. Here is one more sign that you have attained visibility in your field.
Enjoy the compliment, and accept the invitation if you have the time to pre-
pare the chapter well and submit it promptly. If you cannot write the chapter,
recommend a peer if possible.
If you agree to write a chapter, be sure that the editor provides thorough
instructions. Follow the instructions carefully; only if chapters are of the
proper scope, length, and format, and only if they are submitted on time, can
the book be published without undue difficulty and delay. If events arise that
may slow submission of your chapter, tell the editor immediately so plans can
be revised if needed.
In many cases, writing a book chapter is much like writing a review paper.
If you are writing a chapter that summarizes knowledge on a topic, follow
relevant advice from Chapter 23, “How to Write a Review Paper.” In particular,
plan the chapter carefully. Time invested in organizing the chapter can save
much time in writing later.
After submitting the chapter, you may receive queries from the copy editor
(for example, requests for clarification of points). You also may receive an
edited manuscript, and then page proofs to review. So as not to disrupt the
production schedule, take care to respond by the deadlines you are given. If

171
172  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

you will be unreachable for a substantial time while a chapter is in press, tell
the editor so alternative plans can be made.

WHY (OR WHY NOT) TO WRITE A BOOK

There can be many good reasons to write a book. A monograph focusing on a
specialized technical topic can aid fellow scientists. A handbook can assist
scientists and those applying science. A textbook can greatly help students of
science. A work of popular scientific nonfiction can interest and enlighten
general readers, including scientists in fields other than your own.
There also can be good reasons not to write a book—or not to do so at pres-
ent. In most fields of science, scientific papers (not books) are the currency of
advancement. Thus, it can be unwise to spend time writing a book early in
one’s career. Of course, writing a book takes much effort, so it should not be
pursued without careful reflection first.
As for the monetary aspect: A widely used textbook or bestselling work of
scientific nonfiction can net the author a nice sum. Most books in the sci-
ences, however, earn the author relatively little—sometimes less than the
author spent preparing the book. Thus, only if the psychological rewards
would suffice should one embark on writing a book.

HOW TO FIND A PUBLISHER

Sometimes the publisher finds you. At companies publishing books in the sci-
ences, editors keep track of science, for instance by attending scientific confer-
ences. Thus, an editor may approach you about the possibility of writing a
book. Make sure, though, that the publisher is legitimate, for example by
ascertaining that it has published high-quality books in your field. Unfortu-
nately, just as predatory journal publishers exist, so do predatory book publish-
ers. They take authors’ money and do not produce a valid product—or any
product at all.
If you are the one with the idea, see which publishers have published good
books on topics related to yours. These publishers are most likely to accept
your book. They also can best edit and produce your book and market it to the
right audience. For scholarly or technical books in the sciences, university
presses and commercial scientific publishers often prove most appropriate.
Popular books in the sciences often are served well by commercial publishers
that include such books among their specialties. Some university presses also
excel at publishing science books for general readerships.
Whether the idea for the book is yours or a publisher’s, you generally must
submit a proposal before receiving approval to prepare and submit the
 How to Write a Book Chapter or a Book  173

manuscript. Typically, the proposal includes an annotated table of contents, a

description of the intended market for the book, a sample chapter, and your
curriculum vitae or résumé. To help decide whether to accept the proposal, the
publisher may send it for peer review. The publisher also will do a financial
analysis; if the expected profits do not seem to justify the cost of producing the
book, the publisher may decline the project even if it seems otherwise promis-
ing. However, sometimes another, perhaps more specialized publisher will
accept the project. For example, sometimes a university press, not a commer-
cial publisher, agrees to publish a book that is of scientific importance, but for
which sales are expected to be low.
Book proposals, unlike scientific papers, may be submitted to more than
one publisher at once. If, however, a proposal is being submitted simultane-
ously, the author should inform each publisher. For specialized scientific
books, the author typically submits a proposal directly to the publisher. If,
however, a book seems likely to sell very well, using an agent can be advisable.
If a proposal is accepted, the publisher is likely to offer the author an advance
contract to sign. (Some publishers, however, do not generally offer a contract
until the book manuscript is completed and accepted.) An advance contract,
which typically runs several pages, usually specifies such items as length, the
maximum number of figures and tables, the deadline, royalties paid to the
author, electronic rights, and even film rights (not a likely concern, though, for
most book authors in the sciences). Review the contract carefully. If modifica-
tions seem called for, work with the publisher to come to an agreement.
An advance contract is not a guarantee that the book will be published. It
does indicate, however, that if you satisfactorily complete the manuscript, pub-
lication should proceed. In the sciences, unlike in fiction writing, you gener-
ally should have a contract before doing most of the work on a book.
Another option is to publish the book yourself—in print, online, or both.
This option can have both pluses and minuses. On the plus side, you will
retain full control of the project, including the schedule, content, editing,
design, production, marketing, and price (if any). Also on the plus side, you
will reap all of any profits made. The minuses are much the flip side of the
pluses. You will not have the publisher’s services, such as editing, page design,
cover design, and marketing (though you yourself can contract for these ser-
vices, for example from companies that specialize in helping authors self-
publish books). And you will bear all the expenses of producing, publicizing,
and distributing the book. Academic and other libraries may be less likely to
buy a self-published book than one from an established publisher, from which
they may routinely purchase. Also, publication by a highly regarded publisher,
especially after peer review, provides validation that self-publication lacks and
so can aid more in career advancement.
A book is a major investment of time and effort. Take the time to reflect
carefully on where and how you wish to publish.
174  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

HOW TO PREPARE A BOOK MANUSCRIPT

Joy at signing a book contract can readily become terror as the prospect looms
of writing several hundred manuscript pages. Breaking the project into man-
ageable chunks, however, can keep it from becoming overwhelming. While
still remembering the scope of the book, focus on one chapter, or part of a
chapter, at a time. Soon you might be amazed at how much you have written.
Unless chapters build directly on each other, you may be able to write them in
whatever order you find easiest. Similarly, a chapter, like a scientific paper,
often need not be written from start to finish.
Much as journals have instructions for authors, book publishers have
author guidelines. These guidelines, which sometimes can be accessed from
a publisher’s website, present the publisher’s requirements or preferences
regarding manuscript format, preparation of tables and figures, and other
items, such as obtaining permission to reprint copyrighted materials. The
guidelines also may specify the style manual to follow. Before starting to
write, look carefully at the guidelines. For convenience, perhaps prepare a
sheet listing the main points to remember about the manuscript format,
print it on colored paper for easy identification, and post it where you readily
can consult it. Following the instructions can save you, and the publisher,
effort later.
Immediate demands on your time can easily rob you of opportunities to
work on a book. If possible, set aside specific times for writing. For example,
include in your regular weekly calendar some blocks of time to work on the
book, as if they were appointments. Or have certain times of the year to focus
on writing. If you have the opportunity, perhaps arrange beforehand to get a
sabbatical leave to work on the book, or negotiate to have reduced duties while
doing so.
For a busy scientist-author, the writing of a book can extend over months or
years, sometimes with interruptions of weeks or more. Therefore, a consistent
style and voice can be difficult to maintain. One tactic that can help address
this problem: Before resuming your writing, reread, or spend a little time edit-
ing, a section you have already drafted. Also, once you have drafted the entire
book manuscript and are revising it, look for consistency.
And yes, be prepared to revise the manuscript. In books, as in scientific
papers, good writing tends to be much-revised writing. Some book authors do
much of the revising as they go, a paragraph or subchapter at a time, and then
have little more than final polishing left. Others do a rough draft of the entire
manuscript and then go back and refine it. Take whatever approach works for
you. But one way or another, do revise.
If the book will include material for which you do not hold copyright—for
example, illustrations published elsewhere—you will need permission unless
 How to Write a Book Chapter or a Book  175

the material is in the public domain. You also may need to pay permission
fees. Usually, obtaining the needed permissions is your responsibility, not
your publisher’s. However, your publisher may be able to provide advice in
this regard, and publishers’ guidelines for authors often include sample letters
for seeking permission. Start the permissions process early; identifying copy-
right holders, receiving permissions, and (if needed) obtaining images suit-
able for reproduction sometimes takes weeks. (For more on rights and
permissions, see Chapter 19.)
Once you submit your book manuscript, the publisher may send it for peer
review. Beforehand or simultaneously, consider obtaining some peer reviews
of your own. Show the manuscript to people whose views you regard highly,
including experts on your subject and individuals representative of the
intended readers of your book. Solicit and consider their frank feedback. If
appropriate, thank your reviewers in the acknowledgments (with their permis-
sion) and give them copies of the book when it appears.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLICATION PROCESS

At the publishing company, the proposal for a new book typically goes to an
editor in charge of obtaining new manuscripts in your field. This editor, often
called an acquisitions editor, oversees the review of your proposal, answers
questions you may have while preparing the manuscript, and supervises the
review of your manuscript. Once your manuscript is accepted, responsibility
commonly moves to another editor, sometimes called a production editor, who
coordinates the editing of the manuscript and other aspects of the conversion
of your manuscript into a book.
Open communication with the editors facilitates publication. If, as you pre-
pare the manuscript, you have questions about format, permissions, potential
changes in content, or other matters, ask the acquisitions editor. Getting the
answer now may save much time later. If you fall behind and might not be
able to meet any of your deadlines, inform the acquisitions editor promptly so
that, if necessary, plans can be revised. Similarly, if at times during the editing
and production phase you will not be available to review materials or answer
questions, inform the production editor so that schedules can be designed or
adjusted accordingly.
Book manuscripts in the sciences, like scientific papers, commonly undergo
peer review. Your editor may do a preliminary assessment to determine
whether the manuscript is ready for peer review or whether revisions are
needed first. Once the manuscript is ready for peer review, you may be able to
help the editor by suggesting experts in your field to consider including among
the reviewers. After peer review is complete, the publisher will decide how to
176  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

(Rachel Doll, University Press of Florida)

 How to Write a Book Chapter or a Book  177

proceed. At a university press, a committee of faculty members is likely to

advise the publisher in this regard.
For a book manuscript, as for a scientific paper, any of four decisions may
be reached. Commonly, the manuscript will be accepted, but some revisions
will be required. Occasionally, the manuscript will be accepted without revi-
sions. Sometimes, if the manuscript needs major revision, the author will be
asked to revise it and submit it for reevaluation. And sometimes, if a manu-
script has fallen far short of its seeming potential, it will not be accepted.
In the likely instance that some revisions are required, the editor will indi-
cate how to proceed. Commonly, you will receive peer reviewers’ suggestions.
You also should receive guidance from the editor—for example, regarding
which suggestions are important to follow and which are optional, or what to
do about contradictory advice from different reviewers. The editor will also
work with you to determine a timetable for completing the revisions.
Once your manuscript is successfully revised, the book will enter produc-
tion. In this phase, a copy editor will edit the manuscript, a designer will
design the book, and ultimately, the book will go to the printer. Your manu-
script probably will go to a freelance copy editor who specializes in editing
book manuscripts in your field. Because such individuals know your field and
the conventions in it, they can edit your manuscript more appropriately than
general copy editors could.
Your communication with the copy editor is likely to go through the pro-
duction editor coordinating publication of your book. You will receive the
edited manuscript for review, as well as any queries (questions) the copy editor
might have, such as about points that seem inconsistent or otherwise in need
of clarification. Check the edited manuscript in the time allotted; if inaccura-
cies or other problems have been introduced, correct them. Answer any que-
ries so that necessary changes can be made.
In addition to receiving the edited manuscript to check, you will later
receive page proofs—that is, copies of the draft pages of the book. Review the
page proofs promptly but thoroughly. Make sure that nothing has been omit-
ted, all corrections of the edited manuscript were entered accurately, and all
photographs and other illustrations are included and correctly oriented. Limit
your changes, however, to those that are necessary. Now is not the time for
rewriting.
For many books in the sciences, a good index is crucial. Once the page
proofs are ready, and thus one can see what information will appear on what
page, an index can be prepared. Some authors prepare the indexes for their
books themselves. Others, however, use professional indexers. Indexing is a
highly skilled craft, and often a professional indexer can prepare a more useful
index than the author could. A professional indexer also is likely to prepare
the index more efficiently. If your book will be professionally indexed, your
178  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

publisher should be able to identify and hire a suitably qualified indexer. In

some cases, the contract for your book may indicate that the publisher will pay
for indexing. If you are to pay, the publisher may deduct the sum from your
book royalties rather than ask you to pay directly. In any case, the money is
likely to be well spent.

HOW TO HELP MARKET YOUR BOOK

If you have chosen well, your publisher will have experience and expertise
marketing books to the audiences for your book. To do its best job, though,
the publisher needs information from you. Thus, you are likely to receive
an author questionnaire. The questionnaire may, for example, ask you to
identify scientific organizations that have members interested in your topic,
conferences at which your book might appropriately be sold, journals for
which your book is suitable for review, and people well suited to provide
endorsements or blurbs. The questionnaire also is likely to request infor-
mation about you, as well as other information that can aid in promoting
your book. Take the time to complete the questionnaire thoroughly. This
information can help the marketing department ensure that the appropri-
ate audience knows of your book, and thus that your book receives the sales
it deserves.
Increasingly, authors are expected to take active roles in marketing, espe-
cially if their books are for general audiences. “Today, I do not offer a con-
tract or invest in a project if the author isn’t willing to promote his or her
book,” states an acquisition editor at a university press. “In today’s world of
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, blogs, and so on, we ask authors to actively seek
venues in which to speak, lecture, present—anything to get the book into the
right hands. Markets are increasingly specialized and targeted, and a reader
is more likely to purchase a book on astronomy at, say, a star party where the
author is a featured guest than by walking into a Barnes and Noble and
reaching for that book among the other 150,000 or so titles available each
year.”
You may also be asked to participate in the marketing of a book in other
ways. For example, you may be interviewed for radio or television, or for a
podcast or webinar. Book signings may be arranged. Arrangements may be
made for excerpts of the book to appear in magazines. Be open to such possi-
bilities, and suggest any that occur to you. If you have questions, consult the
marketing department.
For scholarly or technical books, marketing remains more restrained than
for books aimed at the general public. Although pushing one’s book in
 How to Write a Book Chapter or a Book  179

inappropriate venues, such as scientific presentations, can be counterproduc-

tive, do mention your book when suitable occasions arise. For example, if a
posting in an email discussion list requests information that your book hap-
pens to contain, mention your book. Likewise, consider mentioning your book
in science blogs and on professionally oriented social networking sites. Doing
so can at least prompt prospective users to seek out the book in the library.
And given the ideals of science, the success of a book should be measured not
only in its sales, but also in the service it provides to those who can benefit.
CHAPTER 26

How to Write for the Public

Regard readers not as being ignorant but, more likely, innocent of your topic
and its jargon. Write for them, not at them.
—Alton Blakeslee

WHY WRITE FOR GENERAL READERSHIPS?

Preparing papers and proposals for peers to read can entail plenty of writing.
Why might you write for nonscientists as well?
Sometimes your academic program or job includes doing some writing for
lay readerships. For example, requirements for a graduate degree can include
writing a nontechnical summary of your thesis. Your funding agency may
require public outreach. Or, if you teach introductory courses in your disci-
pline, you may prepare teaching materials that are essentially for the public.
Some of us write for the public on our own initiative as well. Some of us
enjoy doing such writing and appreciate the chance to reach audiences broader
than those in our own fields. Other motivations can include giving members
of the public useful information on technical topics, attracting people to scien-
tific careers, and helping to engender public support for science. Some of us
also welcome the bit of extra income that popular writing can bring.

FINDING PUBLICATION VENUES

If you wish to write for the public, how might you find a home for your work?
Good places to start can be publications, both online and in print, that you
like to read. Do not limit yourself to those devoted solely to science. Other

180
 How to Write for the Public  181

publications, including magazines focusing on specific interests or geared to

specific population groups, often contain articles on science-related topics. If
you have not published articles for the public before, suitable starting points
can include local, regional, or specialized publications, including those at your
own institution. Another good starting point can be a blog that you establish
or an existing blog for which you arrange to write guest posts. Then, once you
have proved your ability to write for the public, publications of greater scope
are more likely to welcome your requests to write.
If a venue seems suitable, try to determine whether it accepts freelance
work. One way is to see who writes for it. If all the authors are staff members
listed in its masthead, a magazine is unlikely to accept your work. But if some
articles have blurbs saying that they are by scientists not on the staff, the venue
might be appropriate for you.
Many popular publications that accept freelance work have writer’s guide-
lines, which are analogous to journals’ instructions to authors. Look for these
guidelines, which appear on the publications’ websites or can be obtained
from their editorial offices. Items often addressed include subject areas in
which articles are wanted (and not wanted), standard article lengths, requested
writing style, rates of payment, and email addresses or websites to which arti-
cle proposals should be submitted.
Typically, magazines want prospective authors to submit article proposals,
known as query letters or pitches, rather than submitting completed articles at
the outset. Doing so is more efficient for the author, who can thus avoid wast-
ing time writing articles that the magazine would not want. It also is more
efficient for the editor: By reading a query, the editor can quickly evaluate the
story idea and the writer’s skill. And if the query is accepted, the editor can
work with the writer from the outset to suit the story to the magazine’s needs.
A query letter or pitch generally should be limited to one page (or the equiv-
alent amount of text in an email message or on a proposal portal). Begin by
describing the article you propose. Among questions you might address are
the following: What is the main topic of the article, and what major subtopics
do you plan to address? Why is the topic likely to interest readers? What infor-
mation sources do you expect to use? How might the article be organized?
What types of photographs or other graphics might be appropriate? Near the
end of the letter, include a paragraph summarizing your qualifications to write
the article. If you have not written for the magazine before, provide or link to
examples, if available, of articles you have written for the public, or direct the
editor to your website if you have articles for general readers posted there.
Further information on writing queries or pitches, and more generally on
writing for magazines, can be found in books such as You Can Write for Maga-
zines (Daugherty 1999) and The Complete Guide to Article Writing (Saleh 2013),
in magazines such as Writer’s Digest, and on the science writers’ website The
182  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Open Notebook (www.theopennotebook.com), which includes guidance on

pitching and a database of pitches.
In addition to magazines, a venue to consider querying is The Conversation
(theconversation.com), whose content consists of articles that academic
experts write for it in order to inform the general public. The Conversation
posts the articles on its website and makes them available free of charge for
use in newspapers and elsewhere. Articles well suited for The Conversation
include those providing scientific context for items in the news. To publish in
The Conversation, one must be “a researcher or academic with a university or
research institution” or a PhD candidate supervised by an academic. Authors
whose pitches are accepted work with editors at The Conversation to develop
and refine their articles.
Before writing for a magazine, website, or other venue, analyze writing that
it has published or posted so that yours can fit in. Notice, for example, how
long the paragraphs tend to be, how formal or informal the wording is,
whether headings divide the articles into sections, and whether articles tend to
include bulleted lists. In writing for a popular venue, as in writing a scientific
paper, suiting the writing to the site will increase the likelihood of publication.

ENGAGING THE AUDIENCE

Readers of journals where your papers appear are likely to be already inter-
ested in your topic. Or at least they are deeply interested in science. Thus,
beyond perhaps noting the importance of the topic, you generally need to do
little to attract readers.
When writing for the public, however, you typically must do more to engage
the audience. One key to engaging the audience is analyzing it. The public is
not uniform. Rather, readers of different publications have different interests.
Ditto for users of different websites and audiences of different broadcast pro-
grams. Consider what the audience members are likely to care about, and
relate what you say to those interests.
Regardless of other interests, most people care about people. Thus, use
human interest to help engage the audience. For example, tell about the peo-
ple who did the research. If there are technology users or patients, tell about
them as well. When appropriate, also include almost-human interest, for
much of the public likes animals.
Include quotes from the people in your piece. Doing so contributes to
human interest and can keep readers’ attention through varied voices and
lively wording. To obtain quotes, of course, you generally must do interviews,
even if you are well versed on the topic about which you are writing.
 How to Write for the Public  183

People generally like stories, which often combine human interest and sus-
pense. So consider including some narrative. For example, show how a line of
research developed—and do not omit the difficulties encountered. Or include
some anecdotes illustrating your points.
Especially with regard to technologies, costs may interest and be important
to the public; consider including economic context. Likewise, if relevant to
your subject, provide social and ethical context.
Science is full of wonder as well. Use it to help engage the audience. Draw
on the audience’s curiosity. Too much gee-whiz can cheapen science, but a
little can enliven a piece.
In a popular article, unlike in a scientific paper, you may be able to engage
in wordplay and other humor. If, for example, puns are your passion, now may
be your chance. Be sure, however, that any humor would be understandable to
the audience; avoid scientific in-jokes.
Think visually as well as verbally. Editors of popular pieces for print, the web,
and television generally want to use photos or other graphics. Even radio stories
benefit from description of visual aspects. If a piece is to include visuals, the
editor can tell you whether to provide them yourself or merely provide ideas.
To maintain interest, pace the article carefully. Think of a popular article as
a chocolate chip cookie. Just as each bite of the cookie should contain at least
one chocolate chip, each few paragraphs of the article should contain some-
thing tasty—for example, a good quote, a lively anecdote, or a deft analogy.
Keep your readers wanting one more bite.

CONVEYING CONTENT CLEARLY

Much of what you do to engage the audience also can aid in conveying content
clearly. For example, gearing your piece to the audience, using lucid analogies,
and providing visuals can serve both roles. So can supporting what you say
with examples.
Members of the public probably will not know technical terms in your field.
Where feasible, avoid such jargon. If technical terms are important to the
story you are telling, or if readers should learn them for future use, remember
to define them. One way to avoid intimidating readers is to state an item in
familiar words before providing the technical term (example: “bone-forming
cells called osteoblasts”). Also, remember to define abbreviations. “PCR” may
be everyday language for you, but it may be meaningless to your readers.
Structure what you say to promote clarity. For instance, provide overviews
before details. Explicitly state the relationships between concepts. Repeat
important points.
184  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

(“Average Familiarity” by xkcd [xkcd.com].

Used by permission.)

Include numbers; members of the public often expect and enjoy them.
However, present them in easily understood ways. If the audience is unfamil-
iar with metric units, use English units (or whatever units your audience gen-
erally uses). And relate sizes to familiar ones (“about the size of . . .”). Do not
overwhelm readers with many numbers clustered together. Separate pieces of
“hard stuff” with softer material, such as anecdotes and examples.
Sometimes readers have misconceptions about scientific items. To counter
misconceptions without seeming condescending, consider taking the follow-
ing approach (Rowan 1990): First, state the commonly held view and note its
seeming plausibility. Then show the inadequacy of that view. Finally, present
the scientifically supported view and explain its greater adequacy.
Of course, follow the principles of readable writing presented elsewhere in
this book. For example, use concise, straightforward language when possible.
Structure sentences simply. Avoid lengthy paragraphs.
 How to Write for the Public  185

Finally, consider checking with potential readers. Show a draft to nonscien-

tist friends, neighbors, or family members. See what they find interesting or
what doesn’t work for them. See what they find clear or unclear. Then consider
revising your piece based on this feedback before submitting it.

EMULATING THE BEST

Further guidance in writing for the public about science appears in The Open
Notebook (www.theopennotebook.com), the book The Craft of Science Writing:
Selections from The Open Notebook (Carpenter 2020), and Science Blogging: The
Essential Guide (Wilcox, Brookshire, and Goldman 2016). A variety of other
books and articles (for example, Blakeslee 1994; Blum, Knudson, and Henig
2006; Gastel 1983, 2005; Hancock 2003; Stocking et al. 2011; Writers of Sci-
Lance 2013) also provide such advice.
In addition, good popular science writing, like good writing for scientific
audiences, benefits from following good examples. Where can you find such
examples? Major newspapers and magazines contain much good science writ-
ing. So do the bestseller lists. Fine pieces of popular science communication
in various media have won AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Awards, National
Association of Science Writers (NASW) Science in Society Journalism Awards,
NASW Excellence in Institutional Writing Awards, Pulitzer Prizes, and awards
for communicating about specific fields of science; the websites for such
awards list recipients and often include links to the winning pieces. Other
sources of excellent examples include the annual anthology titled The Best
American Science and Nature Writing. Consume good works of popular science
communication. Whether or not you explicitly analyze them, you are likely to
assimilate much about writing skillfully for the public.
This page intentionally left blank
PART VI

Conference Communications
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 27

How to Present a Paper Orally

Talk low, talk slow, and don’t say too much.

—John Wayne

HOW TO GET TO PRESENT A PAPER

The first step in presenting a paper is to obtain a chance to do so. Sometimes,
you might receive an unsolicited invitation. For major conferences, however,
you normally must take the initiative by submitting an abstract of the paper
that you hope to present.
Those organizing the conference typically provide abstract submission
forms; these usually can be accessed and submitted via the websites of those
holding the conferences. The submitted abstracts undergo peer review, and
the submitters whose abstracts seem to describe the strongest research are
asked to give oral presentations. For some conferences, those whose abstracts
represent good work of lower priority are asked to give poster presentations.
For other conferences, separate application processes exist for oral presenta-
tions and for posters.
Those who decide whether you should present a paper are likely to have
only your abstract on which to base their decision. Therefore, prepare the
abstract carefully, following all instructions. Word the abstract concisely, so it
can be highly informative even if brief. (The word limit sometimes is higher
than that for abstracts accompanying published papers, but be sure to stay
within the required count.) If figures or tables are allowed, follow all instruc-
tions, and do not exceed the number permitted. Organize the abstract well—
typically following the same sequence as a scientific paper. Also, write clearly
and readably, as those reviewing the abstracts probably will be busy scientists

189
190  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

with many abstracts to review and little patience with those that are unclear on
first reading. Of course, be sure to submit the abstract by the deadline. Present
your research well in your abstract, and you may soon be presenting a paper.
For many conferences, the peer reviewers might not be the only ones see-
ing your abstract. Often, presentation abstracts are printed in the conference
program, posted on the conference website, or both. Those reading them can
include conference registrants trying to decide which sessions to attend, fel-
low scientists unable to attend the conference but interested in the content,
and science reporters trying to determine which sessions to cover. All the
more reason to provide an informative and readable abstract.

A WORD OF CAUTION
If you receive an unsolicited invitation to speak at a conference that you have
not have heard of, check into the matter carefully rather than automatically
accepting. In recent years, what are known as predatory conferences have arisen.
These are not valid scientific conferences, but rather scams to take people’s
money. The organizers invite prospective attendees, obtain their advance reg-
istration fees, and then either hold a conference with little scientific substance
or hold no conference at all.
One clue that a conference might be predatory is if you are invited to speak
at a conference that is outside your field. Other possible clues include an invi-
tation that emphasizes the beautiful location rather than the conference con-
tent, lists fees that are much higher than usual, or has many grammatical
errors and misspellings. If you are early in your career, perhaps consult a men-
tor or senior colleague to help determine whether a conference is valid. Also,
online searching can help identify conference organizers that credible sources,
such as academic librarians, have deemed questionable.

ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER

The best way to organize a paper for oral presentation generally is to proceed
in the same logical pathway that one usually does in writing a paper, starting
with “What was the problem?” and ending with “What is the solution?” How-
ever, it is important to remember that oral presentation of a paper does not
constitute publication, and therefore different rules apply. The greatest dis-
tinction is that the published paper must contain the full experimental proto-
col so that the experiments can be repeated. The oral presentation, however,
need not (and should not) contain all of the experimental detail, unless by
chance you have been called on to administer a soporific at a meeting of
 How to Present a Paper Orally  191

insomniacs. Extensive citation of the literature is also undesirable in an oral

presentation.

PRESENTATION OF THE PAPER

Most oral presentations are short (with a limit of 10 minutes at many meet-
ings). Thus, even the theoretical content must be trimmed down relative to
that of a written paper. No matter how well organized, too many ideas pre-
sented too quickly will be confusing. Stick to your most important point or
result and stress that. There will not be time to present all your other neat
ideas.
There are, of course, other, longer types of oral presentations. A typical time
allotted for symposium presentations is 20 minutes. A few are longer. A sem-
inar is normally 1 hour. Obviously, you can present more material if you have
more time. Even so, you should go slowly, carefully presenting a few main
points or themes. If you proceed too fast, especially at the beginning, your
audience will lose the thread; the daydreams will begin, and your message will
be lost.
Time limits for conference presentations tend to be strictly enforced. There-
fore, carefully plan your presentation to fit the allotted time—lest you be
whisked from the podium before you can report your major result. If possible,
make your presentation a bit shorter than the limit (say, 9 or 9.5 minutes if
10 minutes are allotted) to accommodate unexpected slowdowns. Rehearse
your presentation beforehand, both to make sure that it is the right length and
to help ensure a smooth delivery. During your presentation, stay aware of the
time. Perhaps indicate in your notes what point in the presentation you should
have reached by what time so that you can adjust your pace if necessary.
A few more pointers on delivery: Speak very clearly and avoid speaking
quickly, especially if the language in which you are presenting is not the native
language of all the audience members. Remember to look at the audience.
Show interest in your subject. Avoid habits that might be distracting—such as
repeatedly saying “um” or “you know” or the equivalent from your native lan-
guage. To polish your delivery, consider videoing rehearsals of one or more of
your presentations.
Does stage fright plague you? Consider the following suggestions: Prepare
well so you can feel confident, but do not prepare so much that you feel
obsessed. To dissipate nervous energy, take a walk or take advantage of the
exercise facilities in the conference hotel. Beware of taking in too much caf-
feine, food, or water before your talk. Hide physical signs of anxiety; for exam-
ple, if your hands tremble under stress, do not hold papers. Realize that a
presentation need not be flawless to be excellent. Perhaps most important,
192  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

(“Piled Higher and Deeper” by Jorge Cham. www.phdcomics.com)

realize that the audience members are there not because they wish to judge
your speaking style, but because they are interested in your research.

SLIDES
At small, informal scientific meetings, various types of visual aids—including
flip charts, whiteboards, and blackboards—may be used. At most scientific
conferences, however, Microsoft PowerPoint presentations or the equivalent
are the norm. Every scientist should know how to prepare effective slides and
use them well, and yet almost any session at a conference quickly demon-
strates that many do not.
Here are a few important considerations. First, slides should be designed
specifically for use with oral presentations, with large-enough lettering to be
seen from the back of the room. In general, use lettering that is at least 28 points
in size. Choose a sans serif typeface, such as Arial or Calibri. Slides prepared
from graphs that were drawn for journal publication are seldom effective and
often are not even legible. Slides prepared from a printed journal or book are
almost never effective. So, if necessary, re-create the content. Also, remember
that, quite likely, some audience members will be colorblind. Therefore, avoid
using solely color to distinguish items such as lines on a graph, beware of com-
binations of colors (such as red and green) that are hard for many people with
colorblindness to distinguish, and follow other guidelines (for example,
Collinge 2017) for accessibility to people who are colorblind.
Slides should be uncrowded. Each slide should illustrate a particular point
or perhaps summarize a few. To permit rapid reading, use bullet points, not
paragraphs. For text slides, try not to exceed about seven lines of about seven
words each—or, stated another way, about 50 words in total. It has been said
that if a slide cannot be understood in 4 seconds, it is not good.
 How to Present a Paper Orally  193

Beware of showing too many slides. A moderate number of well-chosen

slides will enhance your presentation; too many will be distracting. One gen-
eral guideline is not to exceed an average of about one slide per minute. If you
show a slide of an illustration or table, indicate its main message. As one long-
suffering audience member said, “Don’t just point at it.”
Speaking of illustrations and tables: If there are findings that you can present
in either a graph or a table, use a graph in an oral presentation. Doing so will help
the audience grasp the point more quickly. And speaking of pointing: If you use
a laser pointer, take care with it. In your enthusiasm or in distraction, do not
wildly gesture at the slide—or the audience—with a lighted pointer. Rather, turn
on the laser pointer only when you want to call attention to a specific item on a
slide. Direct the laser pointer specifically at the item. And if, for example, you are
showing a pathway, trace it with the pointer. If you shake during presentations,
hold the laser pointer in one hand and use the other hand to steady that hand.
If the conference is in person and has a speaker ready room (a room in
which speakers can test their audiovisuals), check that your slides are function-
ing properly. Also, if possible, get to the hall before the audience does. Make
sure that the projector is working, ascertain that your slides will indeed project,
and check the lights. If you will use a microphone, ensure that it is functioning.
Normally, each slide should make one simple, easily understood visual
statement. The slide should supplement what you are saying when it is on the
screen; it should not simply repeat what you are saying, or vice versa. Except
when doing so could help overcome a language barrier, do not read the slide
text to the audience.
A nice touch, and a tradition in some research areas, is to include a closing
slide acknowledging your collaborators and perhaps showing a photo of the
research group. If the research being reported was a team effort, consider
including such a slide if appropriate in your field.
Slides that are thoughtfully designed, well prepared, and skillfully used can
greatly enhance the value of a scientific presentation. Poor slides would have
ruined Cicero.

PRESENTING ONLINE
Traditionally, conferences have taken place in person. Now, however, many
conferences are held either online or in a hybrid format, with some compo-
nents face to face and others online. Therefore, a scientist’s set of presentation
skills should include those for presenting remotely, for example via Zoom.
The basics—such as preparing thoroughly, designing slides for easy under-
standing, speaking slowly and clearly, and carefully complying with the time
limit—remain much the same as for presenting in person. However, some of
the details differ.
194  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Specific tips for preparing to present online include the following:

• If unacquainted with the software for the conference, familiarize yourself

with it. Know, for example, how to share your screen. Conference orga-
nizers commonly provide briefing materials or instruction sessions for
online presenters.
• Arrange to have a light source in front of you so that your face will be lit.
Otherwise, you may just appear in silhouette.
• Position the camera at an appropriate level. Audience members do not
want to look at the top of your head or, worse yet, peer up your nose.
• If you will use a virtual background, choose one that is simple and profes-
sional. If your actual surroundings will be shown, avoid distracting—or
potentially embarrassing—clutter.
• Dress suitably (in general, with the same formality as for a presentation
in person). Avoid wearing patterns such as stripes and checks, which can
seem to writhe on camera.
• Minimize intrusions. If you will speak from home and you have pets or
small children, make arrangements accordingly, so they won’t be barking
up a storm, meandering across your keyboard, or wandering in to ask for
a cookie.
• Rehearse and refine. Take advantage of the software’s capacity to record
your presentation and review the video.

Also, have backup plans. For example, consider sending the moderator
your slides in case a glitch keeps you from projecting them yourself. Perhaps
be ready to connect to the meeting by phone in case of an internet outage.
As for the presentation itself: Arrive early, so that any final arrangements
can be made and technical matters resolved. To help ensure energetic delivery,
consider standing during your presentation. (Make sure that the camera is
positioned accordingly.) Remember to look at the camera. If the chat function
will be used, consider having someone monitor the chat while you are speak-
ing, so you are not distracted. Also, if the technology permits, consider obtain-
ing a video of the presentation, a transcript of the presentation, and a transcript
of the chat for future reference.

MAKING A MINI-PRESENTATION
Chances sometimes arise to speak very briefly about one’s work. One instance
is when, at a conference or elsewhere, one is asked, “Well, what kind of
research do you do?” Another instance is when one can talk at an event such
as a Three Minute Thesis competition.
 How to Present a Paper Orally  195

The response to the “What do you do?” question is sometimes called an

elevator speech because it should be brief enough to give in an elevator ride with
someone. Like other communications, it should be geared to the audience, be
it a newly met colleague at a conference or your long-lost nonscientist cousin
at a family reunion. Regardless of the audience, the following flow can be
helpful. If your identity might not be clear, introduce (or reintroduce) yourself.
(“I’m _____ _____, a graduate student in _____’s lab at the University of
____,” or “As you may recall, I’m your cousin ____ from ___.”) Briefly provide
some context at the appropriate technical level. (“Our laboratory focuses on
basic mechanisms of ____, especially as _____,” or “My work relates to ____,
which has become an increasingly serious problem in this country.”) Then say
more specifically—again, at a suitable technical level—what you are working
on. And finally, look ahead. (“I’m currently seeking postdoc opportunities in
this field,” or “I hope my research will contribute to addressing this prob-
lem.”) The ideal is to leave the listener wanting, and requesting, more.
In a Three Minute Thesis competition, participants briefly present their
research in a suitable way for a nonspecialist audience (University of
Queensland n.d.). Such competitions began at the University of Queensland
in Australia and have now been held at hundreds of universities worldwide.
Tips to consider when preparing and presenting a Three Minute Thesis
include to start with a relevant statement that engages the audience, move
from broad context to your specific research, structure the presentation as a
story, emphasize the “why” or “so-what,” speak slowly enough, rehearse exten-
sively, and share your enthusiasm for your work. Other advice from this chap-
ter and chapter 26 (on writing for the public) can apply. Whether or not you
win, a Three Minute Thesis competition can be a fine chance to share your
research and enhance your communication skills.

THE AUDIENCE
The presentation of a paper at a scientific meeting is a two-way process.
Because the material being communicated at a scientific conference is likely
to be the newest available information in that field, both the speakers and the
audience should accept certain obligations. As indicated earlier in this chapter,
speakers should present their material clearly and effectively so that the audi-
ence can understand and learn from the information being communicated.
Almost certainly, the audience for an oral presentation will be more diverse
than the readership of a scientific paper. Therefore, the oral presentation should
be pitched at a more general level than a written paper would be. Avoid techni-
cal detail. Define terms. Beware of using acronyms that the audience does not
already know. Explain difficult concepts. Repeat important points. Rehearsing
196  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

a paper before the members of one’s own department or group (even just a few
of them) can make the difference between success and disaster.
For communication to be effective, the audience also has a number of
responsibilities. These start with simple courtesy. The audience should be
quiet and attentive, no matter how compellingly a mobile device may beckon.
Speakers respond well to an interested, attentive audience, whereas the com-
munication process can be virtually destroyed when the audience is noisy,
distracted, or, worse, asleep.
The best part of an oral presentation is often the question-and-answer
period. During this time, members of the audience have the option, if not the
obligation, of raising questions not covered by the speaker and of briefly pre-
senting ideas or data that confirm or contrast with those presented by the
speaker. Such questions and comments should be stated courteously and pro-
fessionally. This is not the time (although we have all seen it) for windbags to
vent their spleens or to describe their own erudition in infinite detail. It is all
right to disagree, but do not be disagreeable. In short, the speaker has an obli-
gation to be considerate to the audience, and the audience has an obligation to
be considerate to the speaker.

A FEW ANSWERS ON QUESTIONS

What should you do if an audience member is indeed abrasive? If someone
asks an irrelevant question? If a question is relevant but you lack the answer?
If someone is rude, stay calm and courteous. Thank them for the question
or comment, and if you have a substantive reply, provide it. If the person keeps
pursuing the point, offer to talk after the session.
If a question is irrelevant, take a cue from politicians and try to deflect the
discussion to something related that you wish to address—perhaps a point
that you had hoped to include in your presentation but didn’t have time to add.
(“That’s an interesting question, but a more immediate concern to us was. . . .”)
Alternatively, again offer to talk with the person later.
If you lack the answer to a question, do not panic—and definitely do not
bluff. Admit that you do not know. If you can provide the answer later, offer to
do so; if you know how to find the answer, say how. To help prepare for ques-
tions that might arise, have colleagues quiz you after you rehearse.
Especially if you have not yet submitted for publication the work you are
presenting, consider making note of the questions and comments (or having
a colleague do so). Audience members can function as some of your earliest
peer reviewers. Keeping their questions in mind when you write may
strengthen your paper and hasten its acceptance.
CHAPTER 28

How to Prepare a Poster

It takes intelligence, even brilliance, to condense and focus information into a

clear, simple presentation that will be read and remembered. Ignorance and
arrogance are shown in a crowded, complicated, hard-to-read poster.
—Mary Helen Briscoe

POPULARITY OF POSTERS
Whether a conference is local, regional, national, or international, it is likely
to include posters presenting research. Sessions featuring such posters
originated—apparently in the late 1960s through the mid-1970s (Waquet
2008)—as follows: As attendance at meetings increased, and as pressure
mounted on program committees to schedule more and more papers for oral
presentation, something had to change. The large annual meetings, such as
those of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
reached the point where the number of available meeting rooms no longer
sufficed. And, even when enough rooms were available, the resulting large
numbers of concurrent sessions made it difficult or impossible for attending
scientists to keep up with the work being presented.
At first, program committees simply rejected however many abstracts were
deemed beyond the capabilities of meeting room space. Then, as poster ses-
sions were developed, program committees could take the sting out of rejec-
tion by telling the rejectees that they could present their work as posters. In
the early days, posters were relegated to the hallways of the hotels or confer-
ence centers where meetings took place; nevertheless, many authors, espe-
cially graduate students trying to present their first paper, were happy to have
their work accepted for a poster session rather than being knocked off the

197
198  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

program altogether. Also, younger scientists had come of age during the era of
science fairs, and they liked posters.
Nowadays, poster sessions have become an accepted and meaningful part
of many meetings. Large societies set aside substantial space for poster pre-
sentations; at some meetings, thousands of posters are presented. Even small
societies often encourage poster presentations because some types of material
may be presented more effectively in poster graphics and the accompanying
discussion than in the confines of the traditional 10-minute oral presentation.
Meanwhile, posters and poster sessions continue to evolve. Recent develop-
ments include electronic posters, also known as e-posters or digital posters.
More and more conferences are featuring e-poster sessions, for which posters
are provided digitally and displayed electronically. Some such sessions are lim-
ited to e-posters that have only static images, and so are largely digital equiva-
lents of conventional posters. Others display e-posters that incorporate
dynamic elements, such as videos, animations, and opportunities for interac-
tion. Also, some conferences include related sessions such as 3-minute spo-
ken “flash poster presentations,” intended to interest attendees in visiting the
speakers’ posters. Since the advent of virtual and part-virtual conferences,
many posters have been presented remotely.
Before starting to prepare a poster, be sure to know the requirements spec-
ified by the meeting organizers. If the poster will be a physical one, you of
course must know the height and width of the space available for it. The min-
imum sizes of type may be specified, as may other aspects, such as require-
ments for e-posters. As well as being given directly to the presenters, this
information is likely to be available on the conference website.

ORGANIZATION
The organization of a poster normally should follow the IMRAD format (intro-
duction, methods, results, and discussion). There is very little text in a well-
designed poster; most of the space is used for illustrations. In general, a poster
should contain no more than 500 to 1,000 words (approximately the number
of words in two to four double-spaced pages of manuscript or in two to four
typical article abstracts). If a poster is in landscape format, with the width
exceeding the height, placing the content in three to five vertical columns gen-
erally works well. For posters in portrait format, using two or three columns is
usually the best choice. Unless the conference organizers require an abstract
on your poster, do not include one; the poster as a whole is not much more
extensive than an abstract, so an abstract tends to be redundant and waste
valuable space. Where feasible, use bulleted or numbered lists rather than
paragraphs. If paragraphs are used, keep them short for readability.
 How to Prepare a Poster  199

The introduction should present the problem succinctly; the poster will
fail unless it has a clear statement of purpose at the beginning. The methods
section will be very brief; sometimes a sentence or two will suffice to describe
the type of approach used. The results section, which is often the shortest
part of a written paper, is usually the major part of a well-designed poster.
Most of the available space should be used to illustrate the results. The dis-
cussion should be brief. Some of the best posters do not even use the head-
ing “Discussion”; instead, the heading “Conclusions” appears over the
far-right panel, with the individual conclusions perhaps being in the form of
numbered or bulleted short sentences. Literature citations should be kept to
a minimum.

PREPARING THE POSTER

Preparing a poster often begins with writing an abstract for the selection com-
mittee. As with an oral presentation, this abstract should be carefully written.
It should conform to all stated requirements, and it should be readably worded
for easy peer review. Before writing the abstract, think ahead to what the poster
will look like. Choose as your topic a part of your research that is focused
enough to present effectively as a poster (Mitrany 2005) rather than trying to
cover so much that a bafflingly cluttered poster would result.
The title of your poster should be short and (if feasible) attention-grabbing;
if it is too long, it might not fit in the space. The title should be readable to a
distance of 10 feet (about 3 m). The typeface should be bold and dark, and the
type should be at least about 1 inch (about 25 mm) high—in other words, at
least about 72 points. Unless the conference organizers require titles to be in
all capital letters, use mainly lowercase letters; in addition to taking up less
space, they make the title easier to read, as lowercase letters vary more in
shape than capital letters do. (Compare “PRESENTING POSTERS” and “Pre-
senting Posters.”) The names of the authors should be somewhat smaller. The
text type should be large enough to be readily readable (normally at least
18 points). Large blocks of type should be avoided; where feasible, use bulleted
or numbered lists.
A poster should be self-explanatory, allowing viewers to proceed at their
own pace. If the author must spend most of their time merely explaining the
poster rather than responding to scientific questions, the poster is largely a
failure.
Having ample white space throughout the poster is important. Distracting
clutter will drive people away. Try to make it very clear what is meant to be
looked at first, second, and so forth (although many people will still read the
poster backward). Visual impact is particularly critical in a poster session. If
200  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

you lack graphic talent, consider getting the help of a graphic artist, such as
from the media resources department at your institution.
A poster should contain highlights, so that passersby can easily discern
whether the poster is of interest to them. If they are interested, there will be
plenty of time for them to ask questions about the details. Also, consider pre-
paring handouts containing more detailed information; they will be appreci-
ated by colleagues with similar specialties. Another option is to include a QR
code for accessing further information.
A poster may actually be better than an oral presentation for showing the
results of a complex experiment. In a poster, you can organize the highlights
of several threads well enough to give informed viewers the chance to recog-
nize what is going on and then get further details if they so desire. The oral
presentation, as stated in chapter 27, is better for getting across a single result
or point.
The really nice thing about posters is the variety of illustrations that can be
used. There is no barrier (as there sometimes is in journal publication) to the
use of color. All kinds of photographs, graphs, drawings, paintings, radio-
graphs, maps, and even cartoons can be presented. Try to use images that both
attract and inform. Make the images large enough to see easily, and keep them
simple enough to understand quickly.
Once the poster is drafted, check it carefully. Be sure, for example, that all
the illustrations are clearly labeled and the poster includes your contact infor-
mation. Proofread the poster, and have others do so too—lest you discover too
late that your coinvestigator’s name was misspelled. If you will present a phys-
ical poster, consider what material to print it on. Traditionally, posters have
been printed on heavy paper. Some presenters have their posters printed on
cloth for easier transport.
If you are traveling by airplane to a conference, carry your poster with you.
Do not check it in your luggage—it might be delayed until after the poster ses-
sion if, as happened to a colleague of ours, you are flying to San Jose but your
luggage gets routed to San Juan. Regardless of whether your poster is conven-
tional or electronic, have a backup copy in case the original is lost, destroyed,
or damaged. For example, carry a copy on a USB drive, email a copy to your-
self, save a copy in the cloud—or do more than one of these.
There are many excellent posters. Some scientists indeed have consider-
able creative ability. It is obvious that these people are proud of the science
they are doing, and they are pleased to put it all into a pretty picture.
There are also many terrible posters. A few are simply badly designed. The
great majority of bad posters are bad because the author is trying to present
too much in them. Huge blocks of typed material will not be read, especially if
the type is small. Crowds will gather around the simple, well-illustrated post-
ers; the cluttered, wordy posters will be ignored.
 How to Prepare a Poster  201

PRESENTING THE POSTER

A poster presentation is, as its name says, both poster and presentation. Typi-
cally, for some of the time the poster is on display, one or more of the authors
accompany and discuss it. Thus, creating a well-designed poster constitutes
only part of a successful poster presentation.
Leave your shyness behind when you accompany a poster. Now is not the
time to hide behind the poster or stare at your shoes. Think ahead about ques-
tions you might be asked and, verbally and otherwise, show a readiness to
answer them. If the occasion arises, ask questions as well. Take advantage of
the chance for feedback. Also, take advantage of the chance to network. Those
talking with you might well include potential collaborators or employers.
What should you wear when presenting a poster? At some conferences,
poster presenters typically wear suits. At others, they usually dress more casu-
ally. If in doubt, ask a mentor or colleague who knows the norms. A light-
hearted report of a very small study (Keegan and Bannister 2003) suggests that
wearing colors that coordinate with those of a poster might increase the num-
ber of visitors to the poster. A photo of a presenter wearing clothes color-
coordinated with his poster appears on the web page Designing Conference
Posters (colinpurrington.com/tips/poster-design), which presents extensive
advice on preparing and presenting posters; scroll down patiently to find this
photo, for this web page is extensive, even containing templates for poster
design. Another source of extensive advice on posters is the book Better Posters
(Faulkes 2021), which includes many visuals and has an informal, sometimes
irreverent style.
As noted, consider having handouts available that present your work in
more detail; remember to include your contact information. Also consider
having, or providing access to, printouts of your poster and copies of papers
describing related research you have done. If you run out of handout materials
or wish to share materials that you did not bring, obtain email addresses and
send the materials as attachments. Perhaps have business cards available too.
And if, for example, you are seeking a postdoctoral fellowship or a job, per-
haps have copies of your curriculum vitae or résumé on hand.
In short, take advantage of the interactive opportunities of the poster ses-
sion. As your professional community comes to you, present your work—and
yourself—at their best.
CHAPTER 29

How to Write a Conference Report

Conference: a gathering of important people who singly can do nothing, but

together decide that nothing can be done.
—Fred Allen

DEFINITION
A conference report can be of many kinds. However, let us make a few assump-
tions and, from these, try to devise a picture of what a more-or-less typical
conference report should look like.
It all starts, of course, when you are invited to participate in a conference
(congress, symposium, workshop, panel discussion, seminar, or colloquium),
the proceedings of which will be published. At that early time, you should stop
to ask yourself, and the conference convener or editor, exactly what is involved
in the publication.
The biggest question, yet one that is often left cloudy, is whether the pro-
ceedings volume will be defined as a primary publication. If you or other par-
ticipants present previously unpublished data, the question arises (or at least
it should) as to whether data published in the proceedings are validly pub-
lished, thus precluding later republication in a primary journal.
The clear trend, it seems, is to define conference reports as not validly pub-
lished primary data. This is seemingly in recognition of three important con-
siderations: (1) Most conference proceedings are one-shot, ephemeral
publications, not purchased widely by science libraries around the world;
thus, because of their limited circulation and availability, they fail one of the
fundamental tests of valid publication. Or if the proceedings are posted online,

202
 How to Write a Conference Report  203

they might not be permanently accessible. (2) Most conference reports either
are essentially review papers, which do not qualify as primary publication, or
are preliminary reports presenting data and concepts that may still be tenta-
tive or inconclusive and that the scientist would not yet dare to contribute to a
primary publication. (3) Conference reports are normally not subjected to peer
review or to more than minimal editing; therefore, because of the lack of any
real quality control, many reputable publishers now define proceedings vol-
umes as nonprimary. (There are, of course, exceptions. Some conference pro-
ceedings are peer-reviewed and rigorously edited, and their prestige is the
equal of primary journals. Indeed, some conference proceedings appear as
issues of journals.)
This is important to you because you can determine whether your data will
be buried in an obscure proceedings volume. It also answers in large measure
how you should write the report. If the proceedings volume is adjudged as
primary, you should (and the editor will no doubt so indicate) prepare your
manuscript in journal style. You should give full experimental detail, and you
should present both your data and your discussion of the data as circumspectly
as you would in a prestigious journal.
If, on the other hand, you are contributing to a proceedings volume that is
not a primary publication, your style of writing may (and should) be quite dif-
ferent. The fundamental requirement of reproducibility, inherent in a primary
publication, may now be ignored. You need not, and probably should not, have
a materials and methods section. Certainly, you need not provide the intricate
detail that might be required for a peer to reproduce the experiments.
Nor is it necessary to provide the usual literature review. Your later journal
article will carefully fit your results into the preexisting fabric of science; your
conference report should be designed to give the news and the speculation on
the data for today’s audiences. Only the primary journal need serve as the
official repository.

FORMAT
If your conference report is not a primary scientific paper, just how should it
differ from the usual scientific paper?
A conference report is often limited to one or two printed pages, or 1,000 to
2,000 words. Commonly, authors are provided with a simple formula, such as
“up to five manuscript pages, double-spaced, and not more than three illustra-
tions (any combination of tables, graphs, or photographs).”
Today, conference reports often appear in electronic formats, either instead
of or in addition to print. However, the principles remain the same.
204  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

PRESENTING NEW IDEAS

As stated, the conference report can be relatively short because most of the
experimental detail and much of the literature review can be eliminated. In
addition, the results can usually be presented in brief form. Because the full
results will be presumably published later in a primary journal, only the high-
lights need be presented in the conference report.
On the other hand, the conference report might give greater space to specu-
lation. Editors of primary journals can get quite nervous about discussion of
theories and possibilities that are not thoroughly buttressed by the data. The
conference report, however, should serve the purpose of the true preliminary
report; it should present and encourage speculation, alternative theories, and
suggestions for future research.
Conferences themselves can be exciting precisely because they do serve as the
forum for presentation of the very newest ideas. If the ideas are truly new, they are
not yet fully tested. They may not hold water. Therefore, the typical scientific con-
ference should be designed as a sounding board, and the published proceedings
should reflect that ambience. The strict controls of stern editors and peer review
are fine for the primary journal but are out of place for the conference literature.
Because conference reports may interest readers largely because of the
newness of the ideas, submit your report promptly. Sometimes the reports are
due before the conference. Other times, they are due shortly afterward, allow-
ing you to add ideas that emerged at the conference. In either case, submit
your report by the deadline so as not to delay publication or posting. If your
paper is due shortly after the conference, a good approach can be to draft it
before the conference and start revising it during the conference, while any
discussion of your presentation is fresh in your mind.
The typical conference report, therefore, need not follow the usual intro-
duction, materials and methods, results, discussion progression that is stan-
dard for the primary research paper. Instead, an abbreviated approach may be
used. The problem is stated; the methodology used is stated (but not described
in detail); and the results are presented briefly, with one, two, or three tables
or figures. Then, the meaning of the results is speculated about, often at con-
siderable length. There is likely to be description of related or planned experi-
ments in the author’s own laboratory or in the laboratories of colleagues who
are currently working on related problems.

EDITING AND PUBLISHING

Finally, it is only necessary to remind you that the editor of the proceedings,
usually the convener of the conference, is the sole arbiter of questions relating
to manuscript preparation. If the editor has distributed instructions to authors,
 How to Write a Conference Report  205

you should follow them (assuming that you want to be invited to other confer-
ences). You might not have to worry about rejection, since conference reports
are seldom rejected; however, if you have agreed to participate in a conference,
you should follow whatever rules are established. If all contributors follow the
rules, whatever they are, the resultant volume is likely to exhibit reasonable
internal consistency and be a credit to everyone involved.
This page intentionally left blank
PART VII

Scientific Style
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 30

Use and Misuse of English

Long words name little things. All big things have little names, such as life
and death, peace and war, or dawn, day, night, love, home. Learn to use
little words in a big way—It is hard to do. But they say what you mean.
When you don’t know what you mean, use big words: They often fool little
people.
—SSC BOOKNEWS, July 1981

SOME BASICS
Keep It Simple
Earlier chapters of this book outlined the various components that could (and
perhaps should) go into a scientific paper. Perhaps, with this outline, the paper
won’t quite write itself. But if this outline, this table of organization, is fol-
lowed, the writing might be much easier than otherwise.
Of course, you still must use the English language if you want your work to
have the greatest visibility. For some, this may be difficult. If your native lan-
guage is not English, you may face particular challenges in English-language
writing; some suggestions for overcoming those challenges appear in chapter
34. Even if your native language is English, you may have a problem because
the native language of many of your readers is not English.
Learn to appreciate, as most manuscript editors have done, the sheer beauty
of the simple declarative sentence (subject, then verb, then object). You will
thereby avoid most serious grammatical problems and make it easier for peo-
ple whose native language is not English. You also will make it easier for read-
ers who are busy—as almost all readers of scientific papers are.

209
210  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Tense in Scientific Writing

One special convention of writing scientific papers is very tricky. It has to do
with tense, and it is important because proper usage derives from scientific
ethics.
When a scientific paper has been validly published in a primary journal, it
thereby becomes knowledge. Whenever you state previously published find-
ings, ethics requires you to treat the work with respect. You do this by using
the present tense. It is correct to say, “Streptomycin inhibits the growth of
Mycobacterium tuberculosis (13).” Whenever you state previously published
findings, you should use the present tense, as you are referring to established
knowledge. You would do this just as you would say, “The Earth is round.” (If
previously published results have been proven false in later experiments, the
use of past rather than present tense would be appropriate.)
Your own present work must be referred to in the past tense. Your work is
not presumed to be established knowledge until after it has been published. If
you determined in your study that the optimal growth temperature for Strep-
tomyces everycolor was 37°C, you should say, “S. everycolor grew best at 37°C.” If
you are citing previous published work (even possibly your own), it is then
correct to say, “S. everycolor grows best at 37°C.”
In the typical paper, you will normally go back and forth between the past
and present tenses. Most of the abstract should be in the past tense because
you are referring to your own present results. Likewise, the materials and
methods and the results sections should be in the past tense, as you describe
what you did and what you found. On the other hand, much of the introduc-
tion and much of the discussion should be in the present tense because these
sections often emphasize previously established knowledge.
Suppose that your research concerned the effect of streptomycin on
S. everycolor. The tense would vary somewhat as follows.
In the abstract, you would write, “The effect of streptomycin on S. everycolor
grown in various media was tested. Growth of S. everycolor, measured in terms
of optical density, was inhibited in all media tested. Inhibition was most pro-
nounced at high pH levels.”
In the introduction, typical sentences might be, “Streptomycin is an antibi-
otic produced by Streptomyces griseus (13). This antibiotic inhibits the growth of
certain other strains of Streptomyces (7, 14, 17). The effect of streptomycin on
S. everycolor is reported in this paper.”
In the materials and methods section, you would write, “The effect of
streptomycin was tested against S. everycolor grown on Trypticase soy agar
(BBL) and several other media (Table 1). Various growth temperatures and
pH levels were employed. Growth was measured in terms of optical density
(Klett units).”
 Use and Misuse of English  211

In the results. you would write, “Growth of S. everycolor was inhibited by

streptomycin at all concentrations tested (Table 2) and at all pH levels (Table 3).
Maximum inhibition occurred at pH 8.2; inhibition was slight below pH 7.”
In the discussion. you would write, “S. everycolor was most susceptible to
streptomycin at pH 8.2, whereas S. nocolor is most susceptible at pH 7.6 (13).
Various other Streptomyces species are most susceptible to streptomycin at
even lower pH levels (6, 9, 17).”
In short, you should normally use the present tense when you refer to pre-
viously published work, and you should use the past tense when referring to
your present results.
The main exceptions to this rule are in the areas of attribution and presen-
tation. It is correct to say, “Smith (9) showed that streptomycin inhibits
S. nocolor.” It is also correct to say, “Table 4 shows that streptomycin inhibited
S. everycolor at all pH levels.” Another exception is that the results of calcula-
tions and statistical analysis should be in the present tense, even though
statements about the objects to which they refer are in the past tense; for
example, “These values are significantly greater than those of the females of
the same age, indicating that the males grew more rapidly.” Still another excep-
tion is a general statement or known truth. Simply put, you could say, “Water
was added and the towels became damp, which proves again that water is wet.”
More commonly, you will need to use this kind of tense variation: “Significant
amounts of type IV procollagen were isolated. These results indicate that type
IV procollagen is a major constituent of the Schwann cell ECM.”

Active Versus Passive Voice

Let us now talk about voice. In any type of writing, the active voice tends to be
more powerful, more precise, and less wordy than the passive voice.
Some exceptions do exist, though. As noted in Chapter 11, passive voice
(for example, “the tubes were centrifuged” rather than “we centrifuged the
tubes”) sometimes works well in the methods section. Elsewhere in a scien-
tific paper, however, it rarely should be employed.
Why, then, do scientists use so much passive voice? Perhaps this bad habit
results from the erroneous idea that it is somehow impolite to use first-person
pronouns. Because of this idea, the scientist commonly uses verbose (and
imprecise) statements such as, “It was found that” in preference to the short,
unambiguous “We found.”
Young scientists should renounce the false modesty of their predecessors.
Do not be afraid to name the agent of the action in a sentence, even when it is
“I” or “we.” Once you get into the habit of saying “I found,” you will also find
that you tend to write “S. aureus produced lactate” rather than “Lactate was
212  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

produced by S. aureus.” (Note that the “active” statement is in three words; the
passive requires more.)
You can avoid the passive voice by saying “The authors found” instead of
“it was found.” But compared with the simple “we found,” “the authors found”
is pretentious and imprecise (which authors?).

Singulars and Plurals

When you use first-person pronouns, use both the singular and the plural
forms as needed. Do not use the “editorial we” in place of “I.” The use of “we”
by a single author is outrageously pedantic.
A frequent error in scientific papers is the use of plural forms of verbs
when the singular forms would be correct. For example, you should say, “10 g
was added,” not “10 g were added.” This is because a single quantity was added.
Only if the 10 g were added 1 g at a time would it be correct to say, “10 g were
added.”
The singular-plural problem also applies to nouns. The problem is severe
in scientific writing, especially in biology, because so many of the words are,
or are derived from, Latin or Greek. Commonly, these words retain their Latin
or Greek plurals; at least they do when used by careful writers.
Many of these words (for example, data, media) have entered popular
speech, where the Latin a plural ending is rarely recognized as plural. Most
people habitually use “data is” constructions and probably have never used the
real singular, datum. In The Careful Writer, Bernstein (1965) objected to this
usage, terming it “a common solecism.” Today, although debate on the subject
persists, both the plural and the singular usages are commonly acceptable, at
least in informal contexts. For instance, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

(“Piled Higher and Deeper” by Jorge Cham. www.phdcomics.com)

 Use and Misuse of English  213

(11th edition) gives “the data is plentiful” as an example of accepted usage.

Whether to use data as a plural or a singular word can depend on whether you
are referring to a group of individual pieces of data or the data as a single
mass. Often, in deciding whether to use data with a plural verb or a singular
one, the best approach is to follow your discipline’s conventions in this regard
and the predominant usage in your target journal.
This “plural” problem was commented upon by Sir Ashley Miles, the emi-
nent microbiologist and scholar, in a letter to the editor of ASM News (44:600,
1978):

“A Memoranda on Bacterial Motility.” The motility of a bacteria is a phe-

nomena receiving much attention, especially in relation to the structure
of a flagella and the effect on it of an antisera. No single explanatory data
is available; no one criteria of proof is recognized; even the best media to
use is unknown; and no survey of the various levels of scientific approach
indicates any one strata, or the several stratae, from which answers may
emerge. Flagellae are just as puzzling as the bacteriae carry them.

Numbers
The preferred usage regarding numbers varies among style manuals and
among journals. The Chicago Manual of Style (2017) favors “spelling out whole
numbers from zero through one hundred” and using numerals for other
numbers. However, it notes that many publications, for example in science,
spell out only single-digit numbers. In the “revised or modern scientific num-
ber style” (Style Manual Subcommittee, Council of Science Editors 2014),
single-digit whole numbers, with few exceptions, appear as numerals too.
If the style for numbers is not specified otherwise, here are some widely
acceptable guidelines to follow: One-digit numbers should be spelled out;
numbers of two or more digits should be expressed as numerals. You would
write “three experiments” or “13 experiments.” Now the exception: With stan-
dard units of measure, always use numerals. You would write “3 ml” or
“13 ml.” The only exception to the exception is that you should not start a sen-
tence with a numeral. You should either reword the sentence or spell out both
the number and the unit of measurement. For example, your sentence could
start “Reagent A (3 ml) was added” or it could start “Three milliliters of reagent
A was added” or “In total, 3 ml of reagent A was added.” Actually, there is still
another exception. In a sentence containing a series of numbers, at least one
of which is of more than one digit, all of the numbers generally should be
expressed as numerals. (Example: “I gave water to 3 scientists, milk to 6 scien-
tists, and beer to 11 scientists.”)
214  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

English as an Evolving Language

“But my fourth-grade English teacher said never to. . . .” “But I know I read
somewhere that this was right. . . .” “But for my first paper, the journal changed
it to be the opposite way. . . .”
Although the basics of good English remain the same, English keeps evolv-
ing as a language— and thus, so do the norms that style manuals recommend
and journals follow. Some relatively recent examples: The word “internet” no
longer normally is capitalized. The term “underway” no longer tends to be two
separate words. And it is now considered acceptable to use the word “they” as
a singular pronoun for an individual whose gender is not specified.
So, what’s an author to do? Don’t worry if you can’t keep up with such mat-
ters. A journal won’t reject your paper because you still wrote “e-mail” rather
than “email.” Luckily, journals have experts—manuscript editors—whose
remit includes keeping up with such changes. In editing your paper, these
experts help ensure that the English complies with current norms. Appreciate
their services. Don’t argue with them that “My fourth-grade English teacher
said. . . .”

SOME FINER POINTS

Misuse of Words
Avoid self-canceling, contradictory, or redundant words. Recently, someone was
described as being a “well-seasoned novice.” A newspaper article referred to
“young juveniles.” A sign in a stamp and coin dealer’s shop read “authentic
replicas.” If there is any expression that is dumber than “7 a.m. in the morning,”
it is “viable alternative.” (If an alternative is not viable, it is not an alternative.)
Certain words are wrongly used thousands of times in scientific writing.
Some of the worst offenders are the following:

affect/effect. Almost always, affect is a verb, and effect is a noun. Example:

“The barometric pressure affects this process. However, the effect is
small.” A mnemonic to help remember the distinction is RAVEN, for
“Remember: Affect Verb, Effect Noun” (www.mnemonic-device.com
/languages/affect-and-effect). (Exceptions are the noun affect, meaning
external expression of emotion, and the verb effect, meaning “produce,”
as in the expression “effect change.”)
amount/number. Use amount when you refer to a mass or aggregate. Use
number when individual entities are involved. “An amount of cash” is all
right. “An amount of coins” is wrong.
 Use and Misuse of English  215

fewer/less. Use fewer for countable items and less for uncountable ones.
Example: “fewer coins,” but “less money.”
it. This common, useful pronoun can cause a problem if an antecedent is
not clear, as in the sign that read: “Free information about VD. To get it,
call 555-7000.”
like. Often used incorrectly as a conjunction; it should be used only as a
preposition. When a conjunction is needed, substitute as. Like I just
said, this sentence should have started with As.
only. Many sentences are only partially comprehensible because the word
only is positioned correctly in the sentence only some of the time. Con-
sider this sentence: “I hit him in the eye yesterday.” The word only can
be added at the start of the sentence, at the end of the sentence, or
between any two words within the sentence, but look at the differences
in meaning that result.
quite. Next time you notice this word in one of your manuscripts, delete it and
read the sentence again. You will notice that quite is quite unnecessary.
varying. The word varying means changing. Often used erroneously when
various is meant. “Various concentrations” are multiple defined concen-
trations that do not vary.
which. The word which is properly used in a nonrestrictive sense, to introduce
a clause that adds information but does not make the preceding term
more specific; that introduces a clause that adds specificity. Examine these
two sentences: “CetB mutants, which are tolerant to colicin E2, also have
an altered. . . .” “CetB mutants that are tolerant to colicin E2 also have an
altered. . . .” Note the substantial difference in meaning. The first sentence
indicates that all CetB mutants are tolerant to colicin; the second sentence
indicates that only some of the CetB mutants are tolerant to it.

Style manuals in the sciences commonly include sections on words that

tend to be misused; browsing through such a section can be time well spent.
Also, such style manuals often provide guidance on using language that is
inclusive and otherwise unbiased. Because guidelines on this topic keep evolv-
ing, we recommend looking at a continually updated online version of such a
manual or checking the manual’s website for updates.

Noun Problems
Another frequent problem in scientific writing is the wordiness that results
from using abstract nouns. This malady often can be corrected by turning the
nouns into verbs. “Examination of the patients was carried out” should be
changed to the more direct “We examined the patients”; “separation of the
216  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

compounds was accomplished” can be changed to “the compounds were sepa-

rated”; “transformation of the equations was achieved” can be changed to “the
equations were transformed.”
An additional problem with nouns results from using them as adjectives.
Normally, there is no problem with such usage, but you should watch for spe-
cial difficulties. For example, there is no problem in understanding “liver dis-
ease” (even though the adjective hepatic could be substituted for the noun
liver). The problem with such usage is illustrated by the following sentences
from an autobiography: “When I was 10 years old, my parents sent me to a
child psychiatrist. I went for a year and a half. The kid didn’t help me at all.”
There once was an ad (in the New York Times, of all places) with the headline
“Good News for Home Sewers.” It could have been an ad for a drain-cleaning
compound or for needle and thread.
The problem gets still worse when clusters of nouns are used as adjec-
tives, especially when a real adjective gets into the brew. “Tissue culture
response” is awkward; “infected tissue culture response” may be baffling.
(Just what is infected?) Baffling too are these gems from job ads: “newborn
hospital photographer” and “portable toilet route driver.” Sometimes you
can resolve the confusion by inserting a hyphen to show which words func-
tion together as an adjective. Consider, for example, the headline “Technol-
ogy Can Help Drought Hit Farmers.” (How odd to use technology to aid
drought in hitting farmers!) Inserting a well-placed hyphen yields a much
more reasonable headline: “Technology Can Help Drought-Hit Farmers.”
(Similarly, we think the author who wrote of the “animal owning public”
actually meant the “animal-owning public.”)
Like hyphens, commas can change the meaning of phrases. An author
wrote that all samples in a study had been evaluated by “a single, board-
certified pathologist.” Presumably, the comma should have been deleted.
With the comma included, the phrase means not “the same board-certified

(By permission of Johnny Hart and Creators Syndicate, Inc.)

 Use and Misuse of English  217

pathologist” but rather “a pathologist who is single and board certified”—a

description less suited for a scientific journal than for an online dating site.

Euphemisms
In scientific writing, euphemistic words and phrases normally should be
avoided. The harsh reality of dying is not improved by substituting “passed
away.” Laboratory animals are not “sacrificed,” as though scientists engaged in
arcane religious exercises. They are killed, and that’s that. The CBE Style Man-
ual (CBE Style Manual Committee 1983) cited a beautiful example of this type
of euphemism: “Some in the population suffered mortal consequences from
the lead in the flour.” It then corrects this sentence, adding considerable clarity
as well as eliminating the euphemism: “Some people died as a result of eating
bread made from the lead-contaminated flour.” An instructor gave graduate
students the “mortal consequences” sentence as a test question in scientific
writing. Most were simply unable to say “died.” On the other hand, there were
some inventive answers. They included “Get the lead out” and “Some were
dead from the lead in the bread.”

Dangling Modifiers and Other Syntactical Sins

It is not always easy to recognize a dangling participle or related error, but you
can avoid many problems by paying proper attention to syntax. The word syn-
tax refers to that part of grammar dealing with the way in which words are put
together to form phrases, clauses, and sentences.
That is not to say that a well-dangled participle or other misplaced modi-
fier isn’t a joy to behold, after you have developed a taste for such things.
Those of you who use chromatographic procedures may be interested in a
new technique reported in a manuscript submitted to the Journal of Bacteriol-
ogy: “By filtering through Whatman no. 1 filter paper, Smith separated the
components.” Those wishing that lab animals could do research themselves
might be pleased to read about the endeavor “to evaluate the fecal microbi-
ome in cats using PCR.” Along similar lines, a headline stated, “Researchers
Detect Land Animals Using DNA in Nearby Water Bodies.” But some ani-
mals might indeed be this smart: A draft of an essay by a veterinary school
applicant read, “While in high school, my cat began to develop kidney
disease.”
In Hampshire, England, the fire department received a government mem-
orandum seeking statistical information. One of the questions was, “How
218  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

many people do you employ, broken down by sex?” The fire chief took that
question right in stride, answering “None. Our problem here is booze.”
Here’s another headline, from the Washington Post: “Antibiotic-Combina-
tion Drugs Used to Treat Colds Banned by FDA.” Perhaps the next FDA (Food
and Drug Administration) regulation will ban all colds, and virologists will
have to find a different line of work.
A manuscript contained this sentence: “A large mass of literature has accu-
mulated on the cell walls of staphylococci.” After the librarians have cata-
logued the literature in the staphylococci, they will have to start on the fish,
according to this sentence from a manuscript: “The resulting disease has been
described in detail in salmon.”
The first paragraph of a news release issued by the American Lung Asso-
ciation said, “‘Women seem to be smoking more but breathing less,’ says
Colin R. Woolf, M.D., Professor, Department of Medicine, University of
Toronto. 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.” Even though the annual meeting was in
the lovely city of Montreal, we hope that women who smoke stayed home.
And finally, some favorites from an email discussion list: A student wrote
that she was seeking housing “for me, my two dogs, and my rabbit that has a
washer-dryer.” (We hadn’t realized that rabbits do laundry.) A technician said
that she was looking for a “large or medium dog kennel for a researcher.”
(Hmmm, is office space that scarce?) And another list member wrote that
“due to moving, internship salary, and a lack of need for it,” she was highly
motivated to sell the item that she was advertising. (Gee, if you don’t need your
internship salary, we know someone who would like it.)

Metaphorically Speaking
We suggest that you largely avoid similes and metaphors. Use them rarely in
scientific writing. If you use them, use them carefully. We have seen mixed
metaphors and noted how comprehension gets mixed along with the meta-
phor. (Figure this one out: A virgin forest is a place where the hand of man has
never set foot.) A rarity along this line is the “self-canceling metaphor.” A
favorite was ingeniously concocted by the eminent microbiologist L. Joe Berry.
After one of his suggestions had been quickly negated by a committee vote,
Joe said, “Boy, I got shot down in flames before I ever got off the ground.”
Watch for hackneyed expressions too. These are usually similes or meta-
phors that have grown tired from overuse (for example, “timid as a mouse”).
Interesting and picturesque writing results from the use of fresh similes and
metaphors; dull writing results from the use of stale ones.
 Use and Misuse of English  219

ON A LIGHTER NOTE
The Ten Commandments of Good Writing
From the “do as I say, not as I do” school of thought, here are a few longtime
favorites:

1. Each pronoun should agree with their antecedent.

2. Just between you and I, case is important.
3. A preposition is a poor word to end a sentence with.
4. Verbs has to agree with their subject.
5. Don’t use no double negatives.
6. Remember to never split an infinitive.
7. Avoid clichés like the plague.
8. Join clauses good, like a conjunction should.
9. Do not use hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it effectively.
10. About sentence fragments.

Please, Please Proofread

Whether because of autocomplete, autocorrect, autotranscribe, or an author
on automatic pilot, manuscripts often include typographical errors. Some
recent examples: “catchers” instead of “catheters,” “lumber puncture” instead
of “lumbar puncture,” “Chihuahua terror mix” instead of “Chihuahua-terrier
mix,” and “wiener” instead “webinar.” Sometimes the typos seem to have a
grain of truth: “play it by hear” instead of “play it by ear,” “author argument”
instead of “author agreement” (although we would never argue with our pub-
lisher), “eternal applicants” instead of “external applicants” (alas, we’ve known
some of the former), and “remail” instead of “email” (in a message from a
colleague who has sent far too many).
A newspaper headline told of an “amphibious” baseball pitcher instead of
an “ambidextrous” one. The following also crossed our desks: “humane
immunodeficiency virus” for “human immunodeficiency virus,” “craps” for
“crabs,” “laundry mat” for “laundromat,” and “keyboards” for “keywords.”
And we have encountered “captions” instead of “cations,” “edible file” for “edit-
able file,” “venerable populations” for “vulnerable populations,” “heard immu-
nity” for “herd immunity,” “concurring heroes” for “conquering heroes,”
“plural” for “pleural,” “knit-picking” for “nitpicking,” and “nerve-wrecking”
for “nerve-wracking.”
Although it may seem nitpicking and nerve-wracking, always take the time
to proofread.
220  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Odds and Ends

Let us end by again emphasizing the importance of syntax. When comprehen-
sion goes out the window, faulty syntax is usually responsible. Sometimes
faulty syntax is simply funny and comprehension is not lost, as in these two
items, culled from want ads:
“For sale, fine German Shepherd dog, obedient, well trained, will eat any-
thing, very fond of children.”
“For sale, fine grand piano, by a lady, with three legs.”
But look at this sentence, which is similar to thousands that have appeared
in the scientific literature: “Thymic humoral factor (THF) is a single heat-
stable polypeptide isolated from calf thymus composed of 31 amino acids with
molecular weight of 3,200.” The prepositional phrase “with molecular weight
of 3,200” would logically modify the preceding noun “acids,” meaning that the
amino acids had a molecular weight of 3,200. Less logically, perhaps the calf
thymus had a molecular weight of 3,200. Least logical of all (because of their
distance apart in the sentence) would be for the THF to have a molecular
weight of 3,200—but, indeed, that was what the author was trying to tell us.
If you wish to use English more effectively, consider reading Strunk and
White’s (2000) The Elements of Style if you have not yet done so. The “elements”
are given briefly (in fewer than 100 pages!) and clearly. Anyone writing any-
thing should read and use this famous little book. (You can read an early edi-
tion, by Strunk alone, at www.bartleby.com/141.) After you have mastered
Strunk and White, proceed immediately to Fowler (Butterfield 2015). Do not
pass go; do not collect $200. Of course, if you really do want to get a Monopoly
on good scientific English, buy that superbly quintessential book Scientific
English (Day and Sakaduski 2011).
CHAPTER 31

Avoiding Jargon

Clutter is the disease of American writing. We are a society strangling in

unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous frills and meaningless
jargon.
—William Zinsser

DEFINITION OF JARGON
According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th edition), definitions
of jargon include the following: (1) “confused, unintelligible language”;
(2) “the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or
group”; and (3) “obscure and often pretentious language marked by circumlo-
cutions and long words.”
The first and third types of jargon should be avoided. The second type
(“technical terminology”) is much more difficult to avoid in scientific writing,
and it may be used if readers already are familiar with it or if you have defined
or explained it. If you are writing for a technically trained audience, only the
unusual technical terms need explanation.

MUMBLESPEAK AND OTHER SINS

The most common type of verbosity that afflicts authors is jargon. This syn-
drome is characterized, in extreme cases, by the total omission of one-syllable
words. Writers with this affliction never use anything—they utilize. They never
do—they perform. They never start—they initiate. They never end—they finalize

221
222  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

(or terminate). They never make—they fabricate. They use initial for first, ulti-
mate for last, prior to for before, subsequent to for after, militate against for pro-
hibit, sufficient for enough, and a plethora for too much. An occasional author
will slip and use the word drug, but most will salivate like Pavlov’s dogs in
anticipation of using chemotherapeutic agent. (We do hope that the name Pav-
lov rings a bell.) Who would use the three-letter word now instead of the ele-
gant expression at this point in time?
Stuart Chase (1954) told the story of the plumber who wrote to the Bureau
of Standards saying he had found that hydrochloric acid is good for cleaning
out clogged drains. The bureau wrote back, “The efficacy of hydrochloric acid
is indisputable, but the chlorine residue is incompatible with metallic perma-
nence.” The plumber replied that he was glad the bureau agreed. The bureau
tried again, writing, “We cannot assume responsibility for the production of
toxic and noxious residues with hydrochloric acid, and suggest that you use an
alternate procedure.” The plumber again said that he was glad that the bureau
agreed with him. Finally, the bureau wrote to the plumber, “Don’t use hydro-
chloric acid; it eats hell out of the pipes.”
Should we liken the scientist to a plumber, or is the scientist perhaps more
exalted? With that doctor of philosophy degree, should the scientist know
some philosophy? We agree with John W. Gardner, who said, “The society
which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity
and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will
have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its
theories will hold water” (Science News, p. 137, March 2, 1974).
We like the way that Aaronson (1977) put it: “But too often the jargon of
scientific specialists is like political rhetoric and bureaucratic mumble-
speak: ugly-sounding, difficult to understand, and clumsy. Those who use it
often do so because they prefer pretentious, abstract words to simple, con-
crete ones.”
The trouble with jargon is that it is a special language, the meaning of
which is known only to a specialized “in” group. Science should be univer-
sal, and therefore every scientific paper should be written in a universal
language.
Of course, you will have to use specialized terminology on occasion. If such
terminology is readily understandable to practitioners and students in the
field, there is no problem. If the terminology is not recognizable to any portion
of your potential audience, you should (1) use simpler terminology or (2) care-
fully define the esoteric terms (jargon) that you are using. In short, you should
not write for the half-dozen or so people who are doing exactly your kind of
work. You should write for the hundreds of people whose work is only slightly
related to yours, but who may want or need to know something about your
work.
 Avoiding Jargon  223

BUREAUCRATESE
Regrettably, too much scientific writing fits the first and third definitions of jar-
gon. All too often, scientists write like the legendary Henry B. Quill, the bureau-
crat described by Meyer (1977): “Quill had mastered the mother tongue of
government. He smothered his verbs, camouflaged his subjects, and hid every-
thing in an undergrowth of modifiers. He braided, beaded and fringed, giving

(ScienceCartoonsPlus.com)
224  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

elaborate expression to negligible thoughts, weasling [sic], hedging, and announc-

ing the obvious. He spread generality like flood waters in a long, low valley. He
sprinkled everything with aspects, feasibilities, alternatives, effectuations, analy-
zations, maximizations, implementations, contraindications and appurtenances.
At his best, complete immobility set in, lasting sometimes for dozens of pages.”
Some jargon, or bureaucratese, consists of clear, simple words but contains so
many of them that their meaning is not readily evident. Examine the following,
an important federal regulation (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Paragraph
50.10) designed to protect trees from injury; this notice was posted in National
Capital Park and Planning Commission recreation areas in the Washington area:

TREES, SHRUBS, PLANTS, GRASS,

AND OTHER VEGETATION
(a) General Injury. No person shall prune, cut, carry away, pull up, dig,
fell, bore, chop, saw, chip, pick, move, sever, climb, molest, take, break,
deface, destroy, set fire to, burn, scorch, carve, paint, mark, or in any
manner interfere with, tamper, mutilate, misuse, disturb or damage any
tree, shrub, plant, grass, flower, or part thereof, nor shall any person
permit any chemical, whether solid, fluid or gaseous to seep, drip, drain
or be emptied, sprayed, dusted or injected upon, about or into any tree,
shrub, plant, grass, flower or part thereof except when specifically autho-
rized by competent authority; nor shall any person build fires or station
or use any tar kettle, heater, road roller or other engine within an area
covered by this part in such a manner that the vapor, fumes or heat
therefrom may injure any tree or other vegetation.
(TRANSLATION: Don’t mess with growing things.)

Jargon does not necessarily involve the use of specialized words. Faced with
a choice of two words, the jargonist always selects the longer one. The jargo-
nist really gets his jollies, however, by turning short, simple statements into
long strings of words. And, usually, the longer word or the longer series of
words is not as clear as the simpler expression. We challenge anyone to show
how “at this point in time” means, in its cumbersome way, more than the
simple word “now.” The concept denoted by “if” is not improved by substitut-
ing the pompous expression “in the event that.”

SPECIAL CASES
Perhaps the worst offender is the word case. There is no problem with talking
about a case of canned goods or even a case of the flu. However, 99 percent of the
uses of case are jargon. In case you think that 99 percent is too high, make your
own study. Even if this percentage is too high, a good case could be made for the
 Avoiding Jargon  225

fact that case is used in too many cases. Better and shorter usage should be substi-
tuted: in this case means here; in most cases means usually; in all cases means always;
in no case means never. (We also have issues with issues. And we wish to highlight
highlight. In formal writing, limit use of these words to their specific meanings.)
Appendix 2 contains some “Words and Expressions to Avoid.” A similar list
well worth consulting was published by O’Connor and Woodford (1975). It is
not necessarily improper to use any of these words or expressions occasionally;
if you use them repeatedly, however, you are writing in jargon and your read-
ers are suffering.
Perhaps the most common way of creating a new word is the jargonist’s
habit of turning nouns into verbs. One example is use of the word “interface”
to mean “communicate”; the only time people can interface is when they kiss.
And a classic example appeared in a manuscript that read: “One risks expo-
sure when swimming in ponds or streams near which cattle have been pastur-
ized.” The copy editor, knowing that there is no such word as “pasturized,”
changed it to “pasteurized.” (There may be nothing wrong with that. If you
can pasteurize milk, presumably you can pasteurize the original container.)
In their own pastures, scientists are, of course, very expert, but they often
succumb to pedantic, jargonistic, and useless expressions, telling the reader
more than the reader wants or needs to know. As the English novelist George
Eliot said: “Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giv-
ing us wordy evidence of this fact.”
If you must show off your marvelous vocabulary, make sure to use the right
words. Consider the story that Lederer (1987) told about NASA scientist Wer-
nher von Braun. “After one of his talks, von Braun found himself clinking
cocktail glasses with [an admirer] from the audience.
“‘Dr. von Braun,’ [the admirer] gushed, ‘I just loved your speech, and I
found it of absolutely infinitesimal value!’
“‘Well then,’ von Braun gulped, ‘I guess I’ll have it published posthumously.’
“‘Oh yes!’ [the admirer] came right back. ‘And the sooner the better.’”

MOTTOES TO LIVE BY
To continue on this lighter note (and to end this chapter), the following are
some common English-language sayings as they might be expressed in scien-
tific jargon. With a little effort, you might be able to translate these sentences
into simple English:

1. As a case in point, other authorities have proposed that slumbering

canines are best left in a recumbent position.
2. An incredibly insatiable desire to understand that which was going on
led to the demise of this particular Felis catus.
226  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

3. There is a large body of experimental evidence which clearly indicates

that members of the genus Mus tend to engage in recreational activity
while the feline is remote from the locale.
4. From time immemorial, it has been known that the ingestion of an
“apple” (that is, the pome fruit of any tree of the genus Malus, said fruit
being usually round in shape and red, yellow, or greenish in color) on a
diurnal basis will with absolute certainty keep a primary member of the
health-care establishment absent from one’s local environment.
5. Even with the most sophisticated experimental protocol, it is exceed-
ingly unlikely that the capacity to perform novel feats of legerdemain
can be instilled in a superannuated canine.
6. A sedimentary conglomerate in motion down a declivity gains no addi-
tion of mossy material.
7. The resultant experimental data indicate that there is no utility in bela-
boring a deceased equine.

If you had trouble with any of these statements, here are the jargon-free
translations:

1. Let sleeping dogs lie.

2. Curiosity killed the cat.
3. When the cat’s away, the mice will play.
4. An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
5. You can’t teach old dogs new tricks.
6. A rolling stone gathers no moss.
7. Don’t beat a dead horse.

Lest we beat a dead horse, we will now end this chapter.

CHAPTER 32

How and When to Use Abbreviations

Authors who use abbreviations extravagantly need to be restrained.

—Maeve O’Connor

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Many experienced editors loathe abbreviations. Some would prefer that they
not be used at all, except for standard units of measurement and their Système
International (SI) prefixes, for which all scientific journals allow abbreviations.
Many journals also allow, without definition, such standard abbreviations as
etc., et al., i.e., and e.g. (The abbreviations i.e. and e.g. are often misused; prop-
erly used, i.e. means “that is,” whereas e.g. means “for example.” Because these
abbreviations are so often misused or misinterpreted, we favor avoiding them.)
In your own writing, you would be wise to keep abbreviations to a minimum.
The editor will look more kindly on your paper, and the readers of your paper
will bless you forever. More preaching on this point should not be necessary
because, by now, you yourself have no doubt come across undefined and inde-
cipherable abbreviations in the literature. Just remember how annoyed you felt
when you were faced with these conundrums, and join with us now in a vow to
never again pollute the scientific literature with an undefined abbreviation.
The “how to” of using abbreviations is easy because most journals use the
same convention. When you plan to use an abbreviation, you introduce it by
spelling out the word or term first, followed by the abbreviation within paren-
theses. The first sentence of the introduction of a paper might read: “Bacterial
plasmids, as autonomously replicating deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mole-
cules of modest size, are promising models for studying DNA replication and
its control.”

227
228  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

The “when to” of using abbreviations is much more difficult. Several gen-
eral guidelines might help.
First, generally do not use an abbreviation in the title of an article. Very few
journals allow abbreviations in titles, and their use is strongly discouraged by
the indexing and abstracting services. If the abbreviation is not standard, the
literature retrieval services will have a difficult or impossible problem. Even if
the abbreviation is standard, indexing and other problems arise. One major
problem is that accepted abbreviations have a habit of changing; today’s abbre-
viations may be unrecognizable a few years from now. Comparison of certain
abbreviations as listed in the various editions of the Council of Biology Editors
Style Manual (which has now become Scientific Style and Format: The CSE
Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers) emphasizes this point. Dramatic
changes occur when the terminology itself changes. Students today could
have trouble with the abbreviation DPN (which stands for “diphosphopyridine
nucleotide”) because the name itself has changed to “nicotinamide adenine
dinucleotide,” the abbreviation for which is NAD.
Abbreviations should almost never be used in an abstract. Only if you use
the same name, a long one, many times should you consider an abbreviation.
If you use an abbreviation, you must define it at the first use in the abstract.
Remember that the abstract will stand alone in whichever abstracting data-
bases cover the journal in which your paper appears.
In the text itself, abbreviations may be used if a long word or phrase will
appear repeatedly. They serve a purpose in reducing printing costs, by some-
what shortening the paper. More important, they aid the reader when they are
used judiciously. Speaking of “important”: We are reminded of a man whose
children sometimes refer to him as “the FIP” (fairly important person). They
know that he hasn’t yet made it to VIP.

GOOD PRACTICE
It can be advisable, when writing the first draft of the manuscript, to spell out all
terms and phrases in every instance. Then examine the text for repetition of long
words or phrases that might be candidates for abbreviation. Do not abbreviate a
term or phrase that is used only once or twice in the paper. If the term or phrase
is used with modest frequency—for example, between three and six times—and
a standard abbreviation for it exists, introduce and use the abbreviation. (Some
journals allow some standard abbreviations to be used without definition at first
use.) If no standard abbreviation exists, do not manufacture one unless the term
or phrase is used very frequently or is very long and cumbersome.
Often, you can avoid abbreviations by using the appropriate pronoun (it,
they, them) if the antecedent is clear. Another possibility is to use a substitute
 How and When to Use Abbreviations  229

expression such as “the inhibitor,” “the substrate,” “the drug,” “the enzyme,”
or “the acid.”
Usually, you should introduce your abbreviations one by one, as they first
occur in the text. Alternatively, you might consider a separate paragraph
(headed “Abbreviations Used”) in the introduction or in the materials and
methods section. The latter system (required in some journals) is especially
useful if the names of related reagents, such as a group of organic chemicals,
are to be used in abbreviated form later in the paper. Another option, such as
in review papers and grant proposals, can be to include a table that lists and
defines abbreviations. Such tables make definitions easy to find even if a piece
is not being read from beginning to end. Also, if chapters of a book might be
read individually or in different orders, consider defining abbreviations on
first appearance in each chapter. The same principle holds for other lengthy
pieces of writing, such as long proposals, that might well be read other than
from start to finish.

UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
Units of measurement are abbreviated when used with numerical values. You
would write “4 mg was added.” (The same abbreviation is used for the singular
and the plural.) When used without numerals, however, units of measure-
ment are not abbreviated. You would write “Specific activity is expressed as
micrograms of adenosine triphosphate incorporated per milligram of protein
per hour.”
Careless use of the diagonal slash can cause confusion. This problem arises
frequently in stating concentrations. If you say that “4 mg/ml of sodium sul-
fide was added,” what does this mean? Does it mean “per milliliter of sodium
sulfide” (the literal translation), or can we safely assume that “per milliliter of
reaction mixture” is meant? It is much clearer to write “4 mg of sodium sulfide
was added per milliliter of medium.”

SPECIAL PROBLEMS
A frequent problem with abbreviations concerns the use of a or an with them.
Should you write “a M.S. degree” or “an M.S. degree”? Recall the old rule that
you use a with words beginning with a consonant sound and an with words
beginning with a vowel sound (for example, the letter “em”). Because in sci-
ence we should use only common abbreviations, those not needing to be
spelled out in the reader’s mind, the proper choice of article should relate to
the sound of the first letter of the abbreviation, not the sound of the first letter
230  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

of the spelled-out term. Thus, although it is correct to write “a master of sci-

ence degree,” it is incorrect to write “a M.S. degree.” Because the reader reads
“M.S.” as “em ess,” the proper construction is “an M.S. degree.”
In biology, it is customary to abbreviate generic names of organisms after
first use. At first use, you would spell out “Streptomyces griseus.” In later usage,
you can abbreviate the genus name but not the specific epithet: S. griseus. Sup-
pose, however, that you are writing a paper that concerns species of both Strep-
tomyces and Staphylococcus. You would then spell out the genus names
repeatedly. Otherwise, readers might be confused as to whether a particular
“S.” abbreviation referred to one genus or the other.

SI (SYSTÈME INTERNATIONAL) UNITS

Appendix 3 gives the abbreviations for the prefixes used with all SI units. The
SI units and symbols, as well as certain derived SI units, have become part of
the language of science. This modern metric system should be mastered by all
students of the sciences. Scientific Style and Format (Style Manual Subcommit-
tee, Council of Science Editors 2014) is a good source for more complete infor-
mation, as is Huth’s (1987) Medical Style and Format. Briefly, SI units include
three classes: base units, supplementary units, and derived units. The seven
base units that form the foundations of SI are the meter (or metre), kilogram,
second, ampere, kelvin, mole, and candela. In addition to these seven base
units, there are two supplementary units for plane and solid angles: the radian
and steradian, respectively. Derived units are expressed algebraically in terms
of base units or supplementary units. For some of the derived SI units, special
names and symbols exist.

OTHER ABBREVIATIONS
Some style manuals in the sciences (for example, Christiansen et al. 2020;
Style Manual Subcommittee, Council of Science Editors 2014) list abbrevia-
tions that are standard in specific fields. (On a related note: Such manuals also
serve as resources on accepted nomenclature.) Use these and other standard
abbreviations when strongly warranted. Largely avoid others. Those that you
do use should be introduced as carefully as you would introduce royalty.
CHAPTER 33
Writing Clearly Across Cultures
and Media

When you write for an Internet venue . . . your words travel the globe in a
flash. But . . . what you think you’re saying isn’t always what the far-flung
reader understands.
—Steve Outing

READABLE WRITING
Earlier chapters have presented principles of writing readably: structuring
sentences simply, using proper syntax, deleting needless words, condensing
wordy phrases, using words accurately, using mainly active voice, avoiding
strings of nouns, using verbs rather than nouns made from them, punctuat-
ing properly, using short and familiar words, minimizing the use of abbrevia-
tions, and defining abbreviations.
Also for readability, generally avoid starting sentences with “It is” or “There
is.” For example, change “It is not necessary to remove this structure” to “This
structure need not be removed” or (if appropriate) “You need not remove this
structure.” Likewise, condense “There is another method that is gaining
acceptance” to “Another method is gaining acceptance.”
In general, say what things are, not what they are not. If you mean that
something is important, do not say that it is “not unimportant.” If you mean
that it is substantial, do not say “not insubstantial.” Avoiding such double neg-
atives makes writing more readable.
Many suggestions for making writing more readable also make it shorter.
This brevity can especially help if you have a word limit or page limit, such as
for a scientific paper or grant proposal.

231
232  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Over the years, formulas have been devised to estimate the readability of
documents. Microsoft Word can compute two such measures of readabil-
ity, the Flesch Reading Ease score and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level
score. (Doing so is an option under “When correcting spelling and gram-
mar,” in “Proofing.”) Computing these scores, which are based on average
number of words per sentence and average number of syllables per word,
can help you estimate how readable your writing is (or how much progress
you have made in making it more readable). These formulas, however,
do not take into account all aspects of readability. Thus, they are imperfect
measures. Indeed, a piece of writing could make no sense but still get
an excellent readability score if it consisted of short words in short
sentences.

CONSISTENCY IN WORDING
For clarity in scientific writing, keep using the same word for the same thing.
Do not feel compelled to vary your vocabulary, as you might in a literary piece,
to make your writing more interesting. Readers should be able to focus on the
content. They should not need to wonder whether “the mice,” “the animals,”
and “the rodents” are the same creatures, or whether “the conference,” “the
convention,” and “the meeting” are the same event. Using consistent wording
can help make your writing clear and cohesive.
Some words, however—those that are so vivid or unusual that they tend
to be remembered—should not be used repeatedly in close succession. In
this regard, one can think of “blue jeans words” and “purple plaid trou-
sers words,” in keeping with this analogy presented to American graduate
students:

If you wore blue jeans to the laboratory every day, probably no one would
notice that fact. Similarly, if you repeatedly used words such as “experi-
ment,” “molecule,” “increase,” and “journal,” probably no one would
notice. However, if you wore purple plaid trousers to the laboratory
today, people probably would notice if you also did so next week. Simi-
larly, if you used the word “astonishing,” “armamentarium,” “compen-
dium,” or “conundrum” in one paragraph, people probably would notice
if you also did so in the next.

Stay mainly with blue jeans words, and feel free to use them repeatedly.
Use purple plaid trousers words rarely, if at all.
 Writing Clearly Across Cultures and Media  233

SERVING INTERNATIONAL READERS

Consistent wording can especially help make your reading clear to readers
whose native language is not English. Here are some other things you can do
to help serve this readership: Use words that have one meaning or a few mean-
ings, not many, and largely avoid idioms. (For example, in revising material
for this book, “a good deal easier” was changed to “much easier”; “watch your
similes and metaphors” was changed to “largely avoid similes and metaphors”;
“do not bear repeated use” was changed to “should not be used repeatedly”;
and “there is no bar” was changed to “there is no barrier.”) Use mainly simple
verb forms, and write sentences that are simply structured and not extremely
long. Retain optional words that can clarify the structure of a sentence. For
instance, write, “I believe that Professor Day knows much about grammar,”
not “I believe Professor Day knows much about grammar,” the first part of
which might be misread as meaning that you believe Professor Day. Avoid
literary and cultural allusions, including sports references, that might be unfa-
miliar to people in other cultures.
Additional guidance appears in The Elements of International English Style
(Weiss 2005). Although geared more to the business and technology commu-
nities than to scientists, this book can aid in doing scientific writing that is
clear to readers regardless of native language. It also can aid in communicat-
ing through letters and email to international colleagues.

A FEW WORDS ON EMAIL STYLE

If you are in the sciences, much of your writing may be in email. Although
email is rarely published, a little attention to crafting it can help it serve you
better.
Begin with a meaningful subject line. And if you want the recipient to take
some action, make that fact clear early on. Do not bury such a requirement at
the end of a lengthy email message.
Then, for readability, keep the paragraphs fairly short and skip space
between them. Indeed, if you want your message to be read, make it relatively
brief. Lengthy discourses often are better provided as attachments.
If you are sending email to a large group, spare readers the list of addresses
by using the Bcc feature. And speaking of groups: In responding to messages
sent to email discussion groups, beware of inadvertently replying to the whole
group when you mean to address only the sender. The other members of the
group probably do not care about your family vacation.
234  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Beware of trying to convey humor by email: What may appear funny in

person with vocal inflections or gestures may come across as hostile or other-
wise offensive. You have better things to do than explain that you were really
trying to be amusing.
If something in an email message annoys you, take time to cool down. Do
not fire off an angry reply in haste. And angry or otherwise, do not say any-
thing that you would not want forwarded. Remember that, other than in
secure contexts, email is not private. As one colleague put it: If you would not
write it on a postcard, do not put it in email. Clearly, email is not the medium
for complaining about your graduate advisor or department head.
Although email tends to be casual, suit the level of formality to the context.
When sending email to potential employers, for example, word it carefully,
check it for grammatical errors, and proofread it thoroughly. If you have been
using a humorous email address, consider having a more formal one for pro-
fessional communications.
And finally, include a concise, informative signature block in your profes-
sional email. In the signature block, provide at least your name, title, and affil-
iation. If customary in your field or at your institution, perhaps also include a
courtesy title (such as “Dr.”) or list advanced degrees. Other items to consider
providing in a signature block include your phone number, social media links,
and URL. Consider having different signature blocks to use in different cir-
cumstances or modifying your signature block to suit the situation. In any
case, keep your signature block relatively short. Remember that this is your
signature block, not your curriculum vitae.

WRITING FOR ONLINE READING

The scientific papers you publish are likely to appear online. In addition, many
of us in the sciences prepare material intended specifically for reading on the
web. In preparing such items, consider the following pointers (Gahran 2000,
2001):

• Keep the material short, or break it into fairly self-sufficient chunks of

500 words or less.
• Consider starting with a synopsis to orient readers.
• Break long paragraphs into two or more paragraphs.
• Use clear headings to help readers find what they are seeking.
• Word links clearly and concisely.
• Consider highlighting key words.
• For readability, use bulleted (or numbered) lists instead of lists within
paragraphs.
 Writing Clearly Across Cultures and Media  235

If you have a blog—which is short, by the way, for weblog—also consider the
following advice. In general, keep each post relatively short. Give each post a
title that is brief and informative; if feasible, make the title lively. Write in a
consistent style. (An informal, conversational style generally suits blogs well.
However, still be careful about spelling and grammar, and remember to proof-
read.) Provide posts at relatively regular intervals. Consult Science Blogging:
The Essential Guide (Wilcox, Brookshire, and Goldman 2016), especially for
advice on types and contexts of science blogging.
What about writing professionally related posts for social media such as
Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn? Of course, be concise. Begin engagingly (but
not misleadingly), and put key content first. Include visuals to capture atten-
tion and to clarify. Be a good community member by sharing resources and
commenting positively and constructively on others’ posts, rather than just by
attracting attention to yourself. Also, remember that posts can last and can
reach more than their intended audience; therefore, if something might haunt
you in the future, beware of posting it.
Because material posted on the web is accessible worldwide, writing in an
internationally understandable way can be especially important. Therefore,
keep sentences relatively short and direct, avoid regional idioms, and remem-
ber to define terms that might be unfamiliar to readers in other parts of the
world (Outing 2001). By following such advice, you can make your material on
the web truly a worldwide resource.
CHAPTER 34
How to Write Science in English
as a Foreign Language

ESL authors [authors for whom English is a second language] can be more
precise about language just because it is their second language.
—Mary Boylan

ENGLISH AS THE INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE

English is currently the international language of science. By no means does
this demand that every scientific paper be written in English. Papers on find-
ings mainly of local, national, or regional interest (for instance, in agricultural
science, social science, or medicine) generally are best published in the lan-
guage of those likely to use the content. However, when findings should be
accessible to fellow scientists throughout the world, papers generally should
appear in English.
For huge numbers of scientists, both in predominantly English-speaking
countries and elsewhere, English is a second (or third, fourth, or fifth) lan-
guage. In addition to facing the usual challenges of writing and publishing
a scientific paper, these scientists face the challenges of writing in a foreign
language and, often, interacting with editors from another culture. Yet many
scientists from around the world have successfully met these challenges.
This chapter, which is primarily for readers who are nonnative speakers of
English, is intended to aid in doing so. The chapter also may be useful to
native-English-speaking scientists who want to work as effectively as possi-
ble with colleagues or students for whom English is not their native language.

236
 How to Write Science in English as a Foreign Language  237

THE ESSENTIALS: CONTENT, ORGANIZATION, AND CLARITY

Editors of good English-language journals want to publish the best science
in the world, and many are eager to include work from a wide range of
countries. Therefore, they often are willing to devote extra effort to pub-
lishing papers by nonnative speakers of English (Iverson 2002). For exam-
ple, they sometimes supplement peer reviewers’ comments with detailed
guidance of their own, and they sometimes allot extra staff time to copy-
editing papers that have good content but problems in English-language
expression.
Thus, for nonnative as well as native-English-speaking scientists, the editor
and the author are allies. Do not be intimidated if you are a nonnative speaker
of English. If your research is of high quality and wide interest, editors of good
English-language journals will want to publish it. Of course, you will have to
do your part.
Your part consists mainly of submitting an informative, well-organized,
clearly written paper. Some nonnative speakers worry that their English seems
unpolished or clumsy. In fact, some focus so much on making the English
beautiful that they neglect more basic aspects. Although good English is cer-
tainly desirable, you need not agonize over fine points of style. If your paper is
informative, well organized, and clear, the editor and peer reviewers can
soundly evaluate your research. And then if your paper is accepted, a copy edi-
tor at the journal can readily correct occasional problems with grammar or
other aspects of expression.
However, if important information is missing, if a paper is poorly orga-
nized, or if wording is unclear, the editor and peer reviewers might not be able
to understand the paper well enough to evaluate the research. Even if they
wish to publish the research, much difficult work may be needed to make the
paper publishable. If the journal lacks the resources for this extra work, it
might not be able to publish the paper. Even if it has such resources, such
major difficulties may delay the paper’s publication.
A copy editor at the journal may query you (ask you questions) if items in
your paper are unclear or if the copy editor is uncertain whether proposed
changes would retain your intended meaning. Reply to queries promptly. If
you do not understand a query, ask for clarification. Also, do not assume that
copy editors are right because they are experts in English. They might have
misunderstood you, and you are responsible for ensuring that your published
paper is accurate.
238  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES TO CONSIDER

Cultures differ in a variety of norms relating to communication. Awareness of
such differences can aid in writing and publishing your paper.
When manuscripts arrive from nonnative speakers of English, issues
sometimes arise about the level of detail included. For example, in manu-
scripts by authors from some countries, the materials and methods section
tends not to be as informative as the journal requires. Cultures differ in how
much information people supply, both in everyday conversation and in profes-
sional communications. Notice the level of detail, as well as the types of details,
in papers published in the journal to which you will submit your paper. Then
write your paper accordingly.
Directness of expression also differs among cultures. In some cultures,
expression tends to be indirect; the speaker or writer circles around the main
point before eventually stating it—or maybe just implies the main point. In
many Western cultures, however, and in leading international journals,
expression tends to be direct, with the writer stating the main point and then
providing details. In a typical paragraph in such a journal, a sentence at the
beginning, known as the topic sentence, states the main point, and the other
sentences in the paragraph then support that point or present related informa-
tion. Before writing a paper for an English-language international journal,
see how paragraphs in the journal tend to be structured. Then try to use that
structure.
Cultures also differ in their attitudes toward time. Some cultures greatly
value speed and promptness, whereas others favor an unhurried pace. Promi-
nent international journals typically embody the former attitude. Therefore,
reply quickly to inquiries from the journal, and take care to meet the deadlines
that the journal sets—for example, for revising a manuscript. If you cannot
meet a deadline, inform the editor as soon as possible, so the journal can plan
accordingly.
Of concern to many editors is the fact that cultures also differ in their atti-
tudes toward using material taken word-for-word from other people’s writing.
In English-language scientific papers for international journals, authors are
required to use their own wording for the vast majority of what they say and to
clearly designate any wording taken from elsewhere. Thus, although authors
may look at published papers to find words or phrases to use, they are not
allowed to include entire passages from published work unless the passages
are put in quotation marks (or, if long, indented) and the sources cited. Other-
wise, the author is considered guilty of plagiarism. A tutorial helpful in learn-
ing to recognize and avoid plagiarism appears at plagiarism.iu.edu.
As noted in Chapter 5, steps for avoiding inadvertent plagiarism include
clearly indicating in your notes the source of any material from others’ work
 How to Write Science in English as a Foreign Language  239

that you copy or download. If you inadvertently include in your paper a sen-
tence or paragraph from elsewhere, a reviewer or copy editor might notice the
difference in style and, to your embarrassment, ask whether the wording is
your own. Woe to you if the passage happens to be by one of the peer reviewers!

SOME COMMON LANGUAGE CHALLENGES

In writing scientific papers, nonnative speakers of English often face chal-
lenges relating to particular aspects of the English language—especially verb
tenses, prepositions, and articles. With care, authors can minimize errors in
these regards. Then, if the manuscript is clearly written, a copy editor at the
journal can correct remaining errors.
Verb tenses, which differ among languages, often pose difficulty. As dis-
cussed in Chapter 30, the methods and results sections of a scientific paper
should normally be written entirely, or almost entirely, in the past tense. The
introduction and discussion typically include a variety of tenses, depending on
whether, for example, previously established knowledge is being presented
(present tense) or the research reported in the present paper is being summa-
rized (past tense). As well as following the general advice in this book, look
at the use of verb tenses in the journal to which you are submitting your
manuscript.
Deciding which preposition to use can be difficult, even sometimes for
native speakers of English. Keeping a list of prepositional phrases commonly
used in your field can help. So can consulting textbooks and websites intended
to guide nonnative speakers of English.
Likewise, proper use of articles (a, an, and the) can be very difficult, espe-
cially for writers whose native languages do not contain articles. Here, too, it
can help to consult textbooks and websites for users of English as a foreign
language and to use published papers as examples. Other sources of guidance
on various aspects of English include the book Scientific English (Day and Saka-
duski 2011).
Other often-challenging aspects of English include plurals, mass nouns, cap-
italization, and sentence length and structure. Some authors from native lan-
guages without plural forms tend to forget to add an s to make English nouns
plural. And some nonnative speakers tend mistakenly to add an s to mass nouns
(such as information and research). Native users of languages that do not have
capital letters, or that follow different capitalization rules from those for English,
sometimes neglect to capitalize English words when needed or capitalize exces-
sively. Authors whose native languages tend to have very long sentences some-
times write sentences that should be several sentences in English. And
sometimes nonnative speakers use English words but retain the sentence
240  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

structure of their native language, with awkward results. (A peer reviewer told
an international colleague of ours that her sentences resembled those of the
character Yoda!) If any of these aspects of English tend to pose difficulty for you,
perhaps pay special attention to them when you revise your writing.
Native writers of some languages tend to have difficulty with spacing in
English-language text. For example, sometimes they neglect to skip a space
after the period at the end of a sentence, or they insert a space between an
opening parenthesis and the word that follows, or they make many spacing
errors in bibliographic references. If you tend to have this difficulty, check
your manuscript carefully for proper spacing.

MORE STRATEGIES FOR ENGLISH-LANGUAGE WRITING

While teaching scientific writing overseas, an American instructor noticed
that papers by one scientist in the class seemed almost as if they had been
written by a native speaker of English. When the instructor commented on
this fact, the scientist described his strategy: He carefully read several papers
on his research topic in leading English-language journals and then, for each
section (introduction, methods, etc.), listed words and phrases commonly
used; when writing his papers, he consulted these lists. This strategy also can
aid other nonnative speakers of English. Likewise, keeping and consulting a
list of revisions that copy editors or others have made in one’s writing can help
in polishing one’s English.
Write simply overall. Do not try to impress readers with vocabulary words
you have learned for the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Do
not try to display your ability to write long, complex sentences in English. Do
not try to exhibit your mastery of passive voice. Remember that the goal of a
scientific paper is to communicate the science, not to impress readers with
your English level. Many readers of your paper may be nonnative speakers
who know much less English than you do. Also, relatively simple writing
makes a paper easier to understand even for native speakers of English,
including editors and peer reviewers.
Draft your paper in English, if possible, rather than writing it in your native
language and then translating it. Doing so can help your paper to read well in
English. When you are drafting your paper, do not try to make the English
perfect, as doing so can disrupt your flow of ideas. Rather, just try to express
what you want to say. Then, once you have a draft, go back and, where neces-
sary, improve the English.
If feasible, have someone with an especially strong command of English
(and, ideally, knowledge of scientific writing and editing) review your paper
before you submit it to a journal. (Indeed, if a paper seems to contain good
 How to Write Science in English as a Foreign Language  241

science but is written in poor English, a journal may return the manuscript
and suggest that it be edited by someone expert in English and then resubmit-
ted.) If possible, the person providing feedback on your writing should be
familiar with your field of science. Otherwise, although they may correct
grammar problems and other mechanical errors, the person might not detect
errors in scientific expression—and might inadvertently introduce errors
(such as when one editor repeatedly changed the technical term contracture to
contraction). Possible reviewers include colleagues at your institution or else-
where who write well in English, professional editors at your institution, and
teachers of scientific writing. Some professional English-language scientific-
editing services exist. You also may be able to identify suitable editors through
organizations such as the Council of Science Editors (www.CouncilScience-
Editors.org), the European Association of Science Editors (www.ease.org.uk),
and the Board of Editors in the Life Sciences (www.bels.org).

MORE RESOURCES
Many online resources can help nonnative speakers write in English about
science. One example is Academic Phrasebank (www.phrasebank.manchester
.ac.uk), which lists phrases useful in various parts of a scientific paper. Another
is Grammar Girl (www.quickanddirtytips.com/grammar-girl), which provides
advice on grammar, punctuation, word choice, and related topics. Websites for
users of English as a foreign language—for example, UsingEnglish.com
(www.usingenglish.com)—also can be helpful.
You can find many resources through the website of AuthorAID (www.
authoraid.info/en/ and www.authoraid.info/es/), a project mainly to help
researchers in low- and middle-income countries write about and publish
their work. The resource library at this site includes links to many online
resources. It also includes Microsoft PowerPoint presentations, articles, and
other materials on scientific writing and related subjects. In addition, the
AuthorAID site contains a blog on communicating research, and AuthorAID
provides free online courses. Through the site, you can also seek a mentor to
advise you in your writing and related work. Although primarily for research-
ers in less affluent countries, AuthorAID resources can also help researchers
elsewhere with their writing. As a scientist from Japan said, “When it comes
to scientific writing, every country is a developing country.”
A goal of AuthorAID, like that of this book, is to increase researchers’
knowledge, skill, and confidence regarding scientific writing and publication.
If English is not your native language, do not feel discouraged. And when your
paper is accepted by an international journal, consider celebrating twice: once
in your native language and once in English.
This page intentionally left blank
PART VIII

Other Topics in Scientific Communication

This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 35

How to Write a Thesis

The average PhD thesis is nothing but a transference of bones from one grave-
yard to another.
—J. Frank Dobie

PURPOSE OF THE THESIS

A PhD thesis in the sciences presents the candidate’s original research. Its
purpose is to prove that the candidate can do and communicate such research.
Therefore, a thesis should exhibit the same type of disciplined writing that is
required in a journal publication. Unlike a scientific paper, a thesis may
address more than one topic, and it may present more than one approach to
some topics. The thesis may present all or most of the data obtained in the
student’s thesis-related research. Therefore, the thesis usually is longer and
more involved than a scientific paper. But the concept that a thesis must be a
bulky, 200-page tome is wrong—dead wrong. Many 200-page theses contain
only 50 pages of good science. The other 150 pages comprise turgid descrip-
tions of insignificant details.
We have seen many PhD theses, and we have assisted with the writing
and organization of a good number of them. On the basis of this experi-
ence, we have concluded that there are almost no generally accepted rules
for thesis preparation. Most types of scientific writing are highly structured.
Thesis writing is not. The “right” way to write a thesis varies widely from
institution to institution, and even from professor to professor within the
same department.
Reid (1978) is one of many over the years who have suggested that the tra-
ditional thesis no longer serves a purpose. In Reid’s words, “Requirements

245
246  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

(“Piled Higher and Deeper” by Jorge Cham. www.phdcomics.com)

that a candidate must produce an expansive traditional-style dissertation for a

Ph.D. degree in the sciences must be abandoned. . . . The expansive traditional
dissertation fosters the false impression that a typed record must be preserved
of every table, graph, and successful or unsuccessful experimental procedure.”
Indeed, in many settings, the core of a thesis now normally consists of scien-
tific papers that the student has published.
If a thesis serves any real purpose, that purpose might be to determine lit-
eracy. Perhaps universities have always worried about what would happen to
their image if a PhD degree turned out to have been awarded to an illiterate.
Hence, the thesis requirement. Stated more positively, the candidate has been
through a process of maturation, discipline, and scholarship. The “ticket out”
is a satisfactory thesis.
It may be useful to mention that theses at European universities have
tended to be taken much more seriously. They are designed to show that the
candidate has reached maturity and can both do science and write about sci-
ence. Such theses may be submitted after some years of work and a number
of primary publications, with the thesis itself being a “review paper” that
brings it all together.
By the way, sometimes the word dissertation is used instead of thesis. For
example, at some U.S. universities, one speaks of a master’s thesis, but a doc-
toral dissertation. Whatever term one uses, the principles are much the same
for preparing the less extensive master’s-level document and the more exten-
sive doctoral one.
 How to Write a Thesis  247

TIPS ON WRITING
Few rules exist for writing a thesis, except those that may prevail in your own
institution. Check whether your institution has a thesis manual or other set of
instructions. If it does, obtain it and follow it carefully. Otherwise, your gradu-
ation may be delayed because of failure to use the required thesis format. If
you do not have rules to follow (or even if you do), go to your departmental
library—or, increasingly, your institutional library’s online collection of
theses—and examine the theses submitted by previous graduates of the
department, especially those who have gone on to fame and fortune. Perhaps
you will be able to detect a common flavor. Whatever ploys worked in the past
for others are likely to work for you now.
Theses typically consist of several chapters. Sometimes the chapters corre-
spond to the parts of an IMRAD scientific paper: introduction, methods,
results, and discussion. Or, if a thesis reports a number of studies, the central
part may include a chapter about each study. As already noted, sometimes a
thesis consists mainly of a set of published papers. In addition to chapters,
common components of theses include a title page, acknowledgments, an
abstract, a table of contents, a list of figures and tables, a list of abbreviations,
and appendixes.
A thesis also should contain a substantial reference list, helping to demon-
strate your familiarity with the literature in your field. In this regard, a thesis
can resemble a review paper. Indeed, the introduction or a separate literature-
review chapter generally should present a thorough review of previous work to
which yours is related. Further, it is often desirable to go back into the history
of your subject. You might thus compile a valuable review of the literature of
your field, while at the same time learning something about the history of sci-
ence, which could turn out to be a valuable part of your education.
Start with and work from carefully prepared outlines. Be careful about what
goes in what section. If you have one or several results sections, the content
must be your results, not a mixture of your results with those of others. If you
need to present results of others, to show how they confirm or contrast with
your own, you should do this within a discussion section. Otherwise, confu-
sion may result, or, worse, you could be charged with lifting data from the
published literature.
Give special attention to the introduction in your thesis for two reasons.
First, for your own benefit, you need to clarify what problem you attacked,
how and why you chose that problem, how you attacked it, and what you
learned during your studies. The rest of the thesis should then flow easily and
logically from the introduction. Second, first impressions are important, and
you would not want to lose your readers in a cloud of obfuscation right at the
outset.
248  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Writing a thesis is a good chance to develop your skill in scientific writing.

If a committee of faculty members is supervising your thesis research, seek
feedback on one or more drafts of your thesis from committee members,
especially the committee chair. (If you can choose the committee members,
try to include someone who writes very well and is willing to help others with
writing.) Seek feedback early from the committee chair and others, to help
prevent the need for extensive revisions at the end.
Universities keep copies of theses so that those interested can read them.
Commonly, they require electronic copies for this purpose. Use of electronic
rather than paper copies saves space in libraries, can make theses easier for
readers to obtain, and can let you include materials, such as videos or anima-
tions, that are difficult or impossible to provide in a bound thesis. Be sure to
find out how your institution requires you to submit your thesis and what the
instructions are.

WHEN TO WRITE THE THESIS

You would be wise to begin writing your thesis long before it is due. In fact,
when a particular set of experiments or some major facet of your work has
been completed, you should write it up while it is still fresh in your mind. If
you save everything until the end, you may find that you have forgotten impor-
tant details. Worse, you may find that you lack time to do a proper writing job.
If you have not done much writing before, you might be amazed at how time-
consuming it can be. You are likely to need a total of at least three months to
write the thesis, on a relatively full-time basis. You will not have full time,
however, nor can you count on the ready availability of your thesis advisor.
Allow at least 6 months.
As implied in the preceding paragraph, a thesis need not be written from
beginning to end. Work on the literature review section generally should start

(“Piled Higher and Deeper” by Jorge Cham. www.phdcomics.com)

 How to Write a Thesis  249

early because your research should be based on previous research. Regardless

of whether you do laboratory research or other investigation (such as field
research or social-science surveys), you should draft descriptions of methods
soon after methods are used, while memory is still complete. Often, the intro-
duction is best drafted after the sections presenting and discussing the results,
so the introduction can effectively prepare readers for what will follow.
Of course, ideas for any part of your thesis may occur to you at any time.
Early in your research, consider establishing a physical or electronic file for
each part of your thesis. Whenever ideas for the thesis occur to you, put the
ideas in the appropriate file. Similarly, if you come across readings that might
be relevant to a given section, include or mention them in the file. Such files
help keep you from losing ideas and materials that could contribute to your
thesis. They also give you content to consider using as you begin drafting each
section.
Perhaps you noticed that we said “drafting,” not “writing.” Much to the
surprise of some graduate students, a good thesis is likely to require multiple
drafts. Some graduate students think that once the last word leaves the key-
board, the thesis is ready to turn in. However, as with journal articles, consid-
erable revision commonly is needed for the thesis to achieve its potential.
Indeed, using feedback from one’s graduate committee to strengthen the con-
tent, organization, and wording of one’s thesis can be an important part of
one’s graduate education. Be prepared to need more time than expected to put
your thesis in final form. Both in terms of the quality of the product and in
terms of learning obtained that can aid in your future writing, the time is
likely to be well spent.

RELATIONSHIP TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD

Remember that your thesis will bear only your name. Theses are normally
copyrighted in the name of the author. The quality of your thesis and of any
related publications in the primary literature probably will affect your early
reputation and your job prospects. A tightly written, coherent thesis will get
you off to a good start. An overblown encyclopedia of minutiae will do you no
credit. The writers of good theses try hard to avoid the verbose, the tedious,
and the trivial.
Be particularly careful in writing the abstract of your thesis. The abstracts
of doctoral dissertations from many institutions appear in databases such as
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, thus being made available to the
larger scientific community.
Writing a thesis is not a hurdle to overcome before starting your scientific
career. Rather, it is a beginning step in your career and a foundation for your
250  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

later writing. Prepare your thesis carefully, and use the experience as a chance
to refine your writing skills. The resulting document and abilities will then
serve you well.

FROM THESIS TO PUBLICATION

People sometimes speak of “publishing a thesis.” However, theses themselves
are rarely, if ever, publishable. One reason is that theses commonly are
intended partly to show that the graduate student has amassed considerable
knowledge, so they tend to contain much material that helps demonstrate
scholarship but would not interest readers. Extracting one or more publica-
tions from a thesis generally entails considerable trimming and condensation.
More specifically, writing one or more scientific papers based on a thesis
requires determining what in a thesis is new and of interest to others and then
presenting it in the appropriate format and at an appropriate level of detail. In
fields in which books present new scholarship, converting a dissertation to a
book (Germano 2013) often includes decreasing the manuscript to a market-
able length, dividing it into more chapters, using fewer quotations and exam-
ples, and otherwise making the manuscript more readable, cohesive, and
engaging.
When you finish your thesis, promptly prepare and submit any manu-
scripts based on it, if you have not yet done so. Do so even if you are tired of
your thesis topic—and tired from writing and defending the thesis. The lon-
ger you wait, the harder it is to return to your thesis and prepare a suitable
manuscript based on it. And importantly, having one or more thesis-based
writings published or in press can help catapult you into the next stage of your
career.
CHAPTER 36
How to Prepare a Curriculum Vitae,
Cover Letter, and Personal Statement

My one regret in life is that I am not someone else.

—Woody Allen

WHAT’S A CURRICULUM VITAE? WHAT’S IT GOOD FOR?

Whereas those in business write résumés, we in the sciences generally pre-
pare curricula vitae (CVs). Both a résumé and a CV present key facts about
one’s professional background. However, the two differ somewhat in content
and structure.
Literally, curriculum vitae means the course of one’s life. A CV shows the
course of your professional life. Figure 36.1 shows a CV of a fictional graduate
student. Although the facts of this person’s life are imaginary, the kinds of
information provided are fairly typical: address and other contact information,
education, honors, research, teaching, publications, and other professionally
relevant experience.
A CV has many uses. You may be required to provide one with your thesis.
Supplying one is standard when you apply for a job. Grant applications com-
monly include CVs. You will need to submit one if you are being considered
for tenure, and you might need to provide one for your annual review. If you
are nominated for an award, you may be asked to submit a CV to the selection
committee. You should not, however, offer your CV when asking someone out
on a date (as one socially awkward young scientist did).
If you are seeking a position in industry, you may be asked for a résumé
rather than a CV. Early in one’s career, a CV and a résumé may be almost the
same. However, a résumé commonly states an objective at the beginning. Also,
duties generally are listed for jobs held. Whereas a CV can run several pages or

251
252  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Jian (Jane) Zhang

zhangjian11@keepmail.com ORCID: 1234-5678-9012-3456

(987) 654-3210

Education
XYZ University, PhD, Molecular ABCology Expected May 2023
WXY University, MS, ABCology August 2019
JKL College, BS, ABCology, magna cum laude May 2017

Honors and Awards

Best Student Poster, ABCology Society Annual Meeting October 2021
Regents Fellowship, XYZ University 2019 to present
Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award, WXY University 2019
Alumni Memorial Scholarship, JKL College 2013–2017

Research
Molecular ABCology of DEF 2021–present
Laboratory of Sally Scientist
XYZ University
ABCological Characteristics of GHI 2018–2019
Laboratory of Rahm J. Researcher
WXY University
Effect of D on E June–August 2016
Annual Summer Undergraduate Research Program
National Institute of ABCology. Washington, DC

Teaching Experience
Instructor, Survey of ABCology, XYZ University Fall 2021
Teaching Assistant, Basic ABCology, WXY University 2018–2019
Tutor (ABCology, calculus), JKL College Learning Center         
2015–2017

Selected Extracurricular Activities

Graduate Student Association, XYZ University 2019–present
(co-organizer, Student Research Week, 2022)
JKList (student research journal, JKL College) 2013–2017
(editor-in-chief, 2016–2017)

Publications
Smith JP, Zhang J, Scientist S. Inhibition of DEF by GHI. Mol ABCol. (in press)
Zhang J, Researcher RJ. ABC chromatography of GHI. ABCology. 2020;27:463–467.
doi: xxx.yyy.zzz
Zhang J. ABCology: historical highlights and current trends. JKList. 2016;5:79–81.

Figure 36.1.  Sample CV.

 How to Prepare a Curriculum Vitae, Cover Letter, and Personal Statement  253

more, a résumé normally is limited to one or two pages, thus sometimes

requiring that information be condensed. Many websites, books, and univer-
sity career centers offer guidance on résumé preparation and provide sample
résumés. If you need to prepare a résumé, consider using such resources.

WHAT TO PUT IN (AND WHAT TO LEAVE OUT)

Sometimes you may be told what types of information to include in a CV, what
format to use, or both. For example, some colleges have detailed instructions
for faculty CVs. Likewise, some funding agencies specify what to include in a
CV in a grant application. Typical content and structure of CVs can differ
among scientific fields and among institutions. Thus, it can be useful to look at
others’ CVs and have others review a draft of yours. For ideas of what to include
in your CV and how to present it, consider looking online at the CVs of mem-
bers of your department or of scientists elsewhere who are leaders in your field.
Of course, list your publications in your CV. Also list major presentations,
such as papers given at national conferences. List as well the grants that you
have received. In listing your publications, use a standard format for refer-
ences (see Chapter 15), such as the one employed by a leading journal in your
field; in the author list, consider putting your name in boldface for clear iden-
tification. In some contexts, such as when a person is being considered for
tenure, it can also be appropriate to list the numbers of citations that papers
have received. If a paper has been accepted but not yet posted or published, list
it as “in press” or “forthcoming.” If it has been submitted but not yet accepted,
or if it is still being prepared, do not list it under “Publications.” You may,
however, mention it in the “Research” section of your CV.
Your CV should focus on your professional history. Normally, it should not
include personal information such as date of birth, marital status, health, or
hobbies. Do not list your Social Security number or other personal identifica-
tion numbers, especially given the possibility of identity theft.
Of course, do not exaggerate your accomplishments. In addition to being dis-
honest, doing so can harm your career if any discrepancy is discovered. If there
is nothing to list in a given category, omit that category. Do not be like the student
who included the heading “Honors” in her CV and then wrote under it, “None.”

OTHER SUGGESTIONS
CVs commonly are structured in reverse chronological order. In other words,
within each category, items are listed from the most recent to the least. Some
CVs, however, use chronological order. Whichever order is used, be consistent.
254  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Do you use a nickname instead of your given name? If so, you may put it in
parentheses. Ditto if you go by an English-language name in addition to the
name in your native language. If readers might not know how to address you,
consider including your preferred courtesy title, such as “Ms.” or “Mr.” Of
course, if you have a doctorate and people read the education section of your
CV, they should know to address you as “Dr.”
Include some contact information that is likely to be long-lasting in case
recipients wish to be in touch with you much later. For example, if you are a
student, some of your contact information might well change. Therefore, con-
sider listing items such as an email address and mobile phone number that
are expected to stay the same.
If the nature of something listed might not be clear from its title, include a
brief explanation in parentheses. You might say “Huth Award (for excellence
in scientific writing)” or “Johnson Club (astronomy interest group).”
Consider having different versions of your CV for different uses. If you are
seeking jobs at both research laboratories and teaching institutions, one ver-
sion may focus mainly on your research experience and another may also list
your teaching experience in detail. Even if the same information is included,
it may appear in different orders in different versions of your CV.
Keep your CV up to date, so it is ready when needed. And, of course, proof-
read it carefully.

PREPARING A COVER LETTER

If you are applying for a job, you probably will need to accompany your CV
with a cover letter. This letter provides further opportunity to introduce your-
self, and it can help demonstrate your communication skills. Commonly, such
a letter runs a single page. Rarely should it exceed two pages.
If possible, address the recipient of the letter by name. Be sure to spell the
name properly. If you are unsure what courtesy title to use before the recipi-
ent’s surname, try to find out (for example, by checking online whether the
person has a doctorate), so you can address the person appropriately. If this
information is unavailable, address the person by full name (for example, “Dear
Kelly Jones”) rather than using a courtesy title (as in “Dear Mr. Jones”). If the
name of the recipient is not available, you may use “To Whom It May Concern”
or, if applicable, a more specific salutation such as “Dear Selection Commit-
tee.” Do not use “Dear Sir” unless you are sure the recipient is male. In a for-
mal letter, normally a colon rather than a comma follows the salutation.
At the beginning of the letter, make clear what you are applying for. Do not
use general wording such as “the opening in your department,” lest your
application end up with those for the wrong position. Also, consider including
 How to Prepare a Curriculum Vitae, Cover Letter, and Personal Statement  255

in the opening sentence your main qualifications. For example, you might say,
“As a recent recipient of a Ph.D. in molecular ABCology from XYZ University,
I am applying for the postdoctoral position in DEF research that was announced
in Science last week.”
In the middle of the cover letter, discuss your qualifications. You may intro-
duce them by referring to your CV (“As noted in the accompanying curricu-
lum vitae . . .”). Show how your qualifications match those requested in the
position description. Doing so can provide a chance to elaborate on items
listed in your CV. For example, you may summarize research you have done
or identify techniques with which you are adept, or you may specify duties you
had as a teaching assistant.
Do not discuss salary in your cover letter. Any such discussion should come
later, once the employer expresses a desire to offer you a position.
End the letter positively, but not overconfidently. Avoid overly assertive
statements such as “Thus, I am the ideal candidate for the assistant professor-
ship in molecular ABCology. I look forward to receiving an interview.” An
example of more appropriate wording: “Thus, I believe that my background
qualifies me well for the assistant professorship in ABCology. I hope to hear
from you soon about the possibility of an interview.”

WRITING A PERSONAL STATEMENT

Applications for some opportunities require personal statements. For exam-
ple, you may need to write a personal statement if you are applying to profes-
sional school or seeking some types of fellowships.
A personal statement is a brief essay that describes your professional devel-
opment as it relates to the opportunity being sought. Often, it is best struc-
tured mainly in chronological order. You may begin with a paragraph providing
a brief overview, then summarize how your interests have developed thus far,
describe your main current activities, and finally discuss directions that you
anticipate taking. If feasible, show that your decision to seek the opportunity
is well informed (for example, by discussing related experience).
If you have a nontraditional background—for instance, if you pursued a
different career before—or if you experienced a delay during your education,
you generally should address the matter in your personal statement. Do not
leave readers wondering why, for example, the dates in your CV do not seem
to add up. If you discuss problems you have overcome, do so positively and
without defensiveness, and show that you addressed the problems maturely
and thoughtfully.
Be confident, but not arrogant. In keeping with principles of good writing,
show rather than tell. For example, to show that you have leadership abilities,
256  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

you could state that you have held several leadership roles, note the main such
roles, and mention a leadership award that you received. Do not emulate the
medical-residency applicant who wrote, “First, I have a great bedside
manner. . . . Second, I have excellent technical skills. . . . Third, and most
important, I have a humble spirit.”
In a personal statement, generally avoid or minimize discussion of aspects
of your background that are not professionally related. In particular, do not
discuss your political or religious views. Not only may doing so alienate read-
ers whose views differ from yours; even if readers agree with your views, you
may seem unprofessional or unfocused.
Finally, word your personal statement readably, in keeping with advice in
this book. Those who review applications containing personal statements tend
to be busy. Help them to understand quickly where you are coming from,
where you are now, and where you are going. You will then be more likely to
receive their support in obtaining the opportunity you seek.
CHAPTER 37
How to Prepare Grant Proposals
and Progress Reports

The successful grant writer, to a large extent, lives by selling his ideas: a suc-
cessful grant [proposal] is a marketing document.
—Janet S. Rasey

PREPARING A GRANT PROPOSAL

Scientific research costs money. Typically, the needed money comes as grants
from government agencies, private foundations, or other sources. Thus, to
survive professionally, most scientists must apply successfully for grants.
The purpose of a grant proposal, sometimes called a grant application, is to
persuade a funding source to fund a project. To do so, it must persuade those
making the decisions that

• the goal of the proposed research is worthwhile,

• the goal is relevant to the funding body’s mission,
• the proposed research approach is sound,
• the staff is capable of doing the proposed work,
• adequate facilities will be available, and
• the requested amount of funding is reasonable.

Considerable competition exists for research funds, and careful prepara-

tion of a grant proposal can make the difference between being funded and
not. As when writing a scientific paper, keys to success include using good
models, following instructions carefully, and revising, revising, revising.

257
258  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Identifying Potential Sources of Funding

How can you identify sources of funding that might be suitable for your work?
During your research training, you probably became aware of major funding
sources in your field. Indeed, if you were part of an active research group,
your research supervisor might have spent considerable time writing grant
proposals.
Your mentor may remain a good source of advice on finding funding
sources. Colleagues and administrators also may be helpful. At many institu-
tions, grant offices and research offices publicize opportunities to apply for
funding. Published or posted requests for proposals, as well as published or
posted guides to funding opportunities, also can help. Email lists in your field
or at your institution may include announcements of chances to seek funding,
and internet searching sometimes discloses further possibilities. Also, when
you read scientific papers on work related to yours, notice the funding source,
which may be specified in the acknowledgments section or in a note near the
beginning or end of the paper. Doing so may disclose funding sources that
you had not thought of pursuing.
As you identify potential sources of funding, start noticing their require-
ments for grant proposals. For example, when are the application deadlines?
How does one access the instructions for applying? Can one proceed directly
to submitting a grant proposal, or must one first submit preliminary informa-
tion on what one wishes to propose? Has the funding source posted proposals
that can be used as examples?

Preliminary Letters and Proposals

Some funding sources require prospective grant applicants to begin by sub-
mitting preliminary information. Sometimes all that is required is a letter of
intent, saying that one plans to respond to a given request for proposals and
briefly describing the research that will be proposed. The funding source can
then use this information to plan its work—for example, by starting to recruit
peer reviewers with appropriate expertise to review your proposal once it
arrives.
In other cases, prospective grant applicants must submit a preliminary pro-
posal, sometimes also known by other names, such as letter of inquiry or prepro-
posal. A preliminary proposal is essentially a short version of the proposal that
one hopes to submit. On the basis of the preliminary proposals, the funding
source, often with guidance from peer reviewers, decides which applicants
can submit full proposals. Feedback about preliminary proposals can
help applicants develop their full proposals and prepare future preliminary
 How to Prepare Grant Proposals and Progress Reports  259

proposals. Requiring preliminary proposals can save funding agencies the

work of reviewing full proposals for research that it is very unlikely to fund,
and it can give them the opportunity to help shape research. It also can save
scientists the work of preparing extensive proposals for research that the
source is very unlikely to fund.
Preparing a preliminary proposal entails careful work. Much of the same
rigorous thinking is required as for a full proposal. And writing concisely, so
that the preliminary proposal is informative despite being brief, can pose spe-
cial challenges. (For guidance on communicating concisely, see Part VII of
this book.) Because the opportunity to submit a full proposal is at stake, time
spent writing and refining a preliminary proposal can be a valuable investment.

Common Parts of a Proposal

If your preliminary proposal is accepted, or if you will apply directly for a
grant, determine the appropriate size and structure of the proposal. The
instructions are likely to provide at least some guidance in this regard. Some
aspects, however, may be left to your own judgment.
Proposals range greatly in length, depending on the requirements of the
funding source. Proposals for small internal grants at universities sometimes
are limited to one page. Major proposals can run many pages.
Regardless of length, a good proposal generally includes background infor-
mation relating to the proposed endeavor, a statement of goals, a research plan
(or a program plan, in the case of an education or service project), a budget,
and information about the qualifications of those who are to do the work, such
as curricula vitae (CVs). If a proposal runs several pages or more, it may well
include a title page and an abstract.
Especially if a proposal is lengthy, other items may be required or advisable.
These may include a letter of transmittal (analogous to the cover letter accom-
panying the manuscript for a scientific paper), a table of contents, a list of
tables, a list of figures, a description of the predicted impact of the project, a
plan for disseminating the results, and information on facilities that are avail-
able. A substantial research proposal generally cites references and includes a
reference list.
Some proposals include appendixes for reviewers to consult if they want
further information. Items that appendixes sometimes contain include scien-
tific papers that have been accepted but not yet published, letters of support
from prospective collaborators, and additional details about activities planned.
Authors of grant proposals should keep in mind that reviewers typically are
not obligated to look at appendixes. Thus, all key information should appear
in the main body of the proposal.
260  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Preparing to Write the Proposal

Only if a proposal matches the priorities of a funding source is it likely to be
funded. Therefore, before writing, make sure the proposed work falls within
the scope of what the source supports. Look carefully at written materials
from the source in this regard. Also, feel free to consult staff members at
the funding source (sometimes known as program officers) whose role
includes advising prospective grant applicants. As well as saying whether a
proposed project is likely to be considered seriously for funding, such indi-
viduals may be able to advise you on how to gear a proposal to help maxi-
mize chances of success. If one funding source seems to be a poor match,
seek another.
In preparing grant proposals, as in other scientific writing, following good
models saves time, avoids guesswork, and promotes success. If possible, look
at one or more examples of successful proposals for the same category of grant
from the same funding source. Colleagues who have received such grants may
be willing to share copies of their proposals. Likewise, staff at the funding
source may be able to provide examples. Other examples of well-prepared
grant proposals, or of material therefrom, appear in books on grant applica-
tion (for example, Gerin, Kinkade, and Page 2017) or more broadly on techni-
cal writing (for example, Penrose and Katz 2010). In addition, examples of
successful grant proposals have been posted on the web (for example, at www.
niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/sample-applications).

Writing the Proposal

Start working on the proposal long before the application deadline. For a
lengthy proposal, at least six months beforehand can be advisable, particularly
if others will collaborate in preparing it. Especially if you have little experience
writing proposals or if written English is not among your strengths, consider
obtaining help from a professional scientific writer or editor, either at your
institution or on a freelance basis. For greatest effectiveness, such an individ-
ual should be involved early in the process; when handed a proposal the day
before it is due, an editor generally can do little more than make superficial
improvements.
Read all instructions carefully and follow them precisely. Be sure to provide
all required information and strictly follow requirements regarding length
and other formatting aspects. Realize, for example, that commonly a funding
agency requires a biographical sketch in its own specialized format rather
than accepting a regular CV; take the time to prepare or update your bios-
ketch in keeping with current specifications. Proposals not complying with
 How to Prepare Grant Proposals and Progress Reports  261

instructions may be disqualified without review. So, before submitting the

proposal, check the instructions again.
Match the technical level of the proposal to the background of the review-
ers. Government agencies typically have scientists in the researcher’s field
evaluate the grant proposal; thus, a proposal to such a funding source should
be fairly technical. At some private funding sources, however, boards contain-
ing interested laypeople evaluate proposals. In the latter case, the proposal
may need to be no more technical than a science article in a popular maga-
zine. If in doubt as to how much background reviewers will have and therefore
how technical the proposal should be, consult the funding agency.
Whatever the background of the reviewers, the proposal should be readably
written. Scientists of sufficient prominence to review proposals are among the
busiest in their fields, and commonly they have many proposals to review;
they lack time to puzzle over what a proposal means, and so those proposals
that can be easily read and rapidly understood have an advantage. And of

(© Vivian S. Hixson, reproduced by permission)

262  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

course, readable writing aids comprehension by lay reviewers of proposals.

For readability, organize the writing carefully; present overviews before details;
use simple, common language where possible; avoid wordy phrases; make
effective (but not excessive) use of devices such as headings, boldface, and ital-
ics; and otherwise follow guidelines for readability. If doing so would aid com-
munication, and if it is permitted, include tables, graphs, or other visuals in
the proposal. Of course, make sure that any such items are well prepared and
suitably placed.
If a proposal is to include an abstract, devote particular care to it. An infor-
mative, well-organized, clearly worded abstract can be important for a number
of reasons: Some funding sources choose reviewers for a proposal at least
partly on the basis of the abstract; therefore, if an abstract is misleading or
confusing, the proposal may be assigned to reviewers who are not the most
suitable, and thus it might not receive the most valid review. Also, reviewers
generally gain their first impression of a proposal by reading the abstract, so a
poor abstract may bias the reviewers unfavorably. And reviewers commonly
reread abstracts to refresh their memories before discussing proposals; at this
stage too, a good abstract serves the applicant well.
Give the proposal a clear, concise title too. Doing so makes your focus
apparent immediately, aids in capturing readers’ attention, and helps create
a good initial impression. Such a title also makes it easy for reviewers and
others to refer to your proposal. In addition, drafting a succinct, unambigu-
ous title can help prepare you to write a strong, focused proposal (Friedland
and Folt 2009). Do not feel obligated, though, to retain the initial title. As
you and others prepare and refine the grant proposal, the title too may ben-
efit from revision. The main point: The title deserves careful attention. It
should not be a near-afterthought, added the hour before the proposal is
due.
For many proposals, the applicant must use forms from the funding source.
These forms commonly can be accessed through the web. Often, the com-
pleted forms constituting proposals can—or must—be submitted electroni-
cally. Carefully follow the instructions for preparation and submission.
If part or all of the proposal will consist of freestanding text, format it
readably. If the funding source specifies items such as typeface, type size,
and margins, be sure to follow the instructions. If such items are not speci-
fied, you generally should use a standard typeface (for example, Times
Roman), 10- to 12-point type, and margins of 1 inch (about 25 mm) or
slightly more. Also, unless otherwise stated, the right margin should be
unjustified (ragged) rather than justified (straight). Do not use tiny type or
minuscule margins in order to fit more words on the allotted pages; rather
than helping your case, doing so is likely to rile the reviewers and thus
undermine it.
 How to Prepare Grant Proposals and Progress Reports  263

Common Reasons for Rejection

Experienced reviewers of grant proposals have noted common reasons for
rejection, as have staff members at funding agencies. By knowing about and
avoiding these problems, you can increase the likelihood that your proposal
will be accepted.
A common reason for rejection—and presumably an easy one to avoid—is
simply failure to follow the instructions for application. Poor writing or other-
wise sloppy presentation also contributes to rejection. So does seeming unfa-
miliarity with relevant published work. Review the literature carefully, and cite
it where appropriate; be sure all citations are accurate. Remember that scien-
tists reviewing your proposal probably know the literature in your field thor-
oughly. Indeed, they may well have written items that you have cited or should
cite.
Other reasons for rejection include lack of originality, a superficial or unfo-
cused research plan, and lack of a valid scientific rationale. (Are one or more
well-conceived hypotheses being tested, or is the proposed research just a
“fishing expedition,” in hopes of finding something interesting?) Problems
with the experimental approach—for instance, lack of suitable controls or fail-
ure to mention, if relevant, methods you plan to use if initial methods fail—
also can lead to rejection. So can lack of experience with key methods (or
failure to disclose such experience). And so can absence of enough experimen-
tal detail to persuade reviewers that the research is carefully planned. Looking
at proposals accepted by the funding source can aid in determining how much
detail to include and how technical the description of methods should be.
In many contexts, the word ambitious is a compliment—but not so, in gen-
eral, for grant proposals. Proposing an unrealistically large amount of work
can lead to rejection. Remember that experimental difficulties, unrelated
interruptions, and other factors can slow a project. It is better to propose a
somewhat modest endeavor that reviewers feel confident that you can com-
plete than one that appears too ambitious.
Unrealistic budgeting also can contribute to rejection. Carefully determine
the anticipated costs. If a budget is much too high, you may appear naive or
greedy. You may likewise seem naive if the budget is much too low—and woe
to you if the proposal is then approved and you are left to do the project with
insufficient funds.

Other Problems to Watch For

Also, take care to avoid other common problems—some substantive, some
editorial.
264  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

For some types of research, proposals typically contain preliminary data.

Find out whether such data are expected and proceed accordingly.
Justify budgetary items sufficiently. Do not, for example, expect a funding
source to cover the cost of a new computer or a trip to Hawaii unless you show
why it is important to the proposed project. At many institutions, staff mem-
bers who are experts on preparing grant budgets can provide assistance. Such
an individual has published a chapter (Lewis 2008) giving researchers detailed
guidance on grant-budget preparation; it includes a fictitious example of an
extensive budget and budget justification.
If you are proposing a service project (for instance, in science education),
include sufficient information on plans for evaluating it. Especially for such
projects, consider including a timeline to show that you have carefully planned
what is to be accomplished when.
Edit the proposal carefully. In doing so, be especially alert for inconsisten-
cies, which can arise if, for example, you alter the research plan but neglect to
revise the abstract accordingly. Also, be alert for confusingly extensive use of
abbreviations. In general, use only or mainly those abbreviations that review-
ers of the proposal should already know. If many abbreviations will be used,
consider including a table of definitions for reviewers to consult.

Resubmitting a Proposal
If your proposal is not funded, do not become overly discouraged. Funding
sources commonly receive proposals for many more projects than they can
support. And some funding sources often accept revised versions of proposals
that they rejected on first submission.
Funding sources commonly provide feedback on proposals that they review.
Especially if the reviewers’ feedback is favorable overall, try, try again, either by
submitting a revised proposal to the same funding source or by seeking fund-
ing from another source. In preparing a revised proposal, as in revising a sci-
entific paper for resubmission, make good use of suggestions from reviewers.
If you are submitting a revised proposal to the same funding source, you
generally should accompany it with a list showing, point by point, how the
reviewers’ advice was followed. (Of course, check the instructions for resub-
missions.) If the reviewers identified a problem and you decided to correct it
in a way other than that suggested, say what you did and why. Also, if appropri-
ate, indicate the changes typographically, such as by using the Track Changes
feature of Microsoft Word. Seriously consider consulting the program officer
responsible for the grant program to which you are applying. The program
officer, who probably observed the peer review of your proposal, may have
extra insights on how to strengthen your proposal and almost certainly knows
 How to Prepare Grant Proposals and Progress Reports  265

well the resubmission process. Therefore, this person may be able to guide
you helpfully regarding both the content and the presentation of your revised
proposal.
Keep trying, for writing successful grant proposals can require both skill
and persistence. In the long run, the important thing is to obtain sufficient
funding for your work. Along the way, preparation even of proposals that don’t
get funded can bring you knowledge, ideas, and contacts that will ultimately
contribute to your work.

Two Closing Comments

Two final thoughts on preparing grant proposals:
First, a suggestion: As you prepare and refine your grant proposal, envision
yourself writing scientific papers about the completed research. Will you have
all the needed information? If not, revise your research plan.
Second, a comment on wording: People sometimes speak of “writing a
grant.” However, the grant is the money—not the proposal or application.
When colleagues say they are writing grants, one is tempted to respond,
“While you have your checkbook out, please write a grant for me.”

WRITING A PROGRESS REPORT

Some funding sources for grants, and some other supporters or supervisors of
work in science, require progress reports at given intervals during projects
that they fund or oversee. These reports help readers determine whether the
work is progressing adequately, and thus whether adjustments should be
made in the plans, the funding level, or both. The prospect of preparing such
reports can spur those doing the work to keep up. Writing such a report can
aid in assessing one’s own progress and, if advisable, adjusting one’s approach.
Also, such reports can be useful for drafting presentations and scientific
papers.

Basic Structure
If the intended recipient of a progress report specifies a structure to use, of
course use it; if forms (for example, regarding use of funds) are required, com-
plete them as instructed. As when preparing a grant proposal, also follow any
other instructions. If you have access to relevant examples of progress reports,
consult them as models.
266  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

(ScienceCartoonsPlus.com)

Commonly, progress reports contain three main sections: background

information, a description of current status, and conclusions. Typically, the
background section mainly summarizes the project plan. The section on cur-
rent status presents achievements thus far, compares progress made with that
anticipated, and describes any important problems encountered. The conclu-
sions section can provide an overall assessment and describe and justify pro-
posed modifications of the original plan.

Some Suggestions
Before writing a progress report, review the proposal (or other written plan)
for the work. In general, structure the progress report similarly to the pro-
posal. For example, if the proposal included sections on three subprojects,
include a section on each in the progress report and use the same headings as
before.
Be specific in your report. For example, include relevant numbers, names,
and dates. If appropriate, include tables and figures. To guide readers, con-
sider using headings and other typographic devices.
 How to Prepare Grant Proposals and Progress Reports  267

Strive to sound positive, competent, and confident. However, do not hide

problems. If you identify problems, say how they are being addressed.
If you write a series of progress reports on a project—for example, annual
reports on work supported by a five-year grant—put each one in the same
basic format. In addition to making the report easier to write, a consistent
structure aids readers in comparing the content of successive reports. With a
word-processing program, you can easily copy your previous report and update
it to yield the current one. Remember, however, to make all needed changes.
Edit your progress report carefully. Double-check it for accuracy and ensure
that it is complete, clear, and concise. Your report can then both document
your progress and serve as continuing evidence of your professionalism.
CHAPTER 38
How to Write a Recommendation
Letter—and How to Ask for One

That’s the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the
men are good looking, and all the children are above average.
—Garrison Keillor

Even as graduate assistants, those in the sciences often are asked to write rec-
ommendation letters for undergraduate students. Later, scientists also receive
requests for recommendation letters for graduate students, postdoctoral fel-
lows, and peers. Writing recommendation letters can consume much time.
However, with a well-organized approach, you can efficiently write good recom-
mendation letters, thus serving qualified candidates well while conserving your
time. Likewise, with a well-considered approach, you can considerately and
effectively obtain recommendation letters when you need them for yourself.

DECIDING WHETHER TO WRITE THE LETTER

A request to write a recommendation letter is just that: a request. Thus, you
can decline. If you cannot honestly provide a favorable assessment, or if you
cannot complete the letter by the deadline, promptly decline the request so the
requester can seek another recommender. When you cannot provide a favor-
able recommendation, a tactful statement such as “I think someone who
knows you better could write a more convincing recommendation” may send
the requester seeking a letter from someone else. If the requester persists,
blunter wording may be needed.
If you know the requesters fairly well and think they may be seeking oppor-
tunities poorly suited to them, consider meeting to discuss the decision. The

268
 How to Write a Recommendation Letter—and How to Ask for One  269

requester may provide information that will change your mind and help you
to write a more persuasive letter. Or you may find that the requester agrees
with you but feels pressured to seek the opportunity. (“I’d rather do field
research, but my family has always wanted me to become a physician” or “I
thought I’d be letting you down if I didn’t seek the summer fellowship.”) With
you as an ally, the requesters can then better pursue their best interests.
Requesters cannot reasonably expect you to write recommendation letters
immediately. If you tend to receive many requests for recommendation letters,
consider letting it be known how much notice you generally need.
If there are people for whom you would be especially pleased to write let-
ters, tell them. Doing so can relieve them of needless stress and help ensure
that well-qualified candidates receive strong recommendations.

GATHERING THE INFORMATION

In preparing a recommendation letter, as in writing a scientific paper, pre-
liminaries include obtaining instructions, gathering materials, collecting data,
and familiarizing yourself with examples.
As well as finding out when the recommendation is due and how to submit
it, gather materials that are needed or would be useful. These may include a
recommendation form to complete (if an electronic link to one has not been
provided), a description of the opportunity or honor for which the candidate is
being recommended, a résumé or curriculum vitae (CV) of the candidate, and
examples of the candidate’s work. They may also include items from your
files, such as grade lists from your courses and previous letters that you have
written on the applicant’s behalf. If the candidate is to have filled out part of a
recommendation form, check that that has been done completely.
Norms regarding content and length of recommendation letters can differ
among fields and cultures. Therefore, if you have not seen recommendation
letters of the type that you are to write, try to obtain some examples. Senior
colleagues in your field may be able to show you some recommendation let-
ters they have written or they may offer feedback on a draft. If you serve on
selection committees, you may see many such letters and gain a sense of the
norm.

WRITING LETTERS
Having a usual format to follow can facilitate writing recommendation letters,
just as it can for preparing a scientific paper. Here is one format that often
works well:
270  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

In the first paragraph, indicate who is being recommended for what. An

example of such a paragraph, which often runs only one sentence, is the follow-
ing: “I am very pleased to recommend [name of candidate], a senior at [name of
university], for admission to the graduate program in [name of field] at [name
of university].” Placing the candidate’s name in boldface can help recipients
quickly see who is being recommended and file the letter appropriately.
In the next paragraph, say how you know the candidate. An example: “I
have known Ms. [surname of applicant] for more than a year. As a junior, she
took my course [title of course]. She also has worked in my laboratory since
June through our university’s undergraduate research program.”
Then, in the following paragraph or two, provide your assessment of the
candidate. Try to be specific. For example, rather than saying only that a candi-
date is an excellent student, specify the student’s achievements and perhaps
rank the student relative to others. If applicable, note the candidate’s academic
or professional strengths and relevant personal traits. Of course, gear what
you say to what the person is being recommended for.
In the final paragraph, sum up the recommendation. For example, you
might write: “In sum, I consider Mr. [surname of applicant] an outstanding
candidate for [name of opportunity]. I recommend him with enthusiasm.”
After a standard closing such as “Sincerely,” “Sincerely yours,” or “Yours
truly,” sign your name. Your name and your professional title, such as “Assis-
tant Professor of [name of field],” should appear under your signature. Nor-
mally, the letter should appear on official letterhead.
Sometimes a candidate may request several recommendations, for instance
for graduate school or jobs. To be efficient, try to prepare all, or several, of these
recommendations at once. Although, for example, different graduate programs
may have different recommendation forms to complete, preparing the recom-
mendations as a batch generally saves time. When there are forms, you may have
the option of either writing your comments on them or attaching letters. If you
already are writing a recommendation letter for a candidate, or if you are com-
pleting multiple recommendations for them, the latter option tends to be faster.
Especially if you think the candidate may ask you later to provide additional
recommendations, keep copies of completed recommendation forms and
save copies of your recommendation letters. Preparing additional recommen-
dations for this candidate should then be relatively quick and simple.

A LIGHT ASIDE
With regard to letters of recommendation, concern sometimes has existed
that “the candidate may later exercise the legal right to read the letter, and
perhaps even sue if the contents are not to his liking and are insufficiently
substantiated” (Thornton 2003). To address this concern, a professor at Lehigh
 How to Write a Recommendation Letter—and How to Ask for One  271

University has devised a “Lexicon of Inconspicuously Ambiguous Recom-

mendations, or LIAR” (Thornton 1987). An example: “To describe a candidate
who is not particularly industrious: ‘In my opinion you will be very fortunate
to get this person to work for you.’” Further examples along these lines appear
in the book L.I.A.R.: The Lexicon of Intentionally Ambiguous Recommendations
(Thornton 2003).

IF YOU’RE SEEKING RECOMMENDATION LETTERS

What if you are seeking recommendation letters? The tips here—which follow
largely from the advice given already in this chapter—can help you obtain
them effectively and considerately.
Scientists and others providing recommendation letters generally are busy.
Therefore, if possible, approach them well in advance. At a minimum, try to
provide 2 weeks to write the letter. If you are asking for several recommenda-
tions, ideally provide at least 4 to 6 weeks.
If you think the potential recommender might not remember you at first,
try to jog the person’s memory. For example, if approaching the person by
email, perhaps attach a photo of yourself. Or provide other identifying infor-
mation, such as the topic on which you prepared a presentation.
Gauge the recipient’s reaction to the request. If the person seems glad to
write the recommendation, promptly provide the information needed to do so.
But if they seem hesitant or are slow to reply, ask whether finding another
recommender might be wise. You may save yourself from an awkward situa-
tion or a late or lukewarm recommendation.
Supply, in an organized way, items required to prepare the recommenda-
tion well. Such items may include, in addition to needed forms, your CV or
résumé, descriptions of programs to which you are applying, and samples of
your work.
Recommenders sometimes tell you, by email or otherwise, when the rec-
ommendations go out. If you do not hear, a polite inquiry a few days before the
deadline can be appropriate.
Follow up on the recommendation. Thank the recommender, at least by
email; especially if someone has written multiple recommendations, sending
a thank-you card can be a nice gesture. When you gain your objective, inform
the recommender. For instance, say where you will attend graduate school or
embark on a job—and thank the recommender again.
In short, treat recommenders as you would wish to be treated in such roles.
With luck, you will indeed be treated the same way.
CHAPTER 39

How to Work with the Media

When a reporter approaches, I generally find myself wishing for a martini.

—Jonas Salk

BEFORE THE INTERVIEW

Your scientific paper will be published soon, and a news release about it has
attracted reporters. Or an earthquake, epidemic, or policy issue has drawn
attention to your topic. Or maybe you are receiving an award. For whatever
reason, a reporter calls. How can you work with the reporter to help ensure
that the public receives accurate scientific information?
First, why work with the reporter? If your research is government funded,
the public has a right to know. Also, as an important part of our culture, sci-
ence merits coverage. Scientific information can help individuals and groups
make sound decisions. Public information about science can draw students to
scientific careers. Further, coverage in the popular media can promote public
support for science in general and your institution in particular.
At your institution, members of the media relations staff may prepare news
releases and help reporters find experts to interview. They can also give guid-
ance, such as tips on being interviewed for television. Other sources of advice
include the SciDev.Net Practical Guide “What Journalists Want from Scien-
tists and Why” (www.scidev.net/global/practical-guides/what-journalists
-want-from-scientists-and-why) and material from professional organizations
such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas
.org/resources/communication-toolkit). Books providing guidance include A
Scientist’s Guide to Talking with the Media (Hayes and Grossman 2006), Com-
municating Science: A Primer for Working with the Media (Menninger and Gropp

272
 How to Work with the Media  273

(ScienceCartoonsPlus.com)

2008), Am I Making Myself Clear? A Scientist’s Guide to Talking to the Public

(Dean 2009), and Explaining Research (Meredith 2021).
News releases (also known as press releases) informing reporters about your
research may be prepared by your institution or by the journal publishing your
paper. They are then disseminated to the media. A news release, which can be
published as is or can lead to a story by a reporter, is structured like a newspa-
per article; for many examples of news releases, see the science news website
EurekAlert! (www.eurekalert.org). Those preparing a news release about your
work will normally consult you. By answering their questions and then check-
ing a draft, you can help ensure accuracy. Realize, though, that a news release
will be much less technical and much less detailed than a scientific paper.
When reporters contact you, ask about their background, task, and timeta-
ble. Those writing science stories range from general reporters with minimal
science background to science journalists with doctorates in the sciences;
knowing whether the reporter is a specialist can help you respond appropri-
ately. Also, find out what the reporter is seeking; for example, will the article
focus on your research or is a general article being written about your research
field? Finally, what is the reporter’s deadline? Is the reporter writing a news
story due today or a feature article due next month? Knowing the answers to
such questions can help you respond most suitably. Of course, if you lack the
274  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

expertise being sought, decline the interview and, if possible, direct the
reporter to someone appropriately qualified.
Unless the reporter must talk with you immediately, think beforehand
about what you want to say. Identify the main message that you wish to pres-
ent. Especially for the broadcast media, come up with a short and snappy way
to state it—in other words, a sound bite.
Before the interview, if possible, provide written materials or direct the
reporter to some. Such materials may include news releases, papers you have
written, and sources of general information about your research topic. Provid-
ing such materials facilitates the reporter’s work, promotes efficient use of
interview time, and fosters accuracy.

DURING THE INTERVIEW

When interviewed, try to word your responses in ways directly suitable for the
reporter’s audience. For example, use mainly simple, common language,
define technical terms, and relate what you say to familiar concepts (for
instance, by providing analogies). Consider presenting the information as you
would to a nonscientist neighbor or a bright high school student. Suiting the
material to the audience minimizes the need for the reporter to “translate,”
and thus decreases the chance of error. It also gives the reporter quotable con-
tent or sound bites.
Try to present information accessibly, but without condescension. Avoid
thinking of “watering things down,” which tends to yield indigestible bits in
an insipid broth. Rather, think of “building bridges” between what you will
present and what the audience already knows and cares about. Consider using
techniques presented in Chapter 26, “How to Write for the Public,” to present
your content clearly and engagingly.
If you have key points to convey, make them even if the reporter does not
ask. You may be able to do so by tactfully reframing a question. (“That’s an
interesting idea, but actually the issue we were studying was. . . .”) Alterna-
tively, you can add points at the end of an answer or the end of the interview.
Also, if you have photographs or other visuals that might enhance the story,
inform the reporter, even if not asked.
Stay focused during the interview. In particular, do not make offhand
remarks that you would not want published.
Consider checking the reporter’s understanding. For instance, you can say,
“I’m not sure I’ve presented this concept clearly. Perhaps you could explain it
back to me so I can check.” Then, if a misunderstanding has occurred, you can
provide clarification.
 How to Work with the Media  275

(ScienceCartoonsPlus.com)

Before the interview ends, encourage the reporter to contact you if ques-
tions arise while writing the story. You may also offer to review part or all of the
story for technical accuracy. Traditionally, journalists have not shown drafts to
their sources for fear of being pressured to change content inappropriately.
Some journalists, however, welcome such review when writing about techni-
cal topics. Limit any suggested changes to matters of technical accuracy. The
writing style is the writer’s and editor’s domain.

AFTER THE INTERVIEW

Once the story appears, have realistic expectations. Of course, it will be briefer
and less technical than a journal article. It also will focus mainly on aspects of
greatest interest to the public. Thus, it is likely to emphasize conclusions and
implications, and it is unlikely to describe your methods in detail or to list your
eight coauthors. In evaluating the story, often the relevant question is not
“Was everything captured precisely?” but rather, “Will a member of the public
come away with the correct idea?”
276  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

If a story is especially good, or if it has serious errors, consider providing

feedback. Often, reporters hear only if others are displeased. If you think the
reporter has done especially well, tell the reporter—and, if possible, also tell
the editor. If a story has a major inaccuracy, also inform the reporter. Good
reporters want to know so they can avoid repeating mistakes. If an error is
serious, a correction may be published or aired.
Finally, think back on your interactions with the reporter. What did you do
that turned out well? What could you have done better? Considering such
questions can help you be even more effective the next time a reporter calls.
CHAPTER 40

How to Provide Peer Review

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an

acquaintance, or a stranger.
—Franklin P. Jones

RESPONDING TO A REQUEST FOR PEER REVIEW

Once you have become an author, you may receive invitations to be a peer
reviewer—in other words, to evaluate work by others in your field. Journal edi-
tors may ask you to review papers being considered for publication. Funding
agencies may ask you to review grant proposals. Book editors may ask you to
review the proposals or manuscripts for books. Given that preparing peer
reviews can entail much time and effort, why should you accept such invita-
tions? And when should you decline them?
Peer review helps editors decide what to publish, and it helps authors
improve their work. Similarly, peer review of grant proposals helps funding
agencies make sound decisions and helps scientists refine their research. Oth-
ers in your field provide this service to you when they review items that you
have written. Being a good citizen in the scientific community includes pro-
viding this service in return.
In addition, peer review can have other benefits. It can help you keep up in
your field and maintain your critical skills. It can improve your own writing by
helping you discern what affects the quality of writing. Listing entities for
which you peer-review can enhance your curriculum vitae (CV). Peer-reviewing
for a journal can lead to serving on its editorial board and becoming an editor
of the journal. Although peer-reviewing generally is unpaid, sometimes
reviewers are paid or otherwise compensated. For example, reviewers of book

277
278  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

manuscripts commonly receive a little money in appreciation of their efforts;

if they prefer, sometimes they receive some books of their choice from the
publisher instead.
Sometimes, though, you should refuse the invitation to peer-review or ask
the editor whether to refuse it. If you lack time to complete the review ade-
quately by the deadline, decline the opportunity and, if possible, suggest other
potential reviewers. Also, if you believe that you lack sufficient expertise to
prepare a sound review, inform the editor. The editor may then ask you to sug-
gest potential reviewers whom you consider better suited. Or the editor may
explain that you were approached because of your expertise regarding one
aspect of the research, and other reviewers will evaluate other aspects.
If you decide not to accept a request to peer-review, be sure to inform the
journal. Do so promptly, so the editor can seek a different reviewer. Do not
assume that failure to reply will be seen as declining the invitation. The
editor—and the author—should not be left in limbo.
Inform the editor if you have conflicts of interest—that is, anything in your
background that could interfere, or appear to interfere, with your objectivity in
doing the review. For instance, if you have collaborated with any of the authors,
if you have a financial interest relating to the research, or if an author is your
friend, enemy, or former spouse, tell the editor. Some journals routinely ask
potential reviewers to state anything that might be a conflict of interest. Even
if the journal does not, inform the editor if you think you might have one. The
editor then can decide whether to retain you as a peer reviewer, while keeping
the item in mind, or whether to seek a different reviewer.
What if you want to become a peer reviewer but have not been asked? Vol-
unteer. For some journals, you can apply online to be added to the pool of
potential reviewers. If the journal website does not include such an applica-
tion, contact the editor to express your interest. Journals almost always are
seeking more reviewers, and they are eager to enlarge and diversify their
reviewer pools. Volunteering can aid the journal and your own career.

PEER-REVIEWING A SCIENTIFIC PAPER

If you are a peer reviewer, realize that the item being reviewed is confidential.
Do not reveal its content. Do not discuss with those around you the authors’
writing skills (or lack thereof). Do not ask others to collaborate on the review
without first obtaining permission from the editor. If there is a valid reason for
collaboration—for instance, if a colleague could better evaluate part of the
research, or if collaborating on the review could help educate a graduate stu-
dent or postdoctoral fellow—the editor is likely to grant you permission. How-
ever, permission should be sought, not assumed.
 How to Provide Peer Review  279

Journals commonly use online systems for submission of peer reviews.

Whether or not it does so, a journal is likely to seek two types of input from
each reviewer: a confidential evaluation, for use by the editors only, and com-
ments for the editors to share with the authors. Some journals supply forms
for these purposes. The form for feedback to editors may contain rating scales
and provide room for comments about the quality of the work and whether the
work should be published. Examples of items that the rating scales may

(ScienceCartoonsPlus.com)
280  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

address are the importance of the research question, the originality of the
work, the validity of the methods used, the soundness of the conclusions, the
clarity of the writing, and the suitability for the journal’s readership.
Your comments for the editor to share with the authors typically should
begin by listing what you perceive as the main strengths and main limitations
of the paper. You should not, however, tell the authors whether you consider
the paper publishable in the journal; that decision is up to the editor. After the
general comments, you generally should provide a section-by-section list of
comments on the specific content of the paper. For ease in identification, it
usually is best to specify the items you comment on by page, paragraph, and
line. Both evaluate what is present and note omissions. Strive for balance; do
not nitpick, but do not hesitate to note real problems either. Be sure your
points are worded clearly. If reasons for recommendations might not be obvi-
ous, provide explanations.
In preparing the review, of course avoid bias. Also, avoid taking advantage
of insider information; before the paper is published, you should not use the
paper’s content to advance your own research or (if the paper concerns a prod-
uct) to decide about investments. Also, avoid undue delays; the editor and
author are waiting. If you find that you cannot submit the review on time,
promptly inform the editor.
Your main task as a peer reviewer is to evaluate the content of the paper. Is
the research of high quality? If not, what are the problems? Has all the appro-
priate content been provided? Should any content be deleted? In answering
the last two questions, you may find it useful to review the sections of this
book on the respective sections of a scientific paper. Other potentially useful
resources include a checklist (Task Force of Academic Medicine and the GEA-
RIME Committee 2001) that appeared in a report providing guidance for peer
reviews. Although some items in this checklist apply only to some types of
research, it provides a useful framework.
As a peer reviewer, you are not expected to comment in detail on the writ-
ing. Your task does not include identifying every punctuation error and mis-
spelling; if the paper is accepted, a copy editor can correct such problems.
However, it can be worthwhile to comment in general on the clarity, concise-
ness, and correctness of the writing; to note passages that are ambiguous; to
suggest any reorganization that could improve the paper; and to remark on the
design of figures and tables. If the paper contains highly specialized wording
that you think that a copy editor might have difficulty revising properly, con-
sider providing some guidance. Also, consider giving extra help with wording
if you can tell that the author’s native language is not English.
In preparing comments intended for the authors, remember that the
authors are human beings. Almost certainly, they care greatly about their
work, are sensitive about it, and will be most receptive to feedback if it is given
 How to Provide Peer Review  281

in a constructive tone. Therefore, avoid sarcasm and phrase your comments

tactfully; try to ensure that suggestions are specific enough for the authors to
follow. Set a positive tone by first stating the strengths of the paper; then, after
offering suggestions, perhaps end the review with words of encouragement.
Although the section-by-section or line-by-line comments should be mainly
suggestions, an occasional compliment can be included. Whether or not the
journal accepts the paper, the review can help educate authors and thus
improve their current paper and later ones. Indeed, if an author appears to be
a beginning researcher or seems to come from someplace where international
norms of scientific publication are not well known, consider taking extra effort
to make the review educational, either directly or by suggesting resources that
can improve one’s scientific writing.
Should you sign your review, or should it be anonymous? Policies in this
regard differ among journals. Advocates of anonymous review, which is com-
mon in the sciences, say that it allows reviewers to be more honest—especially
when, for instance, a young researcher is evaluating a paper by someone much
senior. On the other hand, advocates of signed reviews say that they encourage
reviewers to be more responsible. Some journals allow reviewers to decide
whether to identify themselves. The journal’s instructions for reviewers should
indicate its policy. If in doubt, ask whoever invited you to do the review.
Finally, keep track of your reviewing. Perhaps add the reviewing to your CV.
(Because peer review generally is confidential, as previously noted, one nor-
mally lists just the journal, granting agency, or book publisher reviewed for,
not the specific item reviewed.) Consider documenting your reviewing
through the tracking service Publons (publons.com/about/home). When
applicable, let publishers update your ORCID (Open Researcher and Contrib-
utor ID) record to indicate your reviewing (see info.orcid.org/documentation/
workflows/peer-review-workflow). Likewise, for purposes such as annual per-
formance reviews, perhaps keep track of entities reviewed for and the number
of reviews completed.

PROVIDING INFORMAL PEER REVIEW

Because of your knowledge of science and of writing, you may be asked to
comment on drafts before submission. Such reviewing can be a valuable ser-
vice, especially to students, junior colleagues, and others who may not be thor-
oughly versed in English-language scientific communication. The following
suggestions can aid in providing such informal peer review.
Find out what level of review is being sought. For example, is the draft an
early one, and thus is the author seeking feedback mainly on content and
organization? Or is the draft nearly final, so that the time has come to comment
282  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

on the finer points of expression? Although you should feel free to note prob-
lems on other levels, knowing the type of feedback sought can help you make
appropriate use of your time.
Consider serving a criticism sandwich: praise, then criticism, then praise.
Also, show sensitivity to the author’s feelings in other ways. For example,
express criticisms as perceptions rather than facts (“I found this section hard
to follow” rather than “This section is totally unclear”). And criticize the work,
not the person (“This draft seems to contain many punctuation errors,” not
“You have a dreadful command of punctuation”). If you are providing feed-
back electronically on a manuscript, use word-processing features such as
Track Changes in Microsoft Word, or distinguish comments by placing them
in triple brackets or using colored type, italics, or boldface. Avoid typing com-
ments in all capital letters, which can give the impression that you are scream-
ing. Similarly, if you write comments on hard copy, consider using green ink,
which seems friendlier than red ink but also tends to be easy to notice.
Through providing informal feedback, you are teaching: By following your
suggestions, authors can both improve their current drafts and become better
writers in the long run. And by assimilating what you say and how you say it,
they themselves can learn to be better peer reviewers in both the informal and
the formal sense.

FOR MORE ON REVIEWING

If you would like more about peer reviewing, resources include the section
“Reviewer Roles and Responsibilities” in a Council of Science Editors (2020)
white paper, the international congresses held periodically on peer review (see
peerreviewcongress.org), and Peer Review Week (see peerreviewweek.word-
press.com). The Science Careers essay “Reviewers, Don’t Be Rude to Nonna-
tive English Speakers (Romero-Olivares 2019) makes good points to remember.
And a Nature editorial (2020) conveys a key message through its title: “Com-
munication Is Key to Constructive Peer Review.” As noted in this editorial,
reviewers, editors, and authors are working together to help ensure that the
scientific literature is of high quality. Contribute to that high quality by provid-
ing fine peer reviews.
CHAPTER 41

How to Edit Your Own Work

There is no great writing, only great rewriting.

—Justice Louis Brandeis

PREPARING TO EDIT YOUR WORK

If you have reached this point in the book, or if you turned immediately to it,
you probably know that good writing is much-revised writing. But how should
you approach editing your own work? What should you look for? Is there any-
one who can help? This chapter addresses these questions. In doing so, it
reviews some key points from earlier chapters, such as about features of good
scientific writing.
First, though: Why edit your own work? Doing so can increase the likeli-
hood that your paper or proposal will be accepted. It can decrease the amount
of revision that reviewers and editors request. It can minimize editing by
others—and thus minimize the chance that inaccuracies will be introduced.
Most important, it helps ensure that you communicate effectively with read-
ers. Also, some journals now provide little copyediting; they do little or no
polishing and sometimes require authors whose papers are deemed unpol-
ished to obtain editing on their own. Thus, editing one’s own work before
submission may be even more advantageous than before.
Challenges in editing one’s own work include gaining distance and objec-
tivity. Letting time elapse and changing the physical appearance of your work
can help. If feasible, set your writing aside for at least a few hours. You might
then be able to approach the piece much as a reader would. Perhaps also
change the look of the piece (Hancock 2003) to aid in encountering the writing
afresh. For instance, if you have been viewing the writing on a computer, print

283
284  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

it out. Or change the typeface or margins. Maybe print the piece on colored
paper. Such changes can assist in viewing your writing with new eyes.
Also, use your ears. Read your draft aloud. In doing so, you may notice
more easily where words are missing or wording is awkward.
Once you are ready to edit, in what order should you proceed? The choice is
yours. Some authors start by considering large-scale aspects, such as overall
content and organization. No need, they say, to bother with details right away
since parts of the writing might be deleted anyway. Other authors start by pol-
ishing the language so they can see the piece more clearly before considering
larger-scale changes. Such polishing can start with the text or with elements
such as tables, figures, or references. Regardless of the order you use, thor-
oughly editing your work (or anyone else’s) usually entails more than one
round. The final round should proceed from beginning to end, so you can
better notice problems in the order of items.

ITEMS TO NOTICE: 8 Cs
Professional editors sometimes speak of checking for the “4 Cs”—which, depend-
ing on which editor you ask, can stand for “clarity, coherency, consistency, and
correctness” (Einsohn and Schwartz 2019, p. 3) or variants such as “correctness,
clarity, consistency, and conciseness.” When editing your own work, consider
checking for “8 Cs”: compliance, completeness, composition, correctness, clarity,
consistency, conciseness, and courtesy. Writing that achieves all eight Cs is likely
to excel at communication, which is the C that is the overall goal.
Regarding compliance, ensure that the writing complies with all instruc-
tions, such as journals’ instructions to authors and funders’ directions for
grant proposals. In addition, ensure that you have complied with relevant con-
ventions in your field, such as those regarding terminology and document
structure. If your research involves animals or human subjects, also confirm
that you have documented compliance with requirements in that regard.
Check for completeness. Does the document contain all the necessary com-
ponents? Does each component contain all the information that it should? Are
necessary details included, for instance in the methods section?
Evaluate the composition of the piece. Is the overall structure appropriate? Is
every section logically organized? Are paragraphs well structured, with strong
topic sentences? Does one idea lead smoothly to the next? Are tables and fig-
ures well designed?
Check correctness of content and expression. Make sure that all information
is correct, both in the body of the text and in the tables, figures, and references.
See whether all the logic is valid. Also, ensure that the grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and word use are proper. If some aspects of such mechanics
pose particular difficulty for you, devote special attention to them. For example,
 How to Edit Your Own Work  285

if you know that you struggle with verb tenses, perhaps review your draft an
extra time, checking specifically for them.
Pay attention to clarity. If some words or phrases might be unclear to read-
ers, make sure that they are defined. Likewise, ensure that abbreviations are
defined on first use. See whether antecedents of words such as it are clear.
Look for places where the wording could be made clearer or where relation-
ships of ideas could be clarified by using transitional words (such as also, first,
then, and however). Seek to improve passages where your reasoning might not
be explicit enough for readers to follow. Identify sentences that are too long or
too complex to understand easily, and divide or otherwise restructure them.
Look for consistency as well. Is all the information consistent—or, for exam-
ple, do numbers differ between tables and text? Is the content of the abstract
consistent with that of the body of the piece? Is the terminology consistent
throughout? Is the formatting (for example, of subheadings) consistent? Do
items appear in consistent order? Where appropriate, are tables and figures
consistently formatted?
Both to save space and to aid readability, try to increase conciseness. In keep-
ing with the examples in Appendix 2, replace long words with shorter equiva-
lents and condense wordy phrases. Remove redundancies. Delete tangential
or irrelevant content. In seeking conciseness, however, take care not to
decrease clarity or diminish meaning.
Finally, keep courtesy in mind. Make sure that you have been courteous to
those whose work you discuss, others you mention, and your readers. Replace
language that is unintentionally derogatory (such as “Previous researchers
have failed to explore”) with neutral language (such as “Previous researchers
did not explore”). Revise any language that is not inclusive or that seems dis-
respectful of some population groups. To be courteous to readers, make sure
you have attended to other Cs that help make writing easy to read—such as

(“Piled Higher and Deeper” by Jorge Cham. www.phdcomics.com)

286  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

clarity, conciseness, and compliance with conventions, as already discussed.

The effort that you invest in editing can save your readers effort and thus help
ensure that your work will be read, understood, and appreciated.

A GOOD CHOICE: CHECKLISTS

Checking for all eight Cs at once can be hard or impossible. Therefore, generally
check writing in several phases. To guide yourself, consider using checklists.
One good strategy is to use both a core checklist on general aspects of writ-
ing and a specialized checklist geared to the type of document that you have

Some General Questions to Ask:

Editing One’s Own Writing

1. Is the content complete, or should any content be added?

2. Should any content be deleted?
3. Is all the content accurate?
4. Is all the logic sound?
5. Do the content and crafting of the piece suit the audience?
6. Does the piece follow appropriate conventions regarding overall format?
7. If subheadings are allowed, are they used effectively?
8. Are sections and paragraphs of appropriate length?
9. Should any tables or figures be added or deleted?
10. If tables or figures are included, are they well designed?
11. Would typographic devices, such as italics of bullets, be helpful anywhere?
12. Is the piece well organized at various levels?
13. Are grammar, spelling, punctuation, and usage correct throughout?
14. Are verb tenses appropriate?
15. Are antecedents of all pronouns clear?
16. Have all acronyms been defined (and are all the acronyms worth using)?
17. Are sentences of appropriate length and structure?
18. If references are cited, are they in the appropriate format? Do all cited ref-
erences appear in the reference list, and are all listed references cited in
the text?
19. Is the writing clear, exact, and concise?
20. Have all instructions been followed?

Figure 41.1.  Sample core checklist for editing one’s own writing. A version of this checklist also
appears in Gastel B. 2015. Editing and proofreading your own work. AMWA J. 30(4):147–151.
 How to Edit Your Own Work  287

Specialized Checklist:
Editing One’s Draft of a Scientific Paper

1. Does the title accurately and concisely indicate the content?

2. Are the appropriate people listed as authors?
3. Does the abstract accurately reflect the content of the paper? Is the
abstract a suitable length?
4. Does the introduction provide sufficient context?
5. Does the introduction make clear what gap the research was intended to
fill?
6. Does the introduction indicate the hypotheses or research questions?
7. Does the methods section provide sufficient information to replicate the
research?
8. Does the methods section provide sufficient information to evaluate the
research?
9. In the methods section, are sources of materials and equipment identified?
10. If the research was on humans or animals, are appropriate approvals
noted?
11. Are the results presented in logical order?
12. Are the results presented in appropriate detail?
13. Are statistics appropriately presented?
14. Does the discussion address the hypotheses or research questions posed
in the introduction?
15. Does the discussion put the results in sufficient context?
16. If relevant, does the discussion address strengths and weaknesses of the
research?
17. If relevant, does the discussion identify applications or implications of the
research?
18. Have the appropriate parties been acknowledged?

Figure 41.2.  Example of a checklist for editing one’s own scientific paper. Such a checklist could
best be used along with a more general editorial checklist, such as shown in Figure 41.1. A version
of this checklist also appears in Gastel B. 2015. Editing and proofreading your own work. AMWA J.
30(4):147–151.

drafted. Figure 41.1 is an example of a core checklist. Figures 41.2 and 41.3 are
examples of specialized checklists for a scientific paper and for a grant pro-
posal, respectively. Consider using these checklists or modifying them to suit
your needs. Also, consider obtaining or developing such checklists for other
types of documents. Of course, if your target journal or other intended recipi-
ent provides a checklist, be sure to consult it.
288  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Specialized Checklist:
Editing a Draft of One’s Grant Proposal

1. Does the title clearly and accurately convey the focus?

2. Is the abstract informative and clear? Ditto for any other sections serving
as summaries?
3. Are the goals or hypotheses clear?
4. Is the originality of the work apparent?
5. Is the proposed work clearly relevant to the mission of the funding source?
6. Is the importance of the proposed work explained?
7. Is sufficient context provided?
8. Is the amount of proposed work realistic?
9. Is it clear that the personnel are capable of doing the proposed work?
10. Are sufficient justifications provided for choices, for example of methods?
11. Is sufficient supporting evidence included?
12. Is sufficient justification provided for budgetary items?
13. If there will be cost sharing, is sufficient information provided?
14. If preliminary studies are required or advisable, is there enough information
about them?
15. If a timeline would be advisable, is one included?
16. If evaluation plans are needed, are they sufficient?
17. If dissemination plans should be included, are they sufficient?

Figure 41.3.  Example of a checklist for editing one’s own grant proposal. Such a checklist could
best be used along with a more general editorial checklist, such as shown in Figure 41.1. A version
of this checklist also appears in Gastel B. 2015. Editing and proofreading your own work. AMWA J.
30(4):147–151.

FINDING AND WORKING WITH AN AUTHOR’S EDITOR

Especially if you are a beginning author, consider seeking guidance from a
manuscript editor. Individuals known as author’s editors specialize in revising
authors’ work before submission. They can also help authors after submis-
sion, such as in improving a paper as requested by a journal.
How can you find an author’s editor or the equivalent? Some universities,
research institutions, and departments employ editors to assist scientists and
scientists-in-training. In fact, some, such as the Mayo Clinic and The Univer-
sity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, have scientific-publication units
with multiple editors to provide such help. There also are freelance author’s
editors and freestanding editorial companies. Unfortunately, just as there are
predatory journals, there are predatory editing services (Linacre and Syed
 How to Edit Your Own Work  289

2020). These entities claim to provide skillful editing but do not do valid work.
Beware if you receive a typo-filled email offering to proofread your manuscript!
Networking with fellow researchers can aid in finding editors and editorial
services that others regard highly. Lists of individuals who identify themselves
as freelance editors appear on the websites of some universities (for example,
through the thesis office or writing center). Editors available for freelance work
who have passed a rigorous examination in life science editing can be identified
through the Board of Editors in the Life Sciences website (www.bels.org). Some
commercial editing services are listed at www.authoraid.info/en/resources
/details/750, and editorial guidance from volunteer mentors can be sought
through the AuthorAID project (www.authoraid.info/en/mentoring/). Although
authors may benefit most from an editor who can meet with them face to face,
email and video conferencing technologies allow effective communication with
an author’s editor in another city, or even another country.
Before giving your writing to an author’s editor, edit it yourself insofar as
feasible. Doing so helps use the editor’s time efficiently, which may be espe-
cially desirable if that person has many authors wanting help or if you yourself
will pay for the time spent. More important, doing some editing yourself can
make the writing easier for the editor to understand, thus facilitating the pro-
vision of suitable editorial feedback.
Communicate with the editor or editorial service about the desired extent of
editing. Do you want the editor only to correct errors in grammar, punctua-
tion, and other mechanics? Are you seeking more extensive help, including
improvement of wording and sentence structure? Or do you desire whatever
may strengthen the piece, including reorganization if deemed advisable? Ide-
ally, once the editor has looked at the writing, find out what level of editing this
person considers suitable and discuss how to proceed. Be available to answer
questions. Realize that an author’s editor is an advisor, and thus final deci-
sions about the writing are yours.
A good author’s editor, like a good peer reviewer, also serves as a good
teacher. Notice revisions that the editor makes and learn from them. If you are
uncertain why a recurrent or major change was made, ask the reason if cir-
cumstances permit. Maybe compile a master list of changes made in order to
help avoid similar problems in future writing. If you use checklists in editing
your work, perhaps revise them to reflect insights gained from the editor’s
feedback. In short, make the editor an ally and instructor in editing your own
work.
CHAPTER 42
How to Seek a
Scientific-Communication Career

Reporting on science and writing about it is like attending a never-ending

graduate school of unlimited diversity.
—David Perlman

CAREER OPTIONS IN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION

Some of us in science find the communication aspect so well suited to our
interests and abilities that we focus on it in our careers. And increasingly,
careers in science communication are being recognized as alternatives to
those in research. Opportunities include writing and editing materials for fel-
low scientists and communicating science to general audiences.
Because you know your scientific discipline, its community, and its culture,
you can bring much to publications for other scientists. Various niches exist in
this realm. At a major journal, you may be an editor determining scientific
content, a manuscript editor, or a writer or editor for the news section, if any.
At a magazine or newsletter for scientists, you may be a writer or an editor. At
a publisher of scientific books, you may be an acquisitions editor who gener-
ates topics, recruits authors, and oversees evaluation of proposals and manu-
scripts. At a corporation focusing on science or technology, you may write or
edit specialized materials such as submissions to regulatory agencies. At a
university or research institute, or on a freelance basis, you may be an author’s
editor, working directly with authors to refine their writing before submission.
Because English is the international language of science, considerable demand
exists for author’s editors with strong English-language skills. An article by
Kanel and Gastel (2008) summarizes career options in science editing.

290
 How to Seek a Scientific-Communication Career  291

Alternatively, you may pursue a career in the popular communication of

science. For example, you may be a science reporter, writer, or editor for a
newspaper, newsletter, magazine, or online publication. Or you may work in
broadcast media. You may write popular science books. You may prepare
public-information materials for an organization or government agency con-
cerned with science, technology, the environment, or medicine. At a university,
you may write news releases, work on a research magazine, prepare podcasts,
or pursue other public-communication activities. Likewise, you may work in
media relations or public communication for a corporation. You may help
prepare exhibits or other items for science museums. On a freelance basis,
you may write about science for various media and institutions. Similarly, you
may prepare science-communication materials for various outlets as an
employee of a consulting firm.

AN ADMITTEDLY UNVALIDATED QUIZ

Many from the sciences who choose communication careers seem to share cer-
tain traits. Based on this observation, here is an informal quiz. As social scien-
tists might point out, this quiz has not been validated systematically. But the
smiles of recognition it evokes seem to suggest, literally, a sort of face validity.
So, is a science communication career for you? To help find out, consider
the following 10 items:

1. Have you enjoyed courses in both science and other fields? Did you
consider majoring in English or another area of liberal arts? Did you
minor in such an area?
2. Are you an avid reader? Do you find yourself editing what you read? Do
topics for writing often occur to you?
3. Do you like word games? For example, do you enjoy working cross-
word puzzles and playing Scrabble?
4. Have teachers or others complimented you on your writing?
5. In high school or college, did you serve on the school newspaper or
another student publication? If not, did you consider doing so?
6. Do you consider yourself a science generalist? Rather than wanting to
focus on a narrow research area, do you like to learn about various
aspects of your field, or of science in general? Do you find yourself
more interested in knowing what other researchers are doing than in
doing your own research?
7. Do you like to view science in its broad context? Are you interested not
only in research itself, but also its applications and implications?
292  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

8. In laboratory projects, are you often the team member who writes
things up? Do you find this role satisfying?
9. Do others ask you to edit what they wrote? Do they otherwise approach
you for help with their writing?
10. Does a science-communication career sound like fun to you? Is writing
or editing something you would look forward to doing each day?

If you answered “yes” to most of these questions, a career in science com-

munication might well be for you. And if after reading these questions, you
exclaim, “That’s me!”—let us be the first to welcome you to the field.

CAREER PREPARATION
Some people enter scientific-communication positions directly from science.
Serving as a peer reviewer and on the editorial board of a journal can lead to
such a position. Some formal training, though, seems increasingly common,
especially for those wishing to work in the popular communication of science.
Such training can be in science journalism, scholarly publishing, technical
communication, or a related field. It can consist of a degree program, a cer-
tificate program, or simply one or more courses. Resources for identifying
educational opportunities include the list of environmental journalism pro-
grams and courses from the Society of Environmental Journalists (www.sej
.org/library/education-environmental-journalism-programs-and-courses),
which also contains some listings more generally in science communication;
an analogously broad list from the American Medical Writers Association
guide to becoming a medical writer (info.amwa.org/ultimate-guide-to-
becoming-a-medical-writer#medical_writer_resources); a list from the Knight
Science Journalism Program at MIT (ksj.mit.edu/resource/being-a-science
-journalist/schools); and Maps of TPC Programs (tek-ritr.com/techcomm
-programmatic-central/maps-of-tpc-programs), a set of maps showing locations
of U.S. educational programs in technical and professional communication.
Some organizations offer workshops or other brief instruction that can help
one develop professional skills in scientific communication. For example, the
Council of Science Editors precedes its annual meeting with several concurrent
short courses on aspects of science editing. Likewise, the annual conference of
the American Medical Writers Association includes a wide array of three-hour
workshops, some of which also are available as self-study modules (www.amwa
.org/page/Essential_Skills). Increasingly, professional organizations in the
communication of science have been providing educational offerings online.
Reading on one’s own also can aid in preparing for a career in scientific
communication. If you wish to enter scholarly or technical scientific
 How to Seek a Scientific-Communication Career  293

communication, works that may be useful include, in addition to the current

book, guides to writing papers in specific fields of science (such as Ebel, Blief-
ert, and Russey 2004; Lang 2010; Sternberg and Sternberg 2016; and Zeiger
2000), style manuals commonly used in the sciences, Regulatory Writing: An
Overview (DeTora 2020), The Copyeditor’s Handbook (Einsohn and Schwartz
2019), and The Copyeditor’s Workbook (Bűky, Schwartz, and Einsohn 2019).
New editions of the style manuals, as well as some of these other books, appear
periodically—so be sure to obtain the most recent edition. Works that can
assist those hoping to enter the popular science communication field include
Ideas into Words: Mastering the Craft of Science Writing (Hancock 2003), Health
Writer’s Handbook (Gastel 2005), A Field Guide for Science Writers (Blum, Knud-
son, and Henig 2006), The Science Writers’ Handbook (Writers of SciLance
2013), Handbook for Science Public Information Officers (Shipman 2015), The
Craft of Science Writing (Carpenter 2020), and articles posted on The Open
Notebook website (www.theopennotebook.com).
Internships or fellowships in the communication of science can strengthen
your skills, increase your visibility to potential employers, and aid in exploring
career options. Sites of internship or fellowship programs in the communica-
tion of science have included international research centers (such as CERN
and the International Centre for Theoretical Physics), U.S. government enti-
ties (such as Fermilab and the National Cancer Institute), journals (such as
Science and JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association), magazines
(such as Science News and The Scientist), and other settings such as the public
information offices of universities and of organizations. Also, since the 1970s,
the American Association for the Advancement of Science has placed science
graduate students at media sites each summer through its Mass Media Sci-
ence and Engineering Fellows Program. In addition, sometimes communica-
tion offices without formal internship programs are willing to host interns on
request; thus, if there is a setting where you might like to do an internship,
take the initiative to ask about doing so.

ENTERING THE FIELD AND KEEPING UP

How can you find job opportunities in scientific communication? Look at
position announcements posted on employment websites, published in
journals, and disseminated by groups such as the Council of Science Edi-
tors, the National Association of Science Writers (NASW), and the American
Medical Writers Association. Keep informed about job openings through
social media. Whether or not job opportunities are announced, make your-
self known to potential employers. Network, through organizations and
otherwise.
294  How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Those in scientific communication, like those in scientific research, need to

keep up with new developments. The never-ending graduate school of a
science-communication career can aid in staying current with science, and
further reading and listening can help fill the gaps. With regard to scientific
communication, relevant organizations can help you keep up with trends,
technologies, and issues; obtain practical advice; and establish or maintain a
network of others doing similar work. Examples of such organizations include
those mentioned in the preceding paragraph, as well as the European Associa-
tion of Science Editors, the World Association of Medical Editors, the Associa-
tion of Earth Science Editors, the Society of Environmental Journalists, the
Association of Health Care Journalists, and the Society for Technical Commu-
nication, as well as associations in more general communication fields (for
example, the Society of Professional Journalists, the International Association
of Business Communicators, and ACES: The Society for Editing). Read the
publications of such associations, attend their conferences if you can, and take
advantage of their social media engagement. And as your career develops,
consider helping with their educational activities as well. You may one day be
helping others from science who are entering scientific-communication
careers.
APPENDIX 1
Selected Journal Title Word
Abbreviations1

Word Abbreviation Word Abbreviation

Abstracts Abstr. Archives Arch.
Academy Acad. Archivio Arch.
Acta No abbrev. Association Assoc.
Advances Adv. Astronomical Astron.
Agricultural Agric. Atomic At.
American Am. Australian Aust.
Anales An. Bacteriological Bacteriol.
Analytical Anal. Bacteriology Bacteriol.
Anatomical Anat. Bakteriologie Bakteriol.
Annalen Ann. Berichte Ber.
Annales Ann. Biochemical Biochem.
Annals Ann. Biochimica Biochim.
Annual Annu. Biological Biol.
Anthropological Anthropol. Biologie Biol.
Antibiotic Antibiot. Botanical Bot.
Antimicrobial Antimicrob. Botanisches Bot.
Applied Appl. Botany Bot.
Arbeiten Arb. British Br.
Archiv Arch. Bulletin Bull.

1
These abbreviations are written without the period in many journals.

295
296  Selected Journal Title Word Abbreviations

Word Abbreviation Word Abbreviation

Bureau Bur. Ethnology Ethnol.
Canadian Can. European Eur.
Cardiology Cardiol. Excerpta No abbrev.
Cell No abbrev. Experimental Exp.
Cellular Cell. Fauna No abbrev.
Central Cent. Federal Fed.
Chemical Chem. Federation Fed.
Chemie Chem. Fish No abbrev.
Chemistry Chem. Fisheries Fish.
Chemotherapy Chemother. Flora No abbrev.
Chimie Chim. Folia No abbrev.
Clinical Clin. Food No abbrev.
Commonwealth Commw. Forest For.
Comptes C. Forschung Forsch.
Conference Conf. Fortschritte Fortschr.
Contributions Contrib. Freshwater No abbrev.
Current Curr. Gazette Gaz.
Dairy No abbrev. General Gen.
Dental Dent. Genetics Genet.
Developmental Dev. Geographical Geogr.
Diseases Dis. Geological Geol.
Drug No abbrev. Geologische Geol.
Ecology Ecol. Gesellschaft Ges.
Economics Econ. Helvetica Helv.
Edition Ed. History Hist.
Electric Electr. Immunity Immun.
Electrical Electr. Immunology Immunol.
Engineering Eng. Industrial Ind.
Entomologia Entomol. Institute Inst.
Entomologica Entomol. Internal Intern.
Entomological Entomol. International Int.
Environmental Environ. Jahrbuch Jahrb.
Ergebnisse Ergeb. Jahresberichte Jahresber.
 Selected Journal Title Word Abbreviations  297

Word Abbreviation Word Abbreviation

Japan, Japanese Jpn. Publications Publ.
Journal J. Quarterly Q.
Laboratory Lab. Rendus R.
Magazine Mag. Report Rep.
Material Mater. Research Res.
Mathematics Math. Review Rev.
Mechanical Mech. Revue, Revista Rev.
Medical Med. Rivista Riv.
Medicine Med. Royal R.
Methods No abbrev. Scandinavian Scand.
Microbiological Microbiol. Science Sci.
Microbiology Microbiol. Scientific Sci.
Monographs Monogr. Series Ser.
Monthly Mon. Service Serv.
Morphology Morphol. Society Soc.
National Natl. Special Spec.
Natural, Nature Nat. Station Stn.
Neurology Neurol. Studies Stud.
Nuclear Nucl. Surgery Surg.
Nutrition Nutr. Survey Surv.
Obstetrical Obstet. Symposia Symp.
Official Off. Symposium Symp.
Organic Org. Systematic Syst.
Paleontology Paleontol. Technical Tech.
Pathology Pathol. Technik Tech.
Pharmacology Pharmacol. Technology Technol.
Philosophical Philos. Therapeutics Ther.
Physical Phys. Transactions Trans.
Physik Phys. Tropical Trop.
Physiology Physiol. United States U.S.
Pollution Pollut. University Univ.
Proceedings Proc. Untersuchung Unters.
Psychological Psychol. Urological Urol.
298  Selected Journal Title Word Abbreviations

Word Abbreviation Word Abbreviation

Verhandlungen Verh. Zeitschrift Z.
Veterinary Vet. Zentralblatt Zentralbl.
Virology Virol. Zoologie Zool.
Vitamin Vitam. Zoology Zool.
Wissenschaftliche Wiss.
APPENDIX 2

Words and Expressions to Avoid

Sermons on brevity and chastity are about equally effective. Verbal promiscu-
ity flows from poverty of language and obesity of thought, and from an
unseemly haste to reach print—a premature ejaculation, as it were.
—Eli Chernin

Jargon Preferred Usage

a considerable amount of much
a considerable number of many
a decreased amount of less
a decreased number of fewer
a great deal of much
a majority of most
a number of many, some
a small number of a few
absolutely essential essential
accounted for by the fact because
adjacent to near, next to
along the lines of like
an adequate amount of enough
an example of this is the fact that for example

299
300  Words and Expressions to Avoid

Jargon Preferred Usage

an order of magnitude faster 10 times as fast
apprise inform
are of the same opinion agree
as a consequence of because
as a matter of fact in fact (or leave out)
as a result of because
as is the case as happens
as of this date today
as to about (or leave out)
at a rapid rate rapidly, fast
at an earlier date previously
at an early date soon
at no time never
at present now
at some future time later, sometime
at the conclusion of after
at the present time now
at this point in time now
based on the fact that because
because of the fact that because
by means of by, with
causal factor cause
cognizant of aware of
completely full full
consensus of opinion consensus
considerable amount of much
contingent upon dependent on
count the number of count
definitely proved proved
despite the fact that although
due to the fact that because
during the course of during, while
during the time that while
 Words and Expressions to Avoid  301

Jargon Preferred Usage

effectuate cause
elucidate explain
employ use
enclosed herewith enclosed
end result result
endeavor (v.) try
entirely eliminate eliminate
eventuate happen
fabricate make
facilitate help
fatal outcome death
fellow colleague colleague
fewer in number fewer
finalize end
first of all first
following after
for the purpose of for
for the reason that because
from the point of view of for
future plans plans
give an account of describe
give rise to cause
has been engaged in a study of has studied
has the capability of can
has the potential to can, may
have the appearance of look like, resemble
having regard to about
immune serum antiserum
impact (v.) affect
implement (v.) start, put into action
important essentials essentials
in a number of cases sometimes
in a position to able to
302  Words and Expressions to Avoid

Jargon Preferred Usage

in a satisfactory manner satisfactorily
in a situation in which when
in a very real sense in a sense (or leave out)
in almost all instances nearly always
in case if
in close proximity to close, near
in connection with about, concerning
in light of the fact that because
in many cases often
in most cases usually
in my opinion it is not an unjustifiable I think
assumption that
in only a small number of cases rarely
in order to to
in relation to toward, to
in respect to about
in some cases sometimes
in terms of about
in the absence of without
in the event that if
in the most effective manner most effectively
in the not-too-distant future soon
in the possession of has, have
in this day and age today
in view of the fact that because
inasmuch as for, as
inclined to the view think
initiate begin, start
is defined as is
is desirous of wants
is detrimental to harms
is similar to resembles
 Words and Expressions to Avoid  303

Jargon Preferred Usage

it has been reported by Smith Smith reported
it has long been known that I haven’t bothered to look up
the reference
it is apparent that apparently, clearly
it is believed that I think (or say who thinks)
it is clear that clearly
it is clear that much additional work I don’t understand it
will be required before a complete
understanding
it is evident that a produced b a produced b
it is generally believed many think
it is my understanding that I understand that
it is of interest to note that (leave out)
it is often the case that often
it is suggested that I think
it is worth pointing out in this note that
context that
it may be that I think, perhaps
it may, however, be noted that but
it should be noted that note that (or leave out)
it was observed in the course of the we observed
experiments that
join together join
lacked the ability to could not
large in size large
larger compared to larger than
let me make one thing perfectly clear a snow job is coming
majority of most
make reference to refer to
many different types many types
met with met
militate against prohibit
more often than not usually
304  Words and Expressions to Avoid

Jargon Preferred Usage

needless to say (leave out, and consider
leaving out what follows it)
new initiatives initiatives
no later than by
of an efficient nature efficient
of great theoretical and practical useful
importance
of long standing old
of the opinion that think that
on a daily basis daily
on account of because
on behalf of for
on no occasion never
on the basis of by
on the grounds that because
on the part of by, among, for
on those occasions in which when
our attention has been called to the fact we belatedly discovered
that
owing to the fact that because
perform do
place a major emphasis on stress, emphasize
pooled together pooled
presents a picture similar to resembles
previous to before
prior to before
protein determinations were per- proteins were determined
formed
quantify measure
quite a large quantity of much
quite unique unique
rather interesting interesting
red in color red
referred to as called
 Words and Expressions to Avoid  305

Jargon Preferred Usage

regardless of the fact that even though
relative to about
resultant effect result
root cause cause
serious crisis crisis
should it prove the case that if
smaller in size smaller
so as to to
subject matter subject
subsequent to after
sufficient enough
take into consideration consider
terminate end
the fact of the matter is that (leave out)
the field of chemistry chemistry
the great majority of most, almost all
the opinion is advanced that I think
the predominate number of most
the question as to whether whether
the reason is because because
the vast majority of most, almost all
there is reason to believe I think
they are the investigators who they
this particular finding this finding
this result would seem to indicate the result indicates
through the use of by, with
to the fullest possible extent fully
transpire happen
ultimate last
unanimity of opinion agreement
until such time until
utilization use
utilize use
306  Words and Expressions to Avoid

Jargon Preferred Usage

very unique unique
was of the opinion that believed
ways and means ways or means (not both)
we have insufficient knowledge we do not know
we wish to thank we thank
what is the explanation of why
whether or not to whether to
with a view to to
with reference to about (or leave out)
with regard to concerning, about (or leave
out)
with respect to about
with the exception of except
with the result that so that
within the realm of possibility possible
APPENDIX 3
SI (Système International) Prefixes
and Their Abbreviations

No. Prefix Abbreviation

10−18 atto a
10−15
femto f
10−12
pico p
10−9
nano n
10−6
micro μ
10−3
milli m
10−2 centi c
10−1
deci d
10 deka da
102
hecto h
103
kilo k
106
mega M
109 giga G
1012
tera T
1015
peta P
1018
exa E

307
This page intentionally left blank
APPENDIX 4

Some Helpful Websites

Academic Phrasebank (www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk)

Provides lists of phrases to consider using in various parts of scientific
papers.
Annotated Journal Article (www.authoraid.info/en/resources/details/648/)
A journal article with comments appearing in boxes on it. Illustrates many
points in this book. An exercise that consists of writing such comments on
an article in one’s field may increase one’s skill in scientific writing.
AuthorAID (www.authoraid.info/en/ and www.authoraid.info/es/)
A project mainly to help researchers in low- and middle-income countries
to write about and publish their work. Includes a resource library, provides
opportunity to seek mentors, and offers free massive open online courses
(MOOCs) on research writing and proposal writing.
Board of Editors in the Life Sciences (www.bels.org)
An organization certifying editors in the life sciences through a rigorous
examination. Its website includes a list of editors who are certified and thus
may be well suited to edit manuscripts before journal submission.
Creative Commons (creativecommons.org)
A source of free licenses that can serve as an alternative to transferring
copyright. Using standardized licenses, authors can specify which uses of
their work they permit, and under what conditions.
Designing Conference Posters (colinpurrington.com/tips/poster-design)
Extensive guidance on preparing poster presentations. Includes templates
for designing posters.

309
310  Some Helpful Websites

Doing Global Science: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in the Global Research

Enterprise (www.interacademies.org/publication/doing-global-science-guide
-responsible-conduct-global-research-enterprise)
A guide to ethics in science from a partnership of multiple countries’ acad-
emies of science. Includes material on ethics in the communication of sci-
ence. The website provides access to the full text of the guide.
The Elements of Style (www.bartleby.com/141/)
The first edition of a classic book on the basics of English-language writing.
EQUATOR Network (www.equator-network.org/)
An extensive collection of guidelines for reporting various types of health
research. Also includes other guidance. Much of the content also can apply
to other research.
Grammar Girl (www.quickanddirtytips.com/grammar-girl)
Advice on grammar, punctuation, word choice, and related topics.
How to Recognize Plagiarism: Tutorials and Tests (plagiarism.iu.edu/index.
html)
Tutorials to help users understand and thus avoid plagiarism. The website
also has tests to earn certificates documenting knowledge in this regard.
Instructions to Authors in the Health Sciences (mulford.utoledo.edu/instr)
Provides links to instructions to authors for thousands of biomedical jour-
nals. The website also has links to related guidelines.
On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, 3rd edition
(www.nap.edu/catalog/12192/on-being-a-scientist-a-guide-to-responsible
-conduct-in)
A guide to ethics in science from the (U.S.) National Academies. Includes
material on ethics in scientific publication. The website provides access to
the full text of the guide.
OneLook Dictionary Search (www.onelook.com)
Provides the opportunity to look up definitions and related information in
multiple dictionaries.
The Open Notebook (www.theopennotebook.com)
Guidance on doing and publishing writing for the public about science.
ORCID (orcid.org)
An initiative providing researchers with unique, persistent personal identi-
fication numbers (ORCID identifiers) that they can use to identify them-
selves unambiguously as the authors of their scientific papers and other
communications.
 Some Helpful Websites  311

Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of

Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (www.icmje.org/icmje-recommenda-
tions.pdf)
A set of recommendations followed by many medical journals. Originally
focused on format, but now largely emphasizes ethical and other issues.
Known in previous versions as the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts
Submitted to Biomedical Journals.
Text Recycling Research Project (textrecycling.org)
Information and guidance on researchers’ use of text and related items
from their previous work in new documents.
Think.Check.Submit. (thinkchecksubmit.org/)
Guidance to help authors ensure that they submit their work to journals
and publishers that are credible.
This page intentionally left blank
Glossary

Abstract. A brief synopsis of a paper, usually summarizing each major section.

Different from a summary, which is usually a summary of conclusions.
Also, a brief synopsis of a grant proposal.
Acknowledgments. The section of a paper (following the discussion but pre-
ceding the references) designed to thank individuals and organizations for
the help, advice, materials, or financial assistance they provided during the
research and writing of the paper.
Acquisitions editor. An editor responsible for obtaining book manuscripts.
Address. Identifies the author and supplies the author’s mailing address and
email address.
Ad hoc reviewer. See Referee.
Alphabet-number system. A system of literature citation in which references
are arranged alphabetically in the references or literature cited, numbered,
and then cited by number in the text. A variation of the name and year sys-
tem.
Archival journal. This term is equivalent to primary journal and refers to a
journal that publishes original research results.
Article-level metrics. Statistics regarding the use of individual articles. Exam-
ples: numbers of downloads, mentions in social media, and citations.
Author. A person who actively contributed to the design and execution of the
research and who takes intellectual responsibility for the research results
being reported.
Author’s editor. An editor who helps authors to improve manuscripts, propos-
als, or other documents before submission. May work for a research insti-
tution, for an editing company, or on a freelance basis.

313
314 Glossary

Blog. Short for weblog, an ongoing series of postings on a website. Commonly

written in the first person.
Book review. An article describing and evaluating a book.
Caption. See Legend.
Citation-order system. A system of referencing in which references are cited
in numerical order as they appear in the text. Thus, the references section
is in citation order, not in alphabetical order.
Compositor. One who sets type. Equivalent terms are typesetter and keyboarder.
Conference report. A paper written for presentation at a conference. Most con-
ference reports do not meet the definition of primary publication. A well-
written conference report can and should be short; experimental details
and literature citations should be kept to a minimum.
Conflict of interest. In science, a situation in which financial or other personal
considerations may interfere with a researcher’s objectivity in conducting,
reporting, or reviewing research.
Contributor. Someone who participated in the research reported in a scientific
paper, or in the writing of the paper. May or may not qualify for listing as an
author.
Copy editor. See Manuscript editor.
Copyright. The exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell written
intellectual property.
Corresponding author. In a multiauthor paper, the author designated to
receive and respond to inquiries from the journal editorial office and from
readers.
Council of Science Editors (CSE). An organization whose members are
involved mainly with the editing and publishing of journals in the sciences.
Formerly the Council of Biology Editors. www.CouncilScienceEditors.org.
Creative Commons. An organization providing free licenses that state condi-
tions under which specified works such as journal articles can be repro-
duced or otherwise used. creativecommons.org.
Cropping. The marking of a photograph so as to indicate parts that need not
appear in the published photograph, or the electronic removal of material
at the edges of a photograph. As a result, the essential material is “enlarged”
and highlighted.
CSE. See Council of Science Editors (CSE).
Curriculum vitae (CV). A document listing information about one’s education
and career.
CV. See Curriculum vitae (CV).
Deputy editor. The editor who is second in command at a publication with
multiple editors.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI). An identification code, assigned to an online
item, that provides a persistent link to its location on the internet.
 Glossary 315

Digital poster. See Electronic poster (e-poster).

Discussion. The final section of an IMRAD paper. Its purpose is to fit the
results from the current study into the preexisting fabric of knowledge. The
important points are expressed as conclusions.
Dissertation. See Thesis.
Dual publication. Publication of the same data two (or more) times in primary
journals. A violation of scientific ethics unless permission is obtained from
the initial publication site and the republished material is clearly identified
as such.
Editor. The title usually given to the person who decides what will (and will
not) be published in a journal or in a multiauthor book.
Editorial. A brief article presenting opinion.
Editorial consultant. See Referee.
Editor-in-chief. The top editor of a publication with multiple editors; in charge
of overall content.
Electronic poster (e-poster). A poster that is provided digitally and displayed
electronically. Also known as a digital poster.
Embargo. A policy of a journal stating that research reported in articles
accepted by the journal cannot be reported elsewhere, such as in the popu-
lar media, before it appears in the journal.
Fabrication. Inventing findings rather than obtaining them through scientific
research. Clearly a major ethical violation.
Ghost author. A person who is not listed as an author but who should be, given
the person’s contributions to the work.
Gift author. A person associated with a study only marginally, but listed as an
author.
Graph. Lines, bars, or other pictorial representations of data. Graphs are use-
ful for showing the trends and directions of data. If exact values must be
listed, a table is usually superior.
Graphical abstract. See Visual abstract.
Guest author. A person not contributing to a study, but listed as an author in
hopes of conferring prestige.
Hackneyed expression. An overused, stale, or trite expression.
Hard copy. When an old-fashioned manuscript on paper is provided via a word
processor or computer, it is called hard copy.
Harvard system. See Name and year system.
Honorary author. See Gift author.
Impact factor. A measure of the average number of citations per article published
in a given journal, as determined by Journal Citation Reports. Sometimes
used to indicate the relative prominence of a journal within a given discipline.
IMRAD. An acronym derived from introduction, methods, results, and discus-
sion, the organizational scheme of most modern scientific papers.
316 Glossary

Introduction. The first section of an IMRAD paper. Its purpose is to state

clearly the problem investigated and to provide the reader with background
information.
Jargon. (1) Specialized technical terminology. (2) Needlessly complex. obscure,
pretentious language.
Keyboarder. See Compositor.
Keywords. Terms identifying the main topics of an article.
Legend. The title or name given to an illustration, along with explanatory
information about the illustration. Also called a caption.
Letter of inquiry. See Preliminary proposal.
Letter of intent. A letter indicating to a funding source that one plans to sub-
mit a grant proposal.
Letter to the editor. A letter intended for publication in a journal or on its web-
site, commonly commenting on a paper in the journal.
Literature cited. The heading used by many journals to list references cited in
an article. The headings “References” and (rarely) “Bibliography” are also
used.
Managing editor. A title often given to the person who manages the business
affairs of a journal. Typically, the managing editor is not involved with edit-
ing (acceptance of manuscripts). However, this person may be responsible
for copyediting (part of the production process).
Manuscript editor. A person (either an employee of the publisher or a free-
lance contractor) whose role is to prepare manuscripts for publication by
improving mechanics such as spelling and grammar, ensuring consistency
with the required style, and providing markup for the typesetter or printer.
Also known as a copy editor.
Markup for the typesetter. Marks and symbols used by manuscript editors and
sometimes authors to transmit type specifications to the typesetter or
printer.
Masthead statement. A statement by the publisher, usually on the title page of
the journal, identifying ownership of the journal and succinctly stating the
purpose and scope of the journal.
Materials and methods. See Methods.
Methods. The second section of an IMRAD paper. Its purpose is to describe
the experiment in such detail that a competent colleague could repeat the
experiment and obtain the same or equivalent results.
Monograph. A specialized, detailed book written by specialists for other spe-
cialists.
Name and year system. A system of referencing in which a reference is cited
in the text by the last name of the author and the year of publication; for
example, Smith (2021). Also known as the Harvard system.
 Glossary 317

News release. A written announcement for journalists (for example, regarding

the publication of a journal article). Structured much like a newspaper
story. Also known as a press release.
Offprint. See Reprint.
Open access. Refers to scientific papers (or other writings) that are available
free of charge on the internet to all who are interested.
Oral report. Similar in organization to a published paper, except that it lacks
experimental detail and extensive literature citation. And, of course, it is
spoken, not printed.
ORCID. Short for Open Researcher and Contributor ID. An initiative that pro-
vides researchers with persistent, unique identification numbers, known as
ORCID identifiers, which are used mainly to definitively identify journal
authors.
Overlay journal. A compilation of preprints (and sometimes other openly
accessible items) that, after peer review, have been chosen to include.
Peer review. Evaluation of a manuscript by peers of the author (scientists
working in the same area of specialization).
Pitch. See Query letter.
Plagiarism. The presentation of someone else’s words or ideas as one’s own
rather than crediting the source.
Poster. In science, a display board presenting research. Also refers to the digi-
tal equivalent. See also Electronic poster (e-poster).
Predatory conference. An entity that the organizer promotes as being a valid
conference but that instead is a ruse for taking money from prospective
attendees.
Predatory journal. An entity that claims to be a legitimate journal but instead
exploits authors by taking their money without providing valid publication.
Preliminary proposal. A brief initial proposal submitted to a funding source,
which then determines whether it wishes to receive a full proposal. Also
known by other terms, such as letter of inquiry and preproposal.
Preprint. A written item, such as an article, that is posted or distributed before
publication (and commonly before peer review).
Preprint server. An online repository to which authors post manuscripts that
are not yet submitted to journals.
Preproposal. See Preliminary proposal.
Press release. See News release.
Primary journal. A journal that publishes original research results.
Primary publication. The first publication of original research results, in a
form wherein peers of the authors can repeat the experiments and test the
conclusions, in a journal or other source document readily available within
the scientific community.
318 Glossary

Printer. Historically, a device that prints or a person who prints. Often, how-
ever, the term printer means a printing company and is used as shorthand
for all of the occupations involved in the printing process.
Production editor. An editor who coordinates the editing of a book manuscript
and other aspects of book production.
Program officer. A person managing part or all of the grant program for a
funding source. This role can include advising grant applicants.
Proof. A copy of typeset material sent to authors, editors, or managing editors
for correction of typographical errors.
Proofreaders’ marks. A set of marks and symbols used to instruct the com-
positor regarding errors on proofs.
Publisher. A person or organization handling the business activities con-
cerned with publishing a book or journal.
Query. A question that a manuscript editor (copy editor) asks an author, such
as about something in a manuscript that is unclear or inconsistent.
Query letter. A letter proposing a magazine article. Also called a pitch.
Referee. A person, usually a peer of the author, who is asked to examine a
manuscript and advise the editor regarding publication. The term reviewer
is used more frequently, but perhaps with less exactness. Also sometimes
called an editorial consultant.
Reprint. A separately printed journal article supplied to authors, usually for a
fee. Sometimes called an offprint. Can be in electronic form.
Results. The third section of an IMRAD paper. Its purpose is to present the
new information gained in the study being reported.
Reviewer. See Referee.
Review paper. A paper written to summarize and integrate previously pub-
lished knowledge about a topic. Can be either an overview of a field or a
critical, interpretive study of literature in the field. Also known as a review
article.
Running head. A headline repeated on consecutive pages of a book or journal.
The titles of articles in journals are often shortened and used as running
heads. Also called running headlines.
Science writing. A type of writing whose purpose is to communicate scientific
knowledge to a wide audience, including (usually) both scientists and non-
scientists.
Scientific editor. An editor, trained as a scientist, whose role is primarily to
oversee the evaluation of submitted papers and participate in deciding
which ones to publish.
Scientific paper. A written and published report describing original research
results.
Scientific writing. A type of writing whose purpose is to communicate new
scientific findings to other scientists. Also sometimes includes other
 Glossary 319

scientist-to-scientist communications, such as review articles and grant

proposals.
Sherpa Romeo A database of journal publishers’ policies on open access and
related matters. v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.
Society for Scholarly Publishing. An organization of scholars, editors, publish-
ers, librarians, printers, booksellers, and others engaged in scholarly pub-
lishing. www.sspnet.org.
Summary. Usually a summary of conclusions, placed at the end of a paper.
Different from an abstract, which usually summarizes all major parts of a
paper and appears at the beginning of the paper (heading abstract).
Syntax. The order of words within phrases, clauses, and sentences.
Systematic review article. A review article (review paper) based on the use of
systematic, explicit methods to gather and analyze literature on a well-
defined question.
Table. Presentation of (usually) numbers in columnar form. Tables are used
when many determinations need be presented and the exact numbers have
importance. If only “the shape of the data” is important, a graph is usually
preferable.
Text recycling. The use of the same text in more than one document by the
same author.
Thesis. A manuscript demanded of an advanced-degree candidate; its purpose
is to prove that the candidate is capable of doing original research and writ-
ing about it. The term dissertation is essentially equivalent, but it tends to be
reserved for a manuscript submitted for a doctorate.
Title. The fewest possible words that adequately describe the contents of a
paper, book, poster, or so forth.
Typesetter. See Compositor.
Visual abstract. A visual summary of a paper, commonly focusing largely on
key findings.
This page intentionally left blank
References

Aaronson S. 1977. Style in scientific writing. In E Garfield (ed.), Essays of an

information scientist, vol. 3, 4–13. Available at www.garfield.library.upenn
.edu/essays/v3p004y1977-78.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2021.
ACS Publications. 2020. Guidelines for table of contents/abstract graphics.
Available at pubsapp.acs.org/paragonplus/submission/toc_abstract_graphics
_guidelines.pdf? Accessed August 20, 2021.
Alves T. 2021. Overlay journals, overlay reviews: has their time finally come?
Science Editor, June 24. Available at www.csescienceeditor.org/article/overlay
-journals-overlay-reviews-has-their-time-finally-come/. Accessed August 17,
2021.
American National Standards Institute. 1969. American national standard for
the abbreviation of titles of periodicals. ANSI Z39.5-1969. New York: Amer-
ican National Standards Institute.
American National Standards Institute. 1979a. American national standard
for the preparation of scientific papers for written or oral presentation.
ANSI Z39.16-1979. New York: American National Standards Institute.
American National Standards Institute. 1979b. American national standard
for writing abstracts. ANSI Z39.14-1979. New York: American National
Standards Institute.
Anderson JA, Thistle MW. 1947. On writing scientific papers. Bull Can J Res,
December 31, 1947, NRC no. 1691.
Annesley T. 2010a. Bars and pies make better desserts than figures. Clin
Chem. 56:1394–1400.
Annesley T. 2010b. Put your best figure forward: line graphs and scattergrams.
Clin Chem. 56:1229–1233.

321
322 References

Aoki S. n.d. Design tips for graphical abstracts. (Webinar.) Available at learn.
biorender.com/tutorial/designing-graphical-abstracts. Accessed August 20,
2021.
arXiv.org. 2021. Celebrating arXiv’s 30th anniversary. Available at blog.arxiv.
org/2021/08/13/celebrating-arxivs-30th-anniversary/. Accessed August 16,
2021.
Banik GM, Baysinger G, Kamat PV, Pienta NJ, eds. 2020. ACS guide to schol-
arly communication. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Avail-
able at solutions.acs.org/solutions/acs-guide-to-scholarly-communication/.
Accessed August 17, 2021.
Becker HS. 2020. Writing for social scientists: how to start and finish your
thesis, book, or article. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beer D, McMurrey D. 2019. A guide to writing as an engineer. 5th ed. Hobo-
ken, NJ: Wiley.
Belcher WK. 2019. Writing your journal article in twelve weeks: a guide to
academic publishing success. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Bernstein TM. 1965. The careful writer: a modern guide to English usage.
New York: Atheneum.
Bishop CT. 1984. How to edit a scientific journal. Baltimore: Williams and
Wilkins.
Blakeslee A. 1994. Late night thoughts about science writing. Quill, November/
December, 35–38.
Blum D, Knudson M, Henig RM, eds. 2006. A field guide for science writers.
2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Booth V. 1981. Writing a scientific paper and speaking at scientific meetings.
5th ed. London: The Biochemical Society.
Briscoe MH. 1996. Preparing scientific illustrations: a guide to posters, pre-
sentations, and publications. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bűky E, Schwartz M, Einsohn A. 2019. The copyeditor’s workbook: exercises
and tips for honing your editorial judgment. Oakland: University of Califor-
nia Press.
Butterfield J, ed. 2015. Fowler’s dictionary of modern English usage. 4th ed.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Carpenter S, ed. 2020. The craft of science writing: selections from The Open
Notebook. Madison, WI: The Open Notebook.
Castelvecchi D. 2015. Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors.
Nature. Available at doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.17567. Accessed August 19,
2021.
CBE Style Manual Committee. 1983. CBE style manual: a guide for authors,
editors, and publishers in the biological sciences. 5th ed. Bethesda, MD:
Council of Biology Editors.
 References 323

Chase S. 1954. Power of words. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Chicago manual of style. 2017. 17th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Christiansen SL, Iverson C, Flanagin A, Livingston EH, Fischer L, Manno C,
Gregoline B, Frey T, Fontanarosa PB, Young RK. 2020. AMA manual of
style: a guide for authors and editors. 11th ed. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Clark C. 2005. Conflict of interest and scientific publication: a synopsis of the
CSE retreat. Science Editor. 28:39–43.
Claxton LJ. 2005. Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, prac-
tices, and guidelines. Mutat Res. 589:31–45.
Coghill AM, Garson LR, eds. 2006. The ACS style guide: effective communica-
tion of scientific information. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Chemical
Society; New York: Oxford University Press.
Collinge R. 2017. How to design for color blindness. Available at www.
getfeedback.com/resources/ux/how-to-design-for-color-blindness. Accessed
August 22, 2021.
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. 2009. On being a sci-
entist: a guide to responsible conduct in research. 3rd ed. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press. Available at www.nap.edu/catalog/12192/on
-being-a-scientist-a-guide-to-responsible-conduct-in. Accessed August 18,
2021.
Council of Biology Editors. 1968. Proposed definition of a primary publication.
Newsletter, Council of Biology Editors, November 1968, 1–2.
Council of Science Editors. 2020. CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity
in scientific journal publications, 2020 revision. Available at www.
councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper
-on-publication-ethics/. Accessed August 19, 2021.
Cromey DW. 2010. Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropri-
ate use and manipulation of scientific digital images. Sci Eng Ethics.
16:639–667.
Cromey DW. 2012. Digital images are data: and should be treated as such. In
DJ Taatges and J Roth (eds.), Cell imaging techniques: methods and proto-
cols, 2nd ed., 1–27. New York: Humana Press.
Daugherty G. 1999. You can write for magazines. Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest
Books.
Davidoff F. 2000. Who’s the author? Problems with biomedical authorship,
and some possible solutions. Science Editor. 23:111–119.
Day RA. 1975. How to write a scientific paper. ASM News. 42:486–494.
Day RA, Sakaduski ND. 2011. Scientific English: a guide for scientists and
other professionals. 3rd ed. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Dean C. 2009. Am I making myself clear? A scientist’s guide to talking to the
public. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
324 References

DePaul A. 2021. Scientific publishers expedite name changes for authors.

Nature. Posted July 21, 2021. Available at doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-
02014-7. Accessed August 20, 2021.
DeTora L, ed. 2020. Regulatory writing: an overview. 2nd ed. Rockville, MD:
Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society.
Ebel HF, Bliefert C, Russey WE. 2004. The art of scientific writing: from stu-
dent reports to professional publications in chemistry and related fields.
2nd ed. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.
Editorial. 2020. Communication is key to constructive peer review. Nature.
582:314. Available at media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-
020-01622-z/d41586-020-01622-z.pdf. Accessed September 5, 2021.
Einsohn A, Schwartz M. 2019. The copyeditor’s handbook: a guide for book
publishing and corporate communications. 4th ed. Oakland: University of
California Press.
Elmore SA, Weston EH. 2020. Predatory journals: what they are and how to
avoid them. Toxicol Pathol. 48(4):607–610.
Elsevier. 2021. Graphical abstracts. www.elsevier.com/authors/tools-and
-resources/visual-abstract. Accessed August 20, 2021.
Faulkes Z. 2021. Better posters: plan, design, and present an academic poster.
Exeter, UK: Pelagic Publishing.
Fisher RA. 1938. Presidential address. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Sta-
tistics. 4(1):14–17. Available at www.jstor.org/stable/40383882. Accessed
January 31, 2022.
Frick T, Dagli C, Barrett A, Myers R, Kwon K, Tomita K. 2021. How to recog-
nize plagiarism: tutorials and tests. Bloomington, IN: Department of
Instructional Systems Technology, School of Education, Indiana Univer-
sity. plagiarism.iu.edu/. Accessed August 18, 2021.
Friedland AJ, Folt CL. 2009. Writing successful science proposals. 2nd ed.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gahran A. 2000. Instant information. Writer’s Digest, June 2000, 48–49.
Gahran A. 2001. Repurposing content for the web. Writer’s Digest, June 2001,
50–51.
Garfield E. 1999. Journal impact factor: a brief review. CMAJ. 161:979–980.
Gastel B. 1983. Presenting science to the public. Philadelphia: ISI Press.
Gastel B. 1991. A strategy for reviewing books for journals. BioScience.
41:635–637.
Gastel B. 2005. Health writer’s handbook. 2nd ed. Ames, IA: Blackwell.
Gastel B. 2015. Editing and proofreading your own work. AMWA J. 30(4):
147–151.
Gerin W, Kinkade C, Page NL. 2017. Writing the NIH grant proposal: a step-
by-step guide. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Germano W. 2013. From dissertation to book. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
 References 325

Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. 2003. Peer review in health sciences. 2nd ed.
London: BMJ Books.
Goodman SN, Berlin S, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. 1994. Manuscript quality
before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann
Intern Med. 121:11–21.
Grant MJ, Booth A. 2009. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types
and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 16:91–108.
Gray T. 2020. Publish and flourish: become a prolific scholar. 15th anniversary
ed. Las Cruces: Teaching Academy, New Mexico State University.
Hall GM, ed. 2013. How to write a paper. 5th ed. Chichester, West Sussex, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Hall S, Moskovitz C, Pemberton M. 2021. Text recycling: TRPP best practices
for researchers. Text Recycling Research Project. Available at textrecycling.
org/files/2021/04/TRRP_Best-Practices-for-Researchers.pdf. Accessed
August 18, 2021.
Halm EA, Landon BE. 2007. Everything you wanted to know about writing a
research abstract but were too afraid (or started too late) to ask. SGIM
Forum 30(12):2, 13. Available at www.sgim.org/File%20Library/SGIM
/Resource%20Library/Forum/2007/Forum200712.pdf. Accessed August 19,
2021.
Hancock E. 2003. Ideas into words: mastering the craft of science writing.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hartley J. 2007. Colonic titles! The Write Stuff. 16:147–149.
Hayes R, Grossman D. 2006. A scientist’s guide to talking with the media:
practical advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Houghton B. 1975. Scientific periodicals: their historical development, charac-
teristics and control. Hamden, CT: Shoe String Press.
Huth EJ. 1987. Medical style and format: an international manual for authors,
editors, and publishers. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
Huth EJ. 1999. Writing and publishing in medicine. 3rd ed. Baltimore:
Williams and Wilkins.
Ibrahim AM, ed. 2018. Use of a visual abstract to disseminate scientific
research. Available at static1.squarespace.com/static/5854aaa044024321
a353bb0d/t/5a527aa89140b76bbfb2028a/1515354827682/VisualAbstract
_Primer_v4_1.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2021.
Interacademy Partnership. 2016. Doing global science: a guide to responsi-
ble conduct in the global research enterprise. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press. Available at www.interacademies.org/publication/doing
-global-science-guide-responsible-conduct-global-research-enterprise.
Accessed August 18, 2021.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2019. Recommendations
for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in
326 References

medical journals. Updated December 2021. www.icmje.org/icmje-recom-

mendations.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2022.
Iverson C. 2002. US medical journal editors’ attitudes toward submis-
sions from other countries. Science Editor. 25:75–78. Available at www
.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/v25n3p075-078.pdf.
Accessed September 4, 2021.
Jambor H, Antonietti A, Alicea B, Audisio TL, Auer S, Bhardwaj V, Burgess SJ,
Ferling I, Gazda MA, Hoeppner LH, Ilangovan V, Lo H, Olson M, Mohamed
SY, Sarabipour S, Varma A, Walavalkar K, Wissink EM, Weissgerber TL.
2021. Creating clear and informative image-based figures for scientific pub-
lications. PLoS Biol. 19(3):e3001161. Available at doi.org/10.1371/journal
.pbio.3001161. Accessed February 15, 2022.
Kaiser J. 2017. The preprint dilemma. Science. 357:1344–1349.
Kanel S, Gastel B. 2008. Careers in science editing: an overview to use or
share. Science Editor. 31:18–22. Available at www.councilscienceeditors.
org/wp-content/uploads/v31n1p018-022.pdf. Accessed September 5, 2021.
Keegan DA, Bannister SL. 2003. Effect of colour coordination of attire with
poster presentation on poster popularity. CMAJ. 169:1291–1292.
Kupferschmidt K. 2020. Preprints bring “firehose” of outbreak data. Science.
367:963–964.
Lang TA. 2010. How to write, publish, and present in the health sciences: a
guide for clinicians and laboratory researchers. Philadelphia: American
College of Physicians.
Lederer R. 1987. Anguished English. New York: Dell.
Lewis MA. 2008. The financing and cost accounting of science: budgets and
budget administration. In LM Scheier and WL Dewey (eds.), The complete
writing guide to NIH behavioral science grants, 347–395. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lillie B. 2016. Science and the art of personal storytelling. In C Wilcox, B
Brookshire, and JG Goldman (eds.), Science blogging: the essential guide,
96–103. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Linacre S, Syed I. 2020. The scientific predator has evolved—here’s how you
can fight back. Available at blog.cabells.com/2020/06/24/the-scientific
-predator-has-evolved-heres-how-you-can-fight-back. Accessed September 5,
2021.
Lock S. 1985. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. London:
Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.
Mackay AL, Ebison M, eds. 1977. Scientific quotations: the harvest of a quiet
eye. New York: Crane, Russak & Company, Inc.
McGirr CJ. 1973. Guidelines for abstracting. Tech Commun. 25(2):2–5.
Menninger H, Gropp R. 2008. Communicating science: a primer for working
with the media. Washington, DC: American Institute of Biological Sciences.
 References 327

Meredith D. 2021. Explaining research: how to reach key audiences and

advance your work. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Meyer RE. 1977. Reports full of “gobbledygook.” J Irreproducible Results.
22(4):12.
Michaelson HB. 1990. How to write and publish engineering papers and
reports. 3rd ed. Phoenix: Oryx Press.
Mitchell JH. 1968. Writing for professional and technical journals. New York:
Wiley.
Mitrany D. 2005. Creating effective poster presentations: the editor’s role.
Science Editor. 28:114–116. Available at www.councilscienceeditors.org
/wp-content/uploads/v28n4p114-116.pdf. Accessed September 4, 2021.
Morgan P. 1986. An insider’s guide for medical authors and editors. Philadel-
phia: ISI Press.
National Institutes of Health. 2010. Research integrity. Available at grants
.nih.gov/grants/research_integrity/definitions.htm. Accessed August 18,
2021.
O’Connor M. 1978. Standardisation of bibliographical reference systems.
Br Med J. 1(6104):31–32.
O’Connor M. 1991. Writing successfully in science. London: HarperCollins
Academic.
O’Connor M, Woodford FP. 1975. Writing scientific papers in English: an
ELSE–Ciba Foundation guide for authors. Amsterdam: Associated Scientific.
Outing S. 2001. Think locally, write globally. Writer’s Digest, July 2001, 52–53.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD,
Shamsheer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grim-
shaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E,
McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA,
Whiting P, Moher D. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated
guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 372: n71. Available at
doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71. Accessed August 29, 2021.
Peat J, Elliott E, Baur L, Keena V. 2002. Scientific writing: easy when you know
how. London: BMJ Books.
Penrose AM, Katz SB. 2010. Writing in the sciences: exploring conventions of
scientific discourse. 3rd ed. New York: Longman.
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. 7th ed. 2020.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ratnoff OD. 1981. How to read a paper. In KS Warren (ed.), Coping with the
biomedical literature, 95–101. New York: Praeger.
Reid WM. 1978. Will the future generations of biologists write a dissertation?
BioScience. 28:651–654.
Roig M. 2015. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable
writing practices: a guide to ethical writing. Available at ori.hhs.gov
328 References

/avoiding-plagiarism-self-plagiarism-and-other-questionable-writing-practices
-guide-ethical-writing. Accessed August 18, 2021.
Romero-Olivares AL. 2019. Reviewers, don’t be rude to nonnative English
speakers. www.science.org/content/article/reviewers-don-t-be-rude-nonnative
-english-speakers. Accessed September 5, 2021.
Rosner JL. 1990. Reflections on science as a product. Nature. 345:108.
Rougier NP, Droettboom M, Bourne PE. 2014. Ten simple rules for better
figures. PLOS Comput Biol. 10(9): e1003833. Available at doi.org/10.1371
/journal.pcbi.1003833. Accessed August 21, 2021.
Rowan KE. 1990. Strategies for explaining complex science news. Journal
Educ. 45(2):25–31.
Saleh N. 2013. The complete guide to article writing. Cincinnati: Writer’s
Digest Books.
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. 2012. Available at sfdora.
org/read/. Accessed February 17, 2022.
Shipman M. 2015a. Selfish reasons for researchers to publicize their study
findings. Available at sciencecommunicationbreakdown.wordpress.com.
Accessed August 28, 2021.
Shipman WM. 2015b. Handbook for science public information officers.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sternberg RJ, Sternberg K. 2016. The psychologist’s companion: a guide to
professional success for students, teachers, and researchers. 6th ed. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
STM. 2021. STM global brief 2021—economics and market size. Available at
www.stm-assoc.org/2021_10_19_STM_Global_Brief_2021_Economics
_and_Market_Size.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2022.
Stocking SH, and the Writers of the New York Times. 2011. The New York
Times reader: science and technology. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Strunk W Jr, White EB. 2000. The elements of style. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Style Manual Subcommittee, Council of Science Editors. 2014. Scientific style
and format: the CSE manual for authors, editors, and publishers. 8th ed.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sun XL, Zhou J. 2002. English versions of Chinese authors’ names in bio-
medical journals: observations and recommendations. Science Editor.
25:3–4. Available at www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads
/v25n1p003-004.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2021.
Tananbaum G. 2013. Article-level metrics: a SPARC primer. Available at spar-
copen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/SPARC-ALM-Primer.pdf. Accessed
August 19, 2021.
Task Force of Academic Medicine and the GEA-RIME Committee. 2001.
Appendix 1: checklist of review criteria. Acad Med. 76:958–959. Available at
 References 329

journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2001/09000/APPENDIX_1
__CHECKLIST_OF_REVIEW_CRITERIA.37.aspx. Accessed September 5,
2021.
Taylor RB. 2018. Medical writing: a guide for clinicians, educators, and
researchers. 3rd ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Thornton RJ. 1987. “I can’t recommend the candidate too highly”: an ambigu-
ous lexicon for job recommendations. Chronicle of Higher Education,
February 25, 42.
Thornton RJ. 2003. L.I.A.R: the lexicon of intentionally ambiguous recom-
mendations. 2nd ed. Napierville, IL: Sourcebooks.
Trelease SF. 1958. How to write scientific and technical papers. Baltimore:
Williams and Wilkins.
Tuchman BW. 1980. The book: a lecture sponsored by the Center for the Book
in the Library of Congress and the Authors League of America. Washing-
ton, DC: Library of Congress.
University of Queensland. n.d. Three Minute Thesis. Available at threeminu-
tethesis.uq.edu.au/home. Accessed September 4, 2021.
U.S. Copyright Office. n.d. International issues. Available at www.copyright.
gov/international-issues/index.html. Accessed August 28, 2021.
U.S. Copyright Office. 2021. More information on fair use. Available at www
.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html. Accessed August 28, 2021.
Vence T. 2015. Know your PIO. The Scientist. 29(1):67–69.
Waquet F. 2008. Posters and poster sessions: a history. American Institute of
Physics History Newsletter. Available at repository.aip.org/islandora/
object/nbla:275060#page/5/mode/2up. Accessed September 4, 2021.
Warner A. 2021. 5 free online plagiarism checkers—which works in 2021.
Available at www.websiteplanet.com/blog/best-plagiarism-checking-tools/.
Accessed August 18, 2021.
Weiss EH. 2005. The elements of international English style: a guide to writ-
ing correspondence, reports, technical documents, and internet pages for a
global audience. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Wilcox C, Brookshire B, Goldman JG, eds. 2016. Science blogging: the essen-
tial guide. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wiley S. 2009. Bring back reprint requests. The Scientist. 23(9):29.
Woolston C. 2015. Fruit-fly paper has 1,000 authors. Nature. 521:263.
Writers of SciLance. 2013. The science writers’ handbook: everything you
need to know to pitch, publish, and prosper in the digital age. Boston: Da
Capo Press.
Zeiger M. 2000. Essentials of writing biomedical research papers. 2nd ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Zerubavel E. 1999. The clockwork muse: a practical guide to writing theses,
dissertations, and books. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
This page intentionally left blank
Index

AAAS Kavli Science Journalism of doctoral dissertations, 249

Awards, 185 examples, 60 (figure), 61 (figure),
a/an, 229–230 62 (figure)
abbreviations extended, 26
a/an with, 229–230 in grant proposals, 262
in abstracts, 62–63, 228 indicative, 62, 62 (figure)
defining, 183 informative, 61
general principles, 227–228 length of, 26, 59
generic names of organisms, 230 as not primary publication, 19, 26
good practice, 228–229 structured, 59, 61
in grant proposals, 264 submission for oral presentations,
how and when to use, 227–230 189–190
in the introduction, 70 types of, 61–63
of journal names, 95 visual/graphical, 64–65
list of, 229 See also summaries
of scientific journal titles, 95, Academic Phrasebank, 241, 309
295–298 accept letter, 141
SI (Système International) units/ access-related considerations, 8,
prefixes, 230, 307 22, 36, 38
special problems, 229–230 accuracy, 45, 97, 143, 148, 151, 267,
in tables, 108 273–275
in titles, 49, 228 ACES: The Society for Editing, 294
of units of measurement, 229 acknowledgments, 86–88, 313
abstracts, 59–65 acquisitions editors, 175, 313
abbreviations in, 228 acronyms, 62. See also abbreviations
clarity and conciseness in, 63–64 ACS (American Chemical Society)
defined, 59–60, 313 Guide to Scholarly Communication,
descriptive, 62, 62 (figure) 12–13

331
332 Index

active voice, 211–212 Association of Medical Illustrators, 117

ad hoc reviewers, 139, 140, 313 audience
address, 313 for books, 172, 178
advance book contract, 173 for conference reports, 203
Advise and Consent, 81 engaging, 182–183
affect/effect, 214 for oral presentations, 191–196
Allbutt, T. Clifford, 45 for popular science writing, 180,
Allen, Fred, 202 182–185, 290
Allen, Woody, 251 for review papers, 162–163
alphabet-number system, 93–94, 96, 313 authenticity, 27–28
Am I Making Myself Clear? A Scientist’s author guidelines. See instructions to
Guide to Talking to the Public, 273 authors
AMA (American Medical Association) author queries, 147
Manual of Style, 12, 116 to non-native English speakers, 237
American Association for the Advance- author questionnaire, 178–179
ment of Science, 272 AuthorAID, 241, 289, 309
Mass Media Science and Engineering authors
Fellows Program, 293 Chinese names, 56
American Chemical Society, 64 corresponding, 58, 314
American Medical Writers defined, 313
Association, 292, 293 digital object identifiers (DOIs), 96
American National Standards fees for, 38–39
Institute, 23, 95 ghost/guest/gift, 51, 315
American Psychological Association guidelines for, 174, 181
(APA) style, 95 honorary, 51, 315
American Society for Microbiology, 40 instructions to, 40–42
amount vs. number, 214 listing, 51–55
analysis, 74 listing affiliations and addresses,
anecdotes, 183 57–58
animals, 31, 73 ORCID identifiers, 57, 154
annotated journal article (webpage), 309 order of names, 53–55
anonymous reviewers, 139, 281 proper and consistent form, 56
appendixes, 259 specifying contributions, 55–56
archival journals, 26, 313 students as, 58
archiving, 154–155 technical demands on, 8
article titles. See titles use of degrees with, 56
article-level metrics, 37–38, 313 websites of, 8, 38, 90
arXiv, 8 See also authorship; instructions to
assertive sentence title (AST), 48 authors
assistant editors, 136 author’s editor, 288–289, 313
associate editors, 136 authorship
Association of Earth Science addresses, 56–58
Editors, 294 defined, 51–53
Association of Health Care including everyone, 31
Journalists, 294 See also authors
 Index 333

autocorrect, 219 bureaucratese, 223–224

awards Burton, Richard, 84
for scientific reviewing, 161 business cards, 201
for scientific writing, 185
Campbell, George, 81
Bcc feature, 233 capitalization
Berry, L. Joe, 218 of abbreviations, 108
Berry, M. V., 63 changing standards, 214
Best American Science and Nature rules for, 239
Writing, The, 185 of trade names, 73
Bibliography of Agriculture, 20 captions, 23, 316. See also figures;
Biological Abstracts, 20, 22 legends
BioRender, 116 career development, 290–294
bioRxiv, 8 Careful Writer, The, 212
Blakeslee, Alton, 180 cartographers, 116
blogs, 170, 179, 181, 234, 241 case, 224–225
defined, 314 case reports, 9, 23, 166
blue jean words, 232 cave paintings, 6
Board of Editors in the Life Sciences, CBE. See Council of Biology Editors
241, 289 (CBE)
website, 241, 289, 309 celebrating publication, 155–156
book chapters, 171–172. See also books CERN, 293
book reviews, 165, 167–168, 314 Chase, Stuart, 222
structured, 168 Chemical Abstracts, 20, 22, 48, 61
See also opinion pieces Chicago Manual of Style, 12, 213
book signings, 178 China, 7
books Chinese names, 56
advance contract for, 173 chocolate-chip cookie analogy, 183
audience for, 172, 178 citation(s)
author guidelines, 174 alphabet-number system, 93–94, 96,
author questionnaire, 178–179 313
chapters, 171–172 article-level metrics, 37–38
finding a publisher, 172–173 of author’s own work, 89–90
indexing, 177–178 careful, 97
life cycle of, 176 (flowchart) citation order system, 94, 96–97, 314
marketing, 178–179 of electronic material, 97
preparing the manuscript, 174–175 examples, 96–97
publication process, 175, 177–178 and impact factor, 36–37
radio/TV interviews, 178 in the introduction, 70
self-publishing, 173 name and year system (Harvard
why/why not to write, 172 system), 92–93, 96, 315, 316
Boylan, Mary, 236 citation order system, 94, 96–97, 314
Brandeis, Louis, 283 citation-management software,
brief research papers, 165–166 90–91
Briscoe, Mary Helen, 109, 113, 197 Clare, John, 147
334 Index

clarity in tables and figures, 75

in an abstract, 63–64 in titles and legends, 108, 119
in conclusions, 84 conclusions, 84
in editing your own work, 284–286 in a review paper, 163
in English as a foreign language, 237 conference reports, 19, 25–26, 202–205
in graphics, 123 defined, 202–203, 314
in an introduction, 67 editing and publishing, 204–205
in peer reviews, 280 format of, 203
in popular science writing, 183 as not primary publication, 202–203
in references, 95 presenting new ideas, 204
in the results section, 78–79 conferences
in scientific writing, 3, 45, 217, 232 invitations to present at, 189–190
clay tablets, 7 online, 193–194
Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific poster presentations at (see poster
Writing, 116 presentations)
commercial editing services, 289 predatory, 190, 317
commercial scientific publishers, 136, confidentiality issues, 278
172 conflicts of interest, 31–32
Communicating Science: A Primer for defined, 314
Working with the Media, 272 in reviewers, 139, 278
communication consistency
electronic, 8–9 in editing your work, 284–285
history of, 6–7 internal, 74, 205
public, 291 in style, 137, 174
scientific, 22, 290–294 in wording, 252
technical, 292 contracts for books, 173
Complete Guide to Article Writing, The, contributors, 52, 55–56, 314
181 Conversation, The, 182
completeness, 161, 284 copy editors
compliance, 284–286 for books, 177
composition, 148, 284 fixing tables, 104
compositors, 8, 107, 147, 150, 314 learning from, 240
markup for, 149–151, 316 for papers, 137, 237, 239, 280
conciseness queries from, 137, 171, 177, 237
in an abstract, 63–65, 189 and the writing process, 8, 225
in editing your work, 284–286 See also editors
in essays, 169 Copyeditor’s Handbook, The, 293
in grant proposals, 259, 262 Copyeditor’s Workbook, The, 293
in letters to the editor, 166 copyright, 127–128
noting in peer review, 280 defined, 314
in online writing, 234 of a thesis, 249
in progress reports, 267 of unpublished materials, 128
in scientific writing, 10, 18, 24, 137, See also rights and permissions
147, 184 Copyright Clearance Center, 129
in the signature block, 234 correctness, 75–76, 131, 210–212, 280,
in social media posts, 236 284
 Index 335

corresponding authors, 58, 314 DeVoto, Bernard, 130

Council of Biology Editors (CBE), 19 diagrams, 115
Council of Biology Editors Style Manual, digital object identifiers (DOIs), 20, 22,
27, 228 96, 314
Council of Science Editors (CSE), 19–20, digital posters, 198. See also electronic
51, 53, 241, 282, 292, 293, 314 posters (e-posters)
courtesy, 87, 196, 284, 285 directness of expression, 238
courtesy titles, 234, 254 discussion section, 81–85
cover letters, 131–134 components of, 82
electronic, 134 conclusions, 84
preparing, 254–255 defined, 315
sample, 133–134 defining scientific truth, 84–85
COVID-19, 8 noting strengths and limitations,
Craft of Science Writing, The: Selections 82–83
from The Open Notebook, 185, 293 significance of the paper, 83–84
Creative Commons, 309, 314 structure of, 83, 83 (figure)
Creative Commons licenses, 128–129 and verbiage, 81
credit, 29–31 dissertations. See thesis writing
CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy), Dobie, J. Frank, 245
55–56 doctoral dissertations. See thesis writing
cropping, 119, 314 documenting your sources. See
CSE. See Council of Science Editors citation(s)
(CSE) Doing Global Science: A Guide to
cucumber science, 229 Responsible Conduct in the Global
curriculum vitae (CV), 251, 253–254 Research Enterprise (book), 27, 310
chronological/reverse chronological DOIs (digital object identifiers), 20, 22,
order, 253 96, 314
contact information, 254 Domagk, Gerhard, 9
defined, 314 DORA (Declaration on Research
different versions of, 254 Assessment), 37–38
example, 252 (figure) double negatives, 231
in grant proposals, 259 drafts, 15
nickname/English language name, dress
254 for online presentations, 194
for recommendation letters, 269 for poster presentations, 201
what to include (or not), 253 Dropbox, 13
Drury, Allen, 81
dangling modifiers, 217–218 dry-labbing, 28
data (datum), 212–213 dual publication, 25–26, 315
Declaration on Research Assessment
(DORA), 37–38 Edison, Thomas A., 77
definitions (glossary), 313–319 editing
deputy editors, 136, 314 checklists, 286–288, 286–288
descriptive abstract, 62, 62 (figure) (figures)
designers, 177 items to notice, 284–286
Designing Conference Posters, 201, 309 preparing to edit your work, 283–284
336 Index

working with an editor, 288–289 Eisen, Michael, 6

See also 8 Cs of editing; proofreading; electronic cover letters, 134. See also
revision cover letters
editing services, predatory, 288–289 electronic posters (e-posters), 198, 315
editorial board members, 139, 140 Elements of International English Style,
editorial consultants, 139. See also The, 233
referees Elements of Style (book), 220
“editorial we,” 212 online copy, 310
editorials, 165, 166–167, 315 email
invited, 166 acknowledgment by, 134
perspective, 166 addresses, 57, 201, 254, 313
persuasive, 166–167 asking for a recommendation,
See also opinion pieces 271
editors discussion lists, 179, 218, 258
acquisitions, 175, 313 to editors, 289
assistant/associate, 136 to groups, 233
author’s, 288–289, 313 international correspondence, 233
decisions of, 140–146 query letters, 181
defined, 315 saving copies of presentations by, 200
deputy, 136, 314 signature block, 234
editor-in-chief, 136, 315 style, 233–234
finding and working with, 288–289 submission by, 131, 181
freelance, 137, 177, 288–289, 290 embargoes, 155
functions of, 135–137 Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 86
as gatekeepers, 144–145 EndNote, 13, 90
invitation by to write editorials or English language usage
book reviews, 165 active vs. passive voice, 211–212
of journals, 290 articles (a, an, the), 239
managing, 136–137, 316 blue jean words, 232
manuscript, 316 consistency in wording, 232
production, 175, 177, 318 dangling modifiers, 217–218
and the review process, 137–140 double negatives, 231
scientific, 18, 136, 318 “editorial we,” 212
See also copy editors email style, 233–234
editors-in-chief, 136, 315 English as evolving language, 214
Ehrlich, Paul, 9 euphemisms, 217
8 Cs of editing, 284–289 hackneyed expressions, 218, 315
completeness, 161, 284 Latin and Greek words, 212–213
compliance, 284–286 metaphors, 218
composition, 148, 284 misuse of words, 214–215
consistency, 74, 108, 137, 174, 205, noun problems, 215–217
252, 284–285 numbers, 213
correctness, 75–76, 131, 210–212, 280, plural forms, 239
284–285, 285 prepositions, 239
courtesy, 87, 196, 284, 285 pronouns, 228–229
See also clarity; conciseness proper use of articles, 239
 Index 337

readable writing, 231 fabrication, 28, 315

serving international readers, 233 fair use, 128
simplicity, 209, 240 falsification, 28
singulars and plurals, 212–213 feedback, 18, 175, 185, 240–241
spacing the text, 240 on grant proposals, 264
syntax issues, 217–218 in peer review, 279–280, 282
Ten Commandments of Good about preliminary proposals, 258
Writing, 219 fellowships, 293
topic sentences, 238 Fermilab, 293
verb tense, 210–211, 239 fewer/less, 215
words and expressions to avoid, Field Guide for Science Writers, A, 293
299–306 figures, 75
writing across cultures and media, citing, 79
231–235 in a review paper, 164
See also abbreviations; capitalization; Fisher, R.A., 28
jargon; scientific writing by Fleming, Alexander, 9
non-native English speakers Flesch Reading Ease score, 232
English-language scientific editing, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score,
290–291 232
environmental journalism, 292 flowcharts, 115, 164
e-posters, 198, 315 footnotes, in tables, 108
EQUATOR Network, 310 freelance editors, 137, 177, 288–289,
errors 290
in grammar, 75–76, 131 freelance work, 181, 260, 291
of omission, 149 “funnel” structure, 68 (figure)
in spelling, 76, 148–149
essays, 168–170. See also opinion Gardner, John W., 222
pieces gender-neutral language, 214
ethics, 27–32 geological surveys, 9
additions to proofs, 151 ghost authors, 51, 315
authenticity and accuracy, 27–28 gift authors, 51, 315
confidentiality issues, 278 glossary, 313–319
conflicts of interest, 31–32 Google Docs, 13
credit, 29–31 government entities, 293
as foundation, 27 grammar, 75–76, 131
originality, 28–29 dangling modifiers, 217–218
treatment of humans and animals, 31 See also English language usage
euphemisms, 217 Grammar Girl, 241, 310
Euripides, 66 grant proposals, 257–265
European Association of Science budgetary items, 264
Editors, 241, 294 checklist for editing, 288
Excerpta Medica, 20 common parts of, 259
experimental procedures, 72. See also common problems, 263–264
materials and methods section common reasons for rejection, 263
Explaining Research, 273 identifying potential sources of
extended abstracts, 26 funding, 258
338 Index

preliminary letters and proposals, How to Recognize Plagiarism: Tutorials

258–259 and Tests, 310
preparation of, 257 human interest stories, 182–183
preparing to write, 260 humor
resubmitting, 264–265 in email, 234
as scientific writing, 3 about jargon, 225–226
writing, 260–261 Ten Commandments of Good
graphical abstracts, 64–65, 319 Writing, 219
graphics, in abstracts, 64. See also use of, 183
figures; illustrations
graphs Ideas into Words: Mastering the Craft of
additional tips, 115 Science Writing, 293
defined, 315 illustrations
examples, 110 (graph), 112 (graph), in a book, 177
114 (graph) in oral presentations, 193
in oral presentations, 192–193 other than graphs, 115–116
in poster presentations, 200 in poster presentations, 200
preparation of, 112–114 professional, 116–117
sources offering assistance, proofing, 152
116–117 See also figures; graphs; photographs;
swipe files, 116 tables
symbols and legends, 114–115 illustrators, professional, 116–117
vs. tables, 111 ILMRAD format, 10, 70
use of color in, 116, 192 imitation, 12
when not to use, 109–111 impact factor, 36–37, 315
when to use, 111–112 IMRAD format
Greece, 7 of book reviews, 168
guest authors, 51, 315 defined, 315
Guild of Natural Science Illustrators, development of, 6, 9–10
117 for poster presentations, 198
Gutenberg, Johannes, 7 in a review paper, 159
in a scientific paper, 22–23
hackneyed expressions, 218, 315 in a systematic review article, 162
Handbook for Science Public Information for thesis writing, 247
Officers, 293 IMRADC format, 10
handouts, 200, 201 IMRDRDRD format, 10
hanging titles, 49 IMRMRMRD format, 10
hard copy, 131, 150, 152, 153, 282, 315 index
Harvard system (name and year for a book, 177–178
system), 92–93, 96, 315, 316 machine-indexing system, 48
Health Writer’s Handbook, 293 Index Medicus, 20
honorary authors, 51, 315 indicative abstracts, 62, 62 (figure)
“hook,” 67 information-retrieval services, 20
Hope, Bob, 33 informative abstracts, 61
hourglass shape, 24 (figure) instructions to authors
 Index 339

author information protocols, guidelines, 66–67

56, 58 reasons for guidelines, 67–69
on citations, 90, 97 structure of, 67–68, 68 (figure)
compliance with, 284 for a thesis, 247
for conference presentations, 204 introductory paragraphs, 163
for cover letters, 133 “inverted funnel” structure, 83 (figure)
ethics statements, 31 invited editorials, 166
for introductions, 70 IRDAM format, 10, 23
on legends, 118 it, 215
for methods section, 73 I/we, 212
for opinion pieces, 167
organization and headings, 23 JAMA: The Journal of the American
on photographs, 118, 123 Medical Association, 293
for popular publications, 187 jargon
on revision, 138 avoiding, 183, 221–226
for scientific writing, 10, 12 bureaucratese, 223–224
for submissions, 130, 131 defined, 221, 316
on supplementary materials, 80 humor, 225–226
on tables, 107 mumblespeak, 221–222
on titles, footnotes, and abbreviations, special cases, 224–225
49, 108 in titles, 49
using, 40–42 words and expressions to avoid,
Instructions to Authors in the Health 299–306
Sciences, 40, 310 Jones, Franklin P., 277
International Association of Business journal articles, 3. See also scientific
Communicators, 294 writing
International Centre for Theoretical Journal Citation Reports, 36
Physics, 293 Journal des Sçavans, 7
International Committee of Medical journal-based metrics, 37
Journal Editors, 53
International Congress on Peer Review Kasidah, The (Burton), 84
and Biomedical Publication, 140 Keillor, Garrison, 268
international readers, 233 keyboarders. See compositors
cultural differences, 238–239 keywords, 64, 316
writing clearly across cultures, Knight Science Journalism Program
231–234 (MIT), 292
See also scientific writing by non-
native English speakers language mechanics. See English
internships, 293 language usage
interviews, 178, 272–276 laser pointers, 193
introduction lay readers, 180–185
citations and abbreviations in, 70 Leeuwenhoek, Antonie van, 47
defined, 216 legends, 114–115, 316
example, 69 (figure) letters
exceptions to guidelines, 70 accept, 141
340 Index

cover, 131–134, 254–255 references in, 74

to the editor, 165–166, 316 (see also tables and figures, 75
opinion pieces) See also methods
of inquiry, 258 (see also preliminary McKerrow, R. B., 3
proposals) McNab, Sheila M., 59
of intent, 258, 316 measurements, 74
modify, 141–144 media interviews, 272–276
query, 181–182, 318 (see also queries) media reviews, 167–168
of recommendation, 268–271 medical case reports, 9
reject, 33, 144 medical illustrators, 116
See also email medical research, 9
L.I.A.R.: The Lexicon of Intentionally Medical Style and Format, 230
Ambiguous Recommendations, 271 medical writers, 292
librarians, academic, 162, 190 MEDLINE, 20, 48
libraries, 7 meeting abstracts, 25–26
licenses. See Creative Commons mentors, 39, 133, 190, 201, 241, 258,
like, 215 289, 309
Lillie, Ben, 170 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,
line drawings, 115 212–213, 221
literary devices, 4, 5 metaphors, 218
literature cited, 89–90, 316. See also methodology, 9, 73. See also materials
references and methods section
methods, 316. See also materials and
machine-indexing system, 48 methods section
managing editors, 136–137, 316. See also micrographs, 118, 119, 121
editors Microsoft Word
manuscript editors, 316. See also copy “comment” feature, 15
editors; editors computing readability, 232
manuscript submission. See submitting Track Changes, 144, 264, 282
the manuscript Miles, Ashley, 213
maps, 115 mini-presentations, 194–195
in poster presentations, 200 misspelled words, 76, 148–149
Maps of TPC Programs, 292 modify letter, 141–144
markup for the typesetter, 149–151, 316 monographs, 172, 316. See also books
Mass Media Science and Engineering Morgan, Peter, 101
Fellows Program, 293 “mortal consequences” sentence, 217
masthead statement, 316 movable type, 7
materials, 72–73 mumblespeak, 221–222. See also jargon
generic vs. trade names, 72–73
materials and methods section, 71–76 name and year system (Harvard
correct form and grammar, 75–76 system), 92–93, 96, 315, 316
headings and subheadings, 73–74 names of organisms, 73, 230
materials, 72–73 narrative reviews, 160
measurements and analysis, 74 National Academies Committee on
methods, 73 Science, Engineering, and Public
purpose of, 71–72 Policy, 51
 Index 341

National Association of Science Writers online, 193–194

(NASW), 293 opportunities for, 189–190
Excellence in Institutional Writing organization of, 190–191
Awards, 185 question-and-answer period, 196
Science in Society Journalism reports, 317
Awards, 185 as scientific writing, 3
National Cancer Institute, 293 using slides, 192–193
Nature, 35, 40, 53, 282 ORCID (Open Researcher and
networking, 289, 293 Contributor ID), 57, 154, 281, 317
news releases, 273, 317 website, 310
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 165 originality, 28–29
Noun Project, 116 Outing, Steve, 231
numbers outlines
decimal places, 78 in a review paper, 160–161
exponents, 107 for a thesis, 247
in the results section, 78 overlay journals, 8, 317
style for, 213
in tables, 103–105 page proofs, 58, 149, 171, 177
using “number” vs. “amount,” 214 pagination, inclusive, 94
panel discussions, 202
O’Connor, Maeve, 227 paper, invention of, 7
offprint. See reprints papyrus sheets, 7
On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct paraphrasing, 30
in Research, 27 parchment, 7
webpage, 310 passive voice, 75–76, 211–212
OneLook Dictionary Search, 310 past tense, 77, 210–211
online presentations, 193–194 Pasteur, Louis, 9
online reading, 38, 79–80, 234–235 Pauli, Wolfgang, 14
online resources, 241, 309–311 peer review
only, 215 anonymous, 281
open access, 317 benefits of, 277–278
open access journals, 38 of a book, 175, 177
Open Notebook, 182, 185, 293, 310 for conference reports, 203
opinion pieces for conference submissions, 190
book and other media reviews, declining a request, 278
167–168 defined, 317
editorials, 166–167 effectiveness of, 139–140
essays, 168–170 informal, 281–282
informed, 165 lack of, 39
letters to the editor, 165–166 of materials and methods, 72
oral presentations of non-native English speakers,
audience, 195–196 240
at conferences, 13 responding to request for,
delivery of, 191–192 277–278
length of, 191 reviewer roles and responsibilities,
mini-presentations, 194–195 280, 282
342 Index

of a scientific paper, 138–139, saving copies of, 200

278–281 as scientific writing, 3
volunteering/applying, 278 title, 199
Peer Review Week, 282 PowerPoint presentations, 192–193, 241
peer reviewers, 7, 138–140. See also predatory conferences, 190, 317
reviewers predatory editorial services, 288–289
Perlman David, 290 predatory journals, 36, 38–39, 317
permissions. See rights and permissions Preferred Reporting Items for
personal statements, 255–256 Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Analyses (PRISMA), 162
Society of London, 7 preliminary proposals, 317
photographs preprint servers, 8, 39, 317
adding arrows, 122 (photo) preprints, 8, 20, 39, 89, 317
in a book, 177 preproposal, 258. See also grant
color, 123 proposals
cropping and combining, 119, 120 present tense, 210–211
(photo), 121 (photo), 314 press releases, 273. See also news
including a scale bar, 121, 123 releases
keys and guides, 119 prewriting, 13–14
and micrographs, 118 primary journals, 19, 23, 25, 26, 61, 159,
in poster presentations, 200 160, 202, 203, 204, 210, 317
size of, 118 primary publication, 19, 22, 25,
submission formats, 118–119 202–203, 246, 317
Piel, Gerard, 19 printers, 149, 153, 177, 318
pitches, 181–182. See also query letters printing press, 7
plagiarism, 29–31, 317 PRISMA statement, 162
inadvertent, 238–239 production editors, 175, 177, 318
podcasts, 170, 178 program officers, 260, 318
Pollard, Thomas D., 161 progress reports, 265–267
poster presentations, 197–201 structure of, 265–266
abstract, 199 proofreaders’ marks, 149–151, 150
bulleted/numbered lists, 198 (table), 318
at conferences, 13 proofreading
defined, 317 grant proposals, 264
digital posters, 198 illustrations, 152
e-posters, 198 importance of, 219
handouts to accompany, 201 marking corrections, 149–151, 150
highlights, 200 (table)
illustrations, 200 the PDF, 148–151
IMRAD format, 198 progress reports, 267
landscape/portrait format, 198 and quality control, 152–153
organization of, 198–199 before submission, 131
popularity of, 197–198 proofs
preparing the poster, 199–200 addition of references, 152
presenting the poster, 201 additions to, 151–152
 Index 343

checking for accuracy, 148–149 reprints, 153–154

copyediting and proofing, 147–148 for a thesis, 250
defined, 318 PubMed journals database, 95
proposals Pulitzer Prizes, 185
for books, 172–173 punctuation, 75–76
preliminary, 258–259 purple plaid trouser words, 232
See also grant proposals; preliminary
proposals queries
ProQuest Dissertations, 249 author, 147
public access policies, 155 to authors, 237
public information officers (PIOs), 155 from copy editors, 137, 171, 177, 237
Publication Manual of the American defined, 318
Psychological Association, 12, 95, 116 query letters, 181–182, 318
publication process, 180–182 quite, 215
publishers quotation marks, 30
commercial, 36
commercial scientific, 136, 172 radio stories, 183
defined, 318 Raistrick, Howard, 47
feedback for, 167 Rasey, Janet S., 257
finding and working with, 172–173, readability, 231–232
180–182 of online publications, 234
guidelines for authors from, “received for publication” dates, 40
174–175 recommendation letters
marketing by, 178–179 deciding whether to write, 268–269
permissions from, 26, 129 format for, 269–270
policies on self-archiving, 155 gathering information, 269
of predatory journals, 38–39 requesting, 271
and quality control, 153 Recommendations for the Conduct,
transfer of copyright to, 128 Reporting, Editing, and Publication
websites of, 57 of Scholarly Work in Medical
venues to consider, 182 Journals, 311
publishing process redundancy, 79, 214
additions to proofs, 151–152 referees, 138, 318. See also reviewers
archiving the paper, 154–155 reference management systems, 92
celebration, 155–156 references
for conference reports, 204–205 addition of, 152
copyediting, 147–148 checking against original, 90
ethics, 27–32 citation of, 89–97
finding a publisher, 180–182 citations in the text, 91
mechanics of, 8–9 electronic aids, 90–91
online publication, 234–235 electronic material, 97
proofing illustrations, 152 examples of different styles, 96–97
proofreading, 147–151 journal abbreviations, 95
publicizing the paper, 154–155 in the materials and methods section,
quality control, 152–153 74
344 Index

reference-management software, 13 review process

rules to follow, 89–90 accept letter, 141
styles for, 92–94 acceptance/rejection, 137–138,
in a thesis, 247 140–141
titles and inclusive pages, 94 ad hoc reviewers, 139
trends in format, 95–96 deputy editor, 136
RefWorks, 13, 90 desk rejection, 138
Regulatory Writing: An Overview, 293 editor-in-chief, 136
reject letter, 33, 144 editors as gatekeepers, 144, 146
reprints, 153–154, 318 editor’s decision, 135–136, 140–141
reproducibility of experiments, 9, 71–72, functions of editors, 135–136, 146
73 gatekeeper function, 144
research managing editor, 136–137
on humans or animals, 31 manuscript (copy) editor, 137
See also medical research; scientific modify letter, 141–144
research peer review, 138–140
research centers, 293 reject letter, 144
ResearchGate, 154 scientific editors, 136
resources. See online resources reviewers
results section ad hoc, 139, 140, 313
avoiding redundancy, 79 anonymous, 139, 281
organization of, 77 ORCID identifiers of, 281
clarity in, 78–79 peer review, 7, 138–140
content of, 77–78 selection of, 139
defined, 318 See also peer review; referees
handling numbers, 78 revision
online supplementary material, 79–80 of book manuscripts, 174, 177
résumés, 251, 253. See also curriculum of grant proposals, 264–265
vitae (CV) at the proof stage, 151
review journals, 92, 160–161 questions to ask, 17–18
review papers (review articles) in response to modify letter,
additional tips, 163–164 143–144
audience for, 162–163 of a thesis, 249
characteristics of, 159–160 See also editing
conclusions, 163 rights and permissions
defined, 25, 318 copyright, 127–128
introductory paragraphs, 163 Creative Commons licenses,
length of, 159 128–129
narrative reviews, 160 for material for a book, 174–175
organization of, 159–160 obtaining permissions, 129
outline, 160–161 Robarchek, Doug, 135
preparing an outline, 160–161 Roberts, William C., 89
as scientific writing, 3 rock inscriptions, 6
systematic review articles, 162 Rockefeller University Press, 40
types of reviews, 161–162 running heads/running titles, 48–49,
writing for the audience, 162–163 318
 Index 345

salami science, 29 ethics in, 27–32

Salk, Jonas, 272 factors in selection of, 39–40
San Francisco Declaration of Research formatting requirements, 42
Assessment (DORA), 37–38 history of, 7
Savile, Doug, 81 instructions to authors, 40–42
Science, 40, 293 international, 238, 241
Science Blogging: The Essential Guide, 185 “letters” journals, 9
Science News, 293 likelihood of acceptance, 40
science reporters, 291 online access to, 8
Science Writer’s Handbook, 293 online supplementary material,
science writing, 3, 318 79–80
awards for, 185 open access, 38
science-communication career, overlay journals, 8
290–294 peer-reviewed, 8
career options, 290–291 predatory, 36, 38–39, 317
keeping up to date, 293–294 prestige and impact of, 35–38
preparation for, 292–293 quality of printing, 40, 153
professional organizations, reprints, 153–154
293–294 review, 92, 160–161
quiz, 291–292 speed of publication, 39–40
ScienceDraw, 117 styles for references, 92
scientific articles. See scientific papers submission of manuscripts to, 33–35,
scientific communication, 22, 131
290–294 title word abbreviations, 95,
scientific editors, 18, 136, 318 295–298
Scientific English, 220, 239 websites of, 40
scientific fields See also primary journals
biochemistry, 37 scientific nonfiction, 172. See also
biology and biological fields, 8, 40, books
230 scientific papers
biomedical science, 23 in biomedical science, 23
descriptive biology, 115 checklist for editing, 287
engineering, 23 defined, 19–20, 22, 25–26, 318
geology, 37 digital object identifiers (DOIs), 20,
health sciences, 23, 40 22
medicine, 23, 115–116 in engineering, 23
microbiology, 9 in health sciences, 23
molecular biology, 37 media attention to, 38
physics, 8 medical, 23
psychology, 23 organization of, 22–24
social sciences, 92 peer review for, 278–279
scientific illustrators, 116 preparing the title, 45–50
scientific journals in psychology, 23
access to, 38 structure of, 24–25, 24 (figure)
archival, 26, 313 See also primary publication; scientific
editorials, 166–167 writing
346 Index

scientific research Scientist, The, 293

funding for, 9–10 Scientist’s Guide to Talking with the
publication of, 5 Media, A, 272
as team endeavor, 13 self-archiving, 155
in the U.S., 9–10 self-canceling words, 214
Scientific Style and Format: The CSE self-publishing, 173
Manual for Authors, Editors, and seminars, 13, 191, 202
Publishers, 13, 228, 230 series titles, 49
scientific truth, 84–85 Servier Medical Art collection, 116
scientific writing Sherpa Romeo, 38, 155, 319
clarity in, 3 Shipman, Matt, 155
collaboration in, 13, 51–53 SI (Système International) units, 230,
context of, 4–5 307
defined, 318–319 signature blocks, 234
descriptive, 9 simultaneous submission, 28
doing the writing, 14–17 slides, 192–193
early history of, 6–7 social media, 38, 154–155
in the electronic era, 7–9 professionally related posts, 235
establishing the mindset, 11 social networking, 179
for international journals, 238 Society for Scholarly Publishing, 319
language in, 5 Society for Technical Communication,
preparing to write, 12–14 294
prewriting, 13–14 Society of Environmental Journalists,
primary publication, 19, 22, 25, 292, 294
202–203, 246, 317 Society of Professional Journalists,
revising, 17–18 294
scheduling time for, 15–16 software
scope of, 3 citation-management, 90–91
standard format, 5 grammar-checking, 131
by students, 11 for online conferences, 194
as two-way process, 4 plagiarism-checking, 31
See also IMRAD format; scientific reference-management, 13
papers similarity-detection, 31
scientific writing by non-native English spell-checking, 131
speakers, 236–241 Sontag, Susan, 118
additional strategies, 240–241 sounding boards, 167
common language challenges, speaker ready room, 193
239–240 spell-checking, 76, 131
considering cultural differences, spelling errors, 76, 148–149
238–239 spreadsheets, 163
content, organization, and clarity, 237 squid technique, 81
copy editing, 147 Squires, Bruce P., 159
English as international language of SSC BOOKNEWS, 209
science, 24, 236 stage fright, 191
peer review for, 280 state of the art reviews, 162
resources for, 241 statistical analysis, 28, 211
 Index 347

statistics, 78 citing, 79
straddle rules, 107 defined, 319
structured book reviews, 168 examples, 102–103 (tables), 106
students, poster presentations by, (table), 111 (table)
197–198 exponents in headings, 107
style manuals following journal instructions, 107
commonly used, 12–13 footnotes to, 108
ethics chapters in, 27 vs. graphs, 111
and graph preparation, 116 horizontal rules, 107
on misused words, 215 listing abbreviations, 229
online versions, 13 mention in text, 108
on rights and permissions, 129 in oral presentations, 193
for scientific writing, 12–13 plus and minus signs in, 103
on table preparation, 107 in a review paper, 164
websites of, 13 titles of, 108
submitting the manuscript when to use, 75, 101, 103–104
checking the manuscript, 130–131 technical terminology, 221
confirmation of receipt, 134 technical terms, 183
cover letter, 131–134 Ten Commandments of Good Writing,
deciding where to submit, 33–35 219
guidelines for, 130 text recycling, 31, 319
likelihood of acceptance, 40 Text Recycling Research Project, 31, 311
predatory journals, 38–39 textbooks, 172. See also books
preprints, 39 Theses Global, 249
prestige and impact, 35–38 thesis (theses), defined, 319
printing quality, 40 thesis writing, 245–250
to scientific journals, 33–35 at European universities, 246
using instructions to authors, institutional rules, 247
40–42 length, 245
summaries, 59, 64, 84, 180, 319. See also literature review section, 247,
abstracts 248–249
supplementary material online, as not primary publication, 19
79–80 publishing a thesis, 250
symbols, in graphs, 114–115 purpose of the thesis, 245–246
symposium/symposia, 25, 191, 202 tips on writing, 247–248
syntax, 45, 47–48, 50, 74, 217–218, 220, when to write a thesis, 248–249
231, 319 they, 214
systematic review articles, 162, 319 Think.Check.Submit, 39, 311
Système International (SI) units, 230, Three Minute Thesis competition,
307 194–195
titles
tables, 102–108 abbreviations and jargon in, 49, 228
abbreviations in, 108 assertive sentence title (AST), 48
additional tips, 108 format of, 49–50
arranging tabular material, 104–107, for grant proposals, 262
104–106 (tables) hanging, 49
348 Index

importance of, 45–46 visual abstracts, 64–65, 319

as labels, 48–49 visual aids
length of, 46 PowerPoint presentations, 192–193
need for specific, 46–47 slides, 192–193
questions in, 49–50 von Braun, Werner, 225
in references, 94–96
running, 48–49 Wayne, John, 189
of scientific journals (abbreviations), webinars, 178
95, 295–298 weblogs. See blogs
syntax in, 47–48 websites
of tables, 108 of authors, 8, 38, 90
Track Changes, 144, 264, 282 helpful, 309–311
trade names, 72–73 institutional, 38
trademark symbols, 73 of journals, 40
Trollope, Anthony, 127 of publishers, 57
Truman, David B., 5 of style manuals, 13
Turnitin, 31 of university writing centers, 30
typeface we/I, 212
changing for editing, 284 which, 215
for grant proposals, 262 Whitehead, A. N., 71
for poster presentations, 199 Wood, Earl H., 135
for PowerPoint presentations, 192 word choice, 241, 310. See also English
sans serif, 192 language usage
typesetters. See compositors workshops, 25, 202, 292
typographical errors, 5 World Association of Medical Editors,
294
United States, 9 Wright, Steven, 171
units of measurement, 229 writer’s block, 15–16
university press, 172, 173, 177 Writer’s Digest, 181
unsolicited opinion pieces, 167 writing for general readerships,
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 161 180–185
use and misuse of English. See English writing groups (writing clubs),
language usage 16–17
UsingEnglish.com, 241 writing partners, 17
Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks,
varying, 215 16
Vence, Tracy, 155
verb tense You Can Write for Magazines, 181
challenges of, 239
past tense, 77, 210–211 Zinsser, William, 221
present tense, 210–211 Zotero, 13, 90–91
in scientific writing, 210–211
About the Authors

BARBARA GASTEL, MD, is professor of integrative biosciences and of medi-

cal humanities at Texas A&M University, College Station, where she coordi-
nates the graduate program in science communication. She also has played
lead roles in international projects to help researchers write about and publish
their work. Her published works include two editions of Health Writer’s
Handbook and many articles on writing, editing, and other topics. Gastel has
held workshops on scientific writing in numerous countries. She has received
awards and recognitions from the American Medical Writers Association, the
Board of Editors in the Life Sciences, the Council of Science Editors, and
Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society.
ROBERT A. DAY was professor emeritus of English at the University of Dela-
ware, Newark. For 19 years, he directed the publishing program of the Ameri-
can Society for Microbiology (ASM) and served as managing editor of the
Journal of Bacteriology, as well as eight other ASM journals. Day was a presi-
dent of the Society for Scholarly Publishing and a chairman of the Council of
Biology Editors. He gave many seminars and workshops on scientific writing
and wrote extensively on scientific writing, editing, and publishing. He was
lead author of the Greenwood book Scientific English: A Guide for Scientists and
Other Professionals.
This page intentionally left blank