Scientific Authorship:  Custom and Craft

Francis L. Macrina
Spring 2007

                                                         

Craft:      General Elements

 

1.         Definition of a primary publication (Council of Science Editors)

An acceptable primary scientific publication must be the first disclosure containing sufficient information to enable peers (1) to assess observations, (2) to repeat experiments, and (3) to evaluate intellectual processes.

 

It must be essentially permanent, available without restriction to the scientific community, and accessible to screening services (e.g., Biological Abstracts, Index Medicus, etc.)

 

The definition does not mention peer review.

 

2.         Authorship:  starting out

A.        Preparing to write a paper for publication: when?

B.         Journal selection: where?

 

3.         “Instructions to Authors” and other advice

A.        Details for manuscript preparation  (format, style, space, art, mailing, page charges, reprints)

B.         Conflict of interest

C.         Manuscript review: process and policy

D.        Unpublished information and personal communications policies

E.         Prior publication policy:   Simultaneous submission of the same paper to two or more journals is unethical.

F.         Copyright information

G.         Policy on sharing research materials

H.        Imperfections in the published manuscript:  dispute handling, corrections, errata, retractions

I.          Properly citing the literature: correct and useful references

 

4.         Authorship:  responsibilities

                        A.        The common denominators: make a significant contribution and assume responsibility for the work

B.         Examples of contributions

1.         contributing ideas or conceptual framework or hypothesis formulation

2.         planning of work

3.         data gathering and performance of experiments

4.         critique of work

5.         interpretation and analysis of data reported in the paper

6.         writing and revision

C.         Assuming responsibility

1.         intellectual understanding of whole work

2.                   defending work

                                    D.        Logistics:

The question of proper credit should be discussed at every point in the research process and with every person involved in the effort.  The strategy for assigning credit and responsibility should be established early in a research project, reviewed periodically, and revised if appropriate.

 

E.                  From the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

 

1.                Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

 

2.                One or more authors should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to published article.

 

3.                Authorship credit should be based only on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 must all be met.

 

4.                Acquisition of funding, the collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, by themselves, do not justify authorship.

 

5.                Authors should provide a description of what each contributed, and editors should publish that information. All others who contributed to the work who are not authors should be named in the Acknowledgments, and what they did should be described

 

6.                Increasingly, authorship of multicenter trials is attributed to a group. All members of the group who are named as authors should fully meet the above criteria for authorship. Group members who do not meet these criteria should be listed, with their permission, in the Acknowledgments or in an appendix (see Acknowledgments).

 

7.                The order of authorship on the byline should be a joint decision of the coauthors. Authors should be prepared to explain the order in which authors are listed.

 

5.                     The stand-alone  published abstract (e.g., publishing in meeting proceedings)

 

Abstracts of work presented at meetings are commonly published in a form that is accessible in libraries or via electronic means.  Abstracts should be carefully prepared so as to be scientifically instructive.  Most of what is discussed  above is relevant to abstract writing and publication.  Increasingly, abstracts submitted to national meetings are subjected to peer review. Abstracts should be scientifically rigorous.  The problem being studied or hypothesis tested should be clearly stated.  Results should be reported to the extent that they permit evaluation and allow the reader to understand their meaning.  Avoid phrases such as “the results will be discussed”.   The abstract should end with your scientific conclusion(s). Avoid extraneous information in your abstract and follow any special instructions regarding format.

 

 

 

 

Craft:  Structure of a Scientific Paper

 

1.         Title

Describes paper in fewest possible words

How your paper gets noticed, directly and indirectly

A determining factor of whether your paper gets read

Part of your curriculum vitae

Constructing titles:

Attention to syntax; faulty word order can be confusing, amusing, or embarrassing.

Avoid abbreviations and jargon

Types of titles:

 

   Topic title:                               “Genetic analysis of expression of the novel oncogene oncA in squamous epithelial cells”

 

   Conclusion/assertive title:     “oncA transcription in squamous epithial cells results in neoplastic transformation”

2.         Abstract

Usually 150-300 words

Organized like the paper (IMRAD) with a “punch line” added

Style: usually no abbreviations, usually no references, be quantitative where possible (“inhibited by 75%”)

Electronic availability (Medline, etc.) of abstracts underscores their importance

 

3.         Introduction   

Provides a context of the problem and states the question(s) you seek to answer

State of relevant knowledge, but not a review article

Pick your references carefully: focus on essential material; gauge your journal audience and assume some background

Clear statement of problem or hypothesis

Summary of main result (some consider this optional)

Write the introductory material in the present tense, but what you did and found in the past tense

 

4.         Materials and Methods

The purpose of this section is to help the reader evaluate your results and to permit

replication if desired                  

Consider how much detail to present: previously published methods (cite the appropriate

papers), reagent grades, exotic reagents with suppliers

Sensitivity of measurements, statistical analyses,  control data

Materials and methods section should not include any of your results

Write the materials and methods in the past tense

 

5.         Results

This section is usually the shortest in the paper: what did you observe?

Resist the temptation to interpret your results: save that for the discussion section.  If,

however, you find  this difficult to do, many journals allow a “Results and Discussion”

section (i.e., combine these two sections)

Presenting  your results: tables and illustrations               

Deciding to present your results in tabular form

Tables provide clarity when repetitive data must be presented; simple lists, or short lists with different groupings should not be presented in tabular form; as a general rule, tables with less than six pieces of data should be incorporated into the text

Tables should present one collection of related data

Tables should be arranged with like data reading downward

 

Illustrations (graphs and photographs)

When data reveal trends that make an interesting picture, use a graph not a table.

Generally, the figure caption should be all that is necessary to understand the illustration; the reader should not have to refer to the text.  The figure caption should provide the keys for understanding the labeling of the illustration. The labeling of the illustration should be clear and able to withstand reduction associated with fitting it on the printed page.

For the results section write general statements in the present tense; write about your observations in the past tense

 

6.         Discussion

In the discussion section you should interpret what you observed, generalize, and relate to your findings and interpretations to previous observations

Your observations and relationships within your data (refer specifically to your tables and illustrations)

Cite any exceptions

Relate to previous work; cite the appropriate references

Give theoretical or practical implications

Provide a summary and conclusions

In the discussion write about current knowledge in the present tense; write about your data in the past tense

 

7.         Citing References

Follow carefully the instructions for format given by the journal

Many journals have rules on citing “submitted” or “in press” works, and for citing personal communications.

Cite only significant, published references; select references carefully being attentive to proper attribution and  priority

 

8.         Acknowledgments

technical help, gifts of materials, financial assistance

 

9.         Concluding thoughts

 

Reading the literature helps you write better by illustrating what works and what doesn’t

Think of scientific writing as the formal vehicle for contributing to the advancement of knowledge

Patience:         evaluate carefully when to publish your work

Practice:          the more you write, the better your papers get

Precision:        clarity  is the hallmark of scientific writing – well defined, accurately stated, exact, fastidious

Persistence:    don’t be daunted by editorial or peer review; take advantage of constructive

criticism

 

More Craft:  Peer review

 

The people:  Editors use editorial board members and/or ad hoc reviewers to review manuscripts.  Selection of reviewers may be based on:  reputation of investigators, authors of citations in the paper, name searches of data bases, direct inquiry of other workers in the field

The process:   Flow of a manuscript through typical peer review (who does what? when?)

 

Being a peer-reviewer:  Often journals or journal editors have written instructions or guidelines for reviewers.

 

1.                   "Housekeeping details" that need to be immediately addressed when you receive a manuscript.

a.                      Make sure it's complete (tables, figures, text, references).

b.                      Are you comfortable reviewing from intellectual standpoint? Can you review in allotted time? 

c.                      Do you feel you have a conflict of interest as a reviewer?  Might such a conflict be perceived by a third party? 

d.                      Can you provide an impartial review? If not, return to editor immediately.

 

2.                   Philosophy of review

a.                      Develop an attitude of an advocate rather than an adversary.  Your role is to contribute to accurate and effective scientific communication.

b.                      Put the paper in perspective:  What is the contribution?  New information leading to new concept, extension of previous results, confirmatory results, new or revised method.

c.                      Is the paper clearly written and are the data clearly and appropriately presented?

 

3.                   Criteria with which to measure merit

a.                      Clearly stated scientific problem put in proper perspective

b.                      Significance of the problem

c.                      Originality of the work

d.                      Appropriateness of experimental design and methods

e.                      Description in detail such that others can repeat the work

f.                       Soundness of interpretations and justification of conclusions

g.                      Relevance and clarity of discussion

h.                      Organization and presentation of results (appropriateness of figures and  tables)

 

4.                                                                                 Preparing the written review                             

a.         Begin your review with an introductory paragraph that includes a summary of the major findings and highlights, positive features, major shortcomings or criticisms. Most journals ask you to refrain from actually making a recommendation in your review (i.e., "accept", "reject", etc).  Transmit this information separately to the editor (usually there is a form for this).

b.         Your specific comments should be numbered so the author(s) can respond to them conveniently.

i.          Always consider the adequacy of title and abstract.  The abstract must describe the essence of the research sufficiently and with clarity.

ii.          Offer guidance on improving presentation of data

iii.         If appropriate, comment on adherence to prescribed style

iv.         List errors such as misspelling of chemical names, incorrect terminology, outmoded terminology, inappropriate jargon, and adherence to correct nomenclature

v.         Appropriateness of length of article, noting repetition

vi.         Appropriateness of literature citations (quality and quantity)