Writing & Publishing – Page 4 – Edge for Scholars at Vanderbilt

The Write Rules

Writing & Publishing April 12, 2017

Are you committing these sins in your scientific writing? Time to repent.

Minimize jargon. If you must use it, do not assume familiarity. Provide a definition. A well-written definition will not insult knowledgeable readers. It will reassure them you are also an expert.

Use the simpler word. Replace utilize with use and within to in.

Define abbreviations early. Start with the first mention and persist.

Weed aggressively. If the word does not contribute to the meaning of the sentence it is not necessary. A, the, and that are often superfluous. The construct “there are…” is rarely justified. When summarizing research results eliminate “studies report…” or “they found…” which are implied.

Reduce repetition. Use word-processing search features to find recurring use of your favorite words or phrases.

Do not editorialize. Avoid unfortunately, only, surprisingly, nonetheless and similar. The facts must speak for themselves.

Keep the subject first. Burying the subject beneath introductory clauses frustrates the reader.

Eliminate passive constructs. An example: “information will be collected.” Active voice is more convincing: “we will collect….”

Be positive. “Patient comfort” is less contorted than “lack of discomfort.”

Unpack long sentences and paragraphs. More short sentences are better than one that is overstuffed. If a paragraph covers more than one double spaced page it likely contains more than one idea.

More Resources

Writing Science in Plain English: Clarity Rules

Becoming a More Productive Writer

The Guiding Principle in Scientific Writing

“Modifying the Current Flow from Negative to Positive (Data!)”

Doing Research / Writing & Publishing March 6, 2017

Scientists are experts at asking questions, analyzing, and critiquing. We are also taught that while there are rules and facts in biology, exceptions to rules exist – in fact, we expect them. I’m going to talk about critiquing to the point of publishing, about negative (but important!) data, and how science as a whole would benefit from learning from others’ troubleshooting.

One of the greatest accomplishments of modern science is that one does not have to “reinvent the wheel.” If you are trying to detect some biological phenomena, chances are there is a kit made by a company that claims to do exactly what you are trying to do for x amount of dollars. While many kits are truly spectacular and save us time, energy, and tears trying to reinvent the wheel, there are some that are not so spectacular. Or they are, but they don’t do precisely what you’d expect them to because BIOLOGY – there is always an exception to the rule.

Our lab got excited about a kit that uses fluorescent dyes to simultaneously detect hypoxia and reactive oxygen species in live cells. WICKED! I already love imaging and making neurons fluoresce pretty colors, so this would be an added bonus for my project to show that a particular protein is sensitive to hypoxic stress versus oxidative stress. Using the kit was simple. Add red hypoxia dye, add green ROS dye, and image immediately after stressing out my neuronal cultures.

The kit worked! Except…

So these are unstressed neurons. See their happy dendrites extending everywhere? They’ve got great cell bodies too. Happy neurons are happy… except they’re all RED. The fluorescent dye is labeling my non-hypoxic cells as hypoxic, in addition to actual hypoxic cells (who are not as happy).

Why are non-hypoxic cells labeled as hypoxic? Without digressing far into chemistry, the red fluorophore is activated by a diverse class of enzymes that are abundant in every cell – nitroreductases. Some of these enzymes are dependent on oxygen levels to function, while some are oxygen-independent. The red dye is supposed to only fluoresce when in contact with oxygen-dependent nitroreductases – in which we infer detection of hypoxia. However, it is not always wise to make conclusions based on inferences. In this case, what the dye is actually and only measuring is nitroreductase enzyme activity, which are known to be affected by both endogenous and exogenous factors (i.e. not just oxygen!).

After struggling with different parameters to make this kit work for us, we decided to publish negative data (*GASP!*) comparing this kit’s detection of hypoxia to the current standards of measuring hypoxia. Gathering this data only took about six months of work, but about two years to publish because many journals – even methods journals – remain hesitant to publish negative data or data based on non-novel concepts. Eventually, we were able to publish this work, but it took much longer than expected. In that timeframe many other labs could have purchased the same kit and obtained false-positive results.

Publishing negative data and data that fail to replicate previous findings are as important as novel data in that they save you time and keep you from going down rabbit-holes. It’s so important that PLOS ONE recently launched “The Missing Pieces” collection that publishes such valuable negative findings. BioMed Central also provides such a platform in Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, stating that “publishing well documented failures may reveal fundamental flaws and obstacles in commonly used methods, drugs or reagents such as antibodies or cell lines, ultimately leading to improvements in experimental designs and clinical decisions.”

Another bonus of publishing this paper is that we got to publish a pun. As you can tell from this blog title, I LOVE puns.

Hehe, get it? The current dogma, as in electrical currents? Going from negative to pos- okay I’ll stop.

Tools for Team Manuscript Preparation When the Data are In Hand

Writing & Publishing February 19, 2017

Here’s a map to get your best work out the door efficiently. It’s never too soon to plan the journey to a completed manuscript.

Get moving.

Huddle with your lead investigator, statistician, research team members, clinical lead, and other contributors from the start to plumb everyone’s ideas and assure buy-in.
Set a brisk but reality-based timeline, and establish a standing meeting cadence.
Use the first meeting to nail down the exact research question(s), agree on roles, document analysis approach, and decide authorship order.
Use subsequent meetings to review data, text and tables. Projecting documents onto a screen or sharing screens for real-time group editing can dramatically accelerate group writing and keep everyone involved.
Consider adapting the generic author agreement from American Psychological Association. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has in-depth information on their site defining authorship requirements. This gold standard demystifies individual responsibilities and helps distinguish between authorship and acknowledgement criteria.
Remember to get IRB approval early, as coverage is intended to be prospective even when using extant data.
Use reporting standards and examples for your specific study type from the EQUATOR Network to plan.
Divide and conquer by mapping specific subsections unambiguously to the author who will be drafting the content with deadlines at each upcoming standing meeting.

Choose your target journal and write into their format.

Base target journal decision on where similar research typically appears, the audience you want to reach (practitioners or researchers), aims and scope (listed on the journal’s website), and any submission and publication costs. Impact factors are formally catalogued by Journal Citation Reports (subscription required) but typically readily available by googling – compare to understand the options.
Check author guidelines posted on the journal website to get the abstract structure, word limits, and specifications for figures and tables. Even if your target changes, author guidelines can help create a more detailed map for items to be produced.
Use bibliographic/reference management software such as BibTeX, Zotero, Endnote, or Reference Manager/Mendeley to create a shareable repository for full-text articles, and instantly format the manuscript bibliography using cite-while-you-write add-ins to word processing software.
Remember writing is a two-step process: first get the thoughts down, then edit. Perfectionists will need to learn to let go of drafts.
If needed, as a forethought send the abstract when drafted to the Editor in Chief and/or editorial board of the target journal to check on fit. This is also your first chance to briefly explain the importance of the work and to let them know if the work has been or will be presented at a national meeting.

In review.

At submission, expedite the review process by suggesting one or two potential reviewers who are considered experts in the content area.
After submission, monitor the journal website again to check on the status of the manuscript, determine if/when it was sent for review, estimate time to receiving reviews, and plan ahead to have time set aside among the writing team to tackle the comments.
If you need to communicate with the editorial staff always use the manuscript ID number assigned in the submission confirmation email.
Address all the points and potential revisions suggested by the reviewers and Editor in an item-by-item response. Sweeping summaries or ignoring specifics even if they seem minor is a “no-no”. Always review comments and revisions with the group. A benefit of having a team is the range of insights available.

Struggling?

Enlisting the help of a medical writer can help keep the project on track if none of the authors is a project manager.

Momentum, role clarity, and accountability are key to group writing. Aim high, and remember that the average number of rejections is 2.5. Learn from reviews and do not give up!

Recapture Your Free Time with How to Write a Lot

Book Reviews / Productivity / Writing & Publishing January 24, 2017

Do you find your grant-writing intruding on time you’d rather spend with your family? Did revisions to that last journal article ruin your vacation? Then this book might be just the thing you need.

Author Paul Silvia wanted to call How to Write a Lot “How to Write More Productively During the Normal Work Week With Less Anxiety and Guilt, but no one would buy that book.” As the brevity of the volume indicates, his secret is simple: Create a schedule and stick to it. Of course, simple in theory and simple in practice are different things, so Silva spends the rest of the book on methods to make keeping a writing schedule easier, and includes sections on how to write more clearly, better organize a manuscript, and submit your best work to journals and publishers, all of which will help you become a more productive writer. Although Silva is an Associate Professor of Psychology, his tips and tricks hold true for academics in almost any field.

“If you allot 4 hours a week for writing,” Silva says, “you will be surprised at how much you will write. By surprised, I mean astonished; and by astonished, I mean dumbfounded and incoherent. You’ll find yourself committing unthinkable perversions, like finishing grant proposals early….You’ll be afraid to talk with friends in your department about writing out of the fear that they’ll think, ‘You’re not one of us anymore’—and they’ll be right.” Though four hours is a good starting point, your own schedule and needs will dictate how much time you allot. The key is the regularity rather than sheer number of hours.

Still unconvinced? Silva breaks down several “specious barriers” to keeping a writing schedule in the second chapter. If you need to do more reading, your allotted writing time can be used for anything related to writing, including reviewing page proofs, crunching statistics, or reading articles. Can’t write without a better computer/desk/printer? Check out page 21 for Silva’s Spartan setup, including a plastic chair and a laptop with no internet connection (it keeps distractions to a minimum). Waiting for inspiration? That’s the most specious barrier of all, because as a chart on page 25 shows, in an experiment where some people were asked to write on a schedule and others only when they were inspired, those who write on a schedule wrote three times as much as the “spontaneous” writers, and had twice as many creative ideas. Silva backs up all his recommendations with evidence from behavioral studies and personal experience that is often as witty as it is insightful.

“Writing is a grim business,” Silva writes, but if you follow the advice in this book, you can find ways to release its stranglehold on your free time, leaving you much less grim.

How to Write a Lot, Revised Edition
Paul J. Silvia
Washington, D.C.: APA Life Tools, 2018

So You Want to Be On An Editorial Board? Some Protips for That.

Faculty Life / Writing & Publishing January 15, 2017

A mere month ago, I was a humble researcher with an amazingly cool lab. But this month, things are different. I’ve been named a Reviewing Editor at a society journal. And that’s sort of a big deal for academic folks. So let me dust off a bit of confetti from the ticker tape parade I forced the lab to have for me and share some pointers on how to get those editorial appointments that mean so much for career advancement and staying at the top of your field.

My lab’s party for me looked like this

1. Misunderstand Your Adviser:* One of my early advisers said “never turn down a review.” He reasoned that as a trainee, I had a chance to meet people who were having their first shot at serving on editorial boards and that they would hopefully continue to think of me for turning in solid, timely reviews. I accepted a lot of reviews from lower impact journals, as a way to hone my reviewing style into something that the journals liked and authors seemed to appreciate.

*I say “misunderstand your advisor” because my adviser later claimed this was horrible advice and disavowed all knowledge of it. But only one of us is a Reviewing Editor, so let’s just pretend it was real advice because it worked.

2. Stay In Your Lane: I’ve gotten some requests to review manuscripts with a drug or tool I use in a totally unfamiliar system. After reading the abstract (usually provided along with the request to review), I wrote back that I won’t be the most knowledgeable about all the working parts, but I’d be happy to share my critique of my area of expertise. Owning up to my limitations seemed to go a long way towards helping Reviewing Editors get to know me and feel comfortable having me turn in reviews that they could balance out with other experts. It also helped me broaden my expertise as I grew accustomed to new systems.

3. Be Nice: Getting reviews back is rough. Say things nicely. Like you would want someone to say to you. And then say things that are consistent with the scores you turn into the editors. It saves tired editor from trying to fill in gaps. I have a comparable rejection rate to other reviewers, but I think I have distinguished myself in that I always try hard to see the value in a manuscript. I start my first paragraph summarizing what has been done and why it is important. And I believe what I’m saying. I think that people are trying hard to do good work and if I don’t see the value in their model/question, I’ll do more background reading.

4. Review What’s in Front of You: One of the worst author experiences I had as an author was when we submitted a grueling paper on molecules and mechanisms and got a reviewer telling us we should test our hypothesis in a stroke model. Not hypothetically as a future direction…they wanted actual data. Which would have been an extra 2 years of work and $100,000. I responded to all the other comments and when I got to that one, I just wrote “No. This is absurd and untenable.” *mic drop* I probably should have gotten out the thesaurus and found word other than “absurd,” but the editor agreed and the paper got in.

While I would not recommend this kind of show down, I’d like to think I am keenly aware that my job as a reviewer is not to show folks how smart I am.

My job as a reviewer is to

critique what authors turn in,
make sure I can see what they are showing me
evaluate the interpretation,
do my best to ensure everything is ethical
ensure that the journal I’m reviewing for is the right audience
fill in some gaps on relevant literature.

That’s it. If you don’t hit the standards for innovation, mechanism and appeal for the journal, you will be getting the dreaded “better suited for a specialized journal” email. Sorry/not sorry.

5. Know the Editors: Many societies give editorial board members fancy ribbons for their badges and what not. I made a habit of knowing who was sending me reviews, going to their talks and introducing myself. I’d thank them for the opportunity to review or offer to review if they hadn’t asked me but I read the journal consistently. I’d follow up with an email welcoming any feedback they had. And I meant it. I really wanted to know if I was doing okay.

Additional protip: I use to wonder why no one at meetings who was on the editorial boards was saying “hi” to me. Here’s the truth. Once you hit 45, you have the vision of a naked mole rat. Seriously. I can’t see anything, much less your face at a conference. Touching base once a year is helpful without being needy.

6. Big Brother is Watching You: Yes, editors have a database. Yes, you’re in it. It has your expertise, turn around time and a rating on the quality of your reviews. Turn in your stuff on time. Don’t be mean.

I hope this helps. Happy reviewing!

Exciting AND Consistent? Verbs and Nouns in Scientific Writing

Writing & Publishing December 28, 2016

Pop quiz: Which of these sentences is more interesting?

1. We did the experiment, and it was a vivid example of the power of broccoli to make kids gag.

2. We performed the experiment, which vividly demonstrated the power of broccoli to make kids gag.

You chose the second one, right? (Please make my former English teacher heart happy and say you did.) That’s the power of verbs other than “to be” and “to do,” my friends.

The Edge for Scholars’ favorite scientific editor, Hope Lafferty, has a video all about why you should think carefully about your choice of verbs and how to replace too-common, too-boring ones. Grant reviewers and journal editors want to be excited by your work. Help them out by making your writing exciting, too.

…But don’t go too far. “If a variety of verbs is good, then surely a cornucopia of nouns is even better!” Not really. Nouns are your anchors. Get too wild, and readers will lose track of exactly what you’re trying to say. In a post about noun consistency, Hope writes, “In scientific writing, compliance and adherence are my two favorite examples. Clinical researchers might not see any problem with alternating these words for the same concept. Epidemiologists, however, would find the mixed use confusing. Some readers would too, especially if the terms keep switching in the text. We were talking about compliance. Now we’re talking about adherence. Did I miss something? Readers believe it’s their problem, when it’s really a problem with the writing.”

You can write crystal clear prose that still thrills your reader. Use consistent nouns and vary your verbs to talk about the same thing in exciting ways.

Pearls of Wisdom from Study Section Members

Writing & Publishing December 21, 2016

Sitting with a stack of 40 grants to review is a sure way to get focused on what makes a grant submission strong. The following pointers are from Dr. Chris Eischen, a multi-R01 funded cancer investigator and Associate Professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Listen up. As a grantsmanship heavy hitter and NCI study section member, she knows what she is talking about:

Make sure you are asking an important question for the field, and also make sure it is not an incremental advance.
Provide preliminary data to support each aim.
Write for a general audience, but make sure there are some details that only experts will know; in other words, do not assume experts in your field will review it, but if they do, you need to look like you have a depth of knowledge.
Be clear and concise throughout and provide logical, understandable lines of thought for what you are proposing and why you are proposing it.
Emphasize the importance of the research proposed to humans.
Start writing a new grant months ahead of time to allow time for ideas to simmer and to obtain input from others. Have multiple people (inside and outside field) at least a month before planning on submitting critique your application.
Propose interesting experiments with at least some cutting-edge technology.
Apply to both federal and private grant agencies, but need to write differently for each.
When responding to grant critiques, be positive and appreciative and not angry or irritated; answer all points.
For the parts of the grant you lack expertise, make sure you line up collaborators and/or consultants (to help write, critique, and/or just help with experiments if funded).

Contributed by

Chris Eischen, PhD
Associate Professor
Pathology, Microbiology & Immunology, Cancer Biology