Editorial Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published Philip E. Bourne journal in which you plan to publish. Rule 6: The ingredients of good Outstanding editors demand and get science are obvious—novelty of he student council (http://www. outstanding reviews. Put your energy iscbsc.org/) of the International research topic, comprehensive into improving the quality of the Society for Computational coverage of the relevant literature, T manuscript before submission. Ideally, Biology asked me to present my good data, good analysis including the reviews will improve your paper. thoughts on getting published in the strong statistical support, and a But they will not get to imparting field of computational biology at the thought-provoking discussion. The that advice if there are fundamental Intelligent Systems in Molecular ingredients of good science flaws. Biology conference held in Detroit in reporting are obvious—good late June of 2005. Close to 200 bright Rule 4: If you do not write well in the organization, the appropriate use of young souls (and a few not so young) English language, take lessons early; tables and figures, the right length, crammed into a small room for what it will be invaluable later. writing to the intended audience— proved to be a wonderful interchange This is not just about grammar, but do not ignore the obvious. among a group of whom approximately more importantly comprehension. The Be objective about these ingredients one-half had yet to publish their first best papers are those in which complex when you review the first draft, and do paper. The advice I gave that day I have ideas are expressed in a way that those not rely on your mentor. Get a candid modified and present as ten rules for who are less than immersed in the field opinion by having the paper read by getting published. can understand. Have you noticed that colleagues without a vested interest in Rule 1: Read many papers, and learn the most renowned scientists often give the work, including those not directly involved in the topic area. from both the good and the bad the most logical and simply stated yet work of others. stimulating lectures? This extends to Rule 7: Start writing the paper the It is never too early to become a their written work as well. Note that day you have the idea of what critic. Journal clubs, where you critique writing clearly is valuable, even if your questions to pursue. ultimate career does not hinge on a paper as a group, are excellent for Some would argue that this places producing good scientific papers in having this kind of dialogue. Reading at too much emphasis on publishing, but English language journals. Submitted least two papers a day in detail (not just it could also be argued that it helps in your area of research) and thinking papers that are not clearly written in define scope and facilitates hypothesis- about their quality will also help. Being good English, unless the science is truly driven science. The temptation of well read has another potential major outstanding, are often rejected or at novice authors is to try to include benefit—it facilitates a more objective best slow to publish since they require everything they know in a paper. Your view of one’s own work. It is too easy extensive copyediting. thesis is/was your kitchen sink. Your after many late nights spent in front of Rule 5: Learn to live with rejection. papers should be concise, and impart as a computer screen and/or laboratory much information as possible in the A failure to be objective can make bench to convince yourself that your least number of words. Be familiar with rejection harder to take, and you will work is the best invention since sliced the guide to authors and follow it, the be rejected. Scientific careers are full of bread. More than likely it is not, and editors and reviewers do. Maintain a rejection, even for the best scientists. your mentor is prone to falling into the good bibliographic database as you go, The correct response to a paper being same trap, hence rule 2. and read the papers in it. rejected or requiring major revision is Rule 2: The more objective you can to listen to the reviewers and respond be about your work, the better that in an objective, not subjective, manner. work will ultimately become. Reviews reflect how your paper is being Alas, some scientists will never be judged—learn to live with it. If objective about their own work, and reviewers are unanimous about the Citation: Bourne PE (2005) Ten simple rules for will never make the best scientists— poor quality of the paper, move on—in getting published. PLoS Comput Biol 1(5): e57. learn objectivity early, the editors and virtually all cases, they are right. If they Copyright: Ó 2005 Philip E. Bourne. This is an open- reviewers have. request a major revision, do it and access article distributed under the terms of the address every point they raise both in Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and Rule 3: Good editors and reviewers your cover letter and through obvious reproduction in any medium, provided the original will be objective about your work. revisions to the text. Multiple rounds of author and source are properly credited. The quality of the editorial board is revision are painful for all those DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057 an early indicator of the review concerned and slow the publishing Philip E. Bourne is Editor-in-Chief of PLoS process. Look at the masthead of the process. Computational Biology. E-mail: [email protected] PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org0341 October 2005 | Volume 1 | Issue 5 | e57 Rule 8: Become a reviewer early in which is an important ingredient in like Google Scholar and the ISI Web of your career. deciding where to send your paper. Science are being used by tenure committees and employers to define Reviewing other papers will help you Rule 9: Decide early on where to try write better papers. To start, work with metrics for the quality of your work. It to publish your paper. your mentors; have them give you used to be that just the journal name This will define the form and level of papers they are reviewing and do the was used as a metric. In the digital detail and assumed novelty of the work first cut at the review (most mentors world, everyone knows if a paper has you are doing. Many journals have a will be happy to do this). Then, go little impact. Try to publish in journals presubmission enquiry system through the final review that gets sent that have high impact factors; chances available—use it. Even before the paper in by your mentor, and where allowed, are your paper will have high impact, is written, get a sense of the novelty of as is true of this journal, look at the too, if accepted. the work, and whether a specific When you are long gone, your reviews others have written. This will journal will be interested. provide an important perspective on scientific legacy is, in large part, the the quality of your reviews and, Rule 10: Quality is everything. literature you left behind and the hopefully, allow you to see your own It is better to publish one paper in a impact it represents. I hope these ten work in a more objective way. You will quality journal than multiple papers in simple rules can help you leave behind also come to understand the review lesser journals. Increasingly, it is harder something future generations of process and the quality of reviews, to hide the impact of your papers; tools scientists will admire. & PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org0342 October 2005 | Volume 1 | Issue 5 | e57 Editorial Ten Simple Rules for Getting Grants Philip E. Bourne*, Leo M. Chalupa his piece follows an earlier and that you are the best person to do an inappropriately formulated Editorial, ‘‘Ten Simple Rules it. Different granting programs require application may aggravate the T for Getting Published’’ [1], differing amounts of preliminary data. reviewers, and will have a negative which has generated significant For certain programs, it can be said impact even if the science is sound. interest, is well read, and continues to that the work must be essentially done Length and format are the most generate a variety of positive before the grant is awarded, and that frequent offenders. comments. That Editorial was aimed at the funds are then used for the next students in the early stages of a life of phase of the research program. There is Rule 5: Obey the Three Cs—Concise, scientific paper writing. This interest some truth in this. So where Clear, and Complete has prompted us to try to help appropriate, do provide some The grant does not have to fill the scientists in making the next academic tantalizing preliminary result, making allotted page count. Your goal should career step—becoming a young sure to tell the reviewers what these be to provide a complete reckoning of principal investigator. Leo Chalupa has results imply with respect to the what is to be done, as briefly as joined us in putting together ten simple specific aims of your proposal. In possible. Do not rely on supplements rules for getting grants, based on our formulating the motivation for your (which may not be allowed) or on Web many collective years of writing both proposal, make sure to cite all relevant sites (review may be actively successful and unsuccessful grants.