UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

How to get your paper

published in Science or
Nature
Or, What is scientific writing is all about ?

Audrey J. Geffen, BIO

 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Topics to cover
• Developing the correct scientific writing style for scientific
journals
• Structure of a scientific article and tips for organization of
material
• Choosing the right journal
• Ethics of using sources and citations
• How to review and critique articles: contributing to the
scientific community
• English vs Scientific English
• How to be a better writer
• Anti-establishment alternatives: risks and benefits
(including open access and predatory journals)

PAGE 2
https://goo.gl/PrnuoE
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Schedule of Activities

PAGE 3
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

PAGE 4
Let’s get to know each
other:

Go to pollev.com\ajgeffen
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

What’s the purpose of scientific papers?

Communication vs Dissemination
Communicate your activities
Disseminate your results

2.11.2017 PAGE 6
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Reporting your Research Results

• What are the rules for writing a scientific paper?
• Are there added issues at work in the digital,
online world?
• Why is there a scientific publishing industry, how
does it work, and what is my role in it?

PAGE 7
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

PAGE 8
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

PAGE 9
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

PAGE 10
Steps to scientific publishing 2017

Terms, conditions and fees apply!

Books on scientific writing,
and other resources
Books on scientific writing
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Classic writing guides

PAGE 14
 Tools for research and writing

Evernote
R
LaTeX
sokogskriv.no/en/
Evernote
Structure of a scientific
article and tips for
organization of material
 Why is structure so important? UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

A scientific article has a PURPOSE

The procedure is actually quite simple. First you arrange
items into different groups. Of course, one pile may be
sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have
to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities that is the next
step; otherwise, you are pretty well set. It is important not
to overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at
once than too many. In the short run this may not seem
important but complications can easily arise. A mistake can
be expensive as well. At first, the whole procedure will seem
complicated. Soon, however, it will become just another
facet of life. It is difficult to foresee any end to the necessity
for this task in the immediate future, but then, one can
never tell. After the procedure is completed one arranges
the materials into different groups again. Then they can be
put into their appropriate places. Eventually they will be
used once more and the whole process will then have to be
PAGE 17
repeated. However, that is a part of life.
Bransford, 1979; p. 134-135; original study by Bransford & Johnson, 1972
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Holst method: Mensch & Kolding

Tables & Figures method:
(Results) / Tables & Figures
Abstract (Results)

Introduction

Student method:
Methods,
Tables & Figures (Results)
Introduction/Discussion
Abstract
PAGE 18
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Why Abstract first?

What is the question we are
answering/ problem we are
studying? Why is it an
important question/ problem?
What did we know about it
before this study (state-of-the-
art)?
How do the results presented
advance our knowledge?

PAGE 19
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

context-
content-
conclusio:
The C-C-C
scheme

Mensh & Kording (2017)

PAGE 20
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Let’s write a paper now

3 authors (2-4)
1-2 editors
3 reviewers (2-3)
1. Get into groups of 6-10 people, pick a letter
between A and K
2. Choose 3-5 to be «authors», 2 or 3 to be
«reviewers», 1 or 2 to be «editors»
Editors can also be Reviewers
3. Go to the google drive and find your page of
results https://goo.gl/mWp1KS
4. Take 15 minutes to get into your roles:
PAGE 21
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Let’s write a paper:

4. Take 15 minutes to get into your roles:

4. Authors discuss what your message is
5. Editors decide what journals you represent
6. Reviewers can relax for now!

Each group has 5 result elements: 3 Figures

(including a map), 1 Table, and 1 photo.
You need to include at least 4 elements in your
«paper»
PAGE 22
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Let’s write a paper:

Each group has 5 result elements: 3 Figures

(including a map), 1 Table, and 1 photo.
You need to include at least 4 elements in your
«paper»

5. Work for 1 hour on your paper – this is a

good example of why you would write the
abstract first! Remember the C-C-C:
give us the context,
present the content,
conclude your message
PAGE 23
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Let’s write a paper:

5. Work for 1 hour on your paper – this is a
good example of why you would write the
abstract first! Remember the C-C-C:
give us the context,
present the content,
conclude your message
6. Authors talk to the editors, pick your journal
7. Editors pick your reviewers/referees
8. Referees read and review the paper
9. Editors receive the review comments

PAGE 24
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Let’s write a paper:

9. Editors give the review comments to
authors, summarizing the changes that
need to be made
10. Authors discuss the comments, focus on
WHY, in addition to WHAT
11. Make a list of what changes you need to
make.
12. Discuss with the «editors» whether these
changes will allow the paper to be accepted
for publication

PAGE 25
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
English vs Scientific English
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Remember your readers!

It is tempting to be «clever», or «interesting» -
BUT
It is better to be clear and boring!

PAGE 39
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Title: a balance between advertising

and overselling
1) Write 2 titles for the paper you are working on:
1) An interesting title
2) A straight and simple title

2) Exchange the titles with the person next to you

3) What is the paper about?
4) Are you interested in reading further?

PAGE 40
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

What went wrong here?

“Twenty-seven populations of adult European hakes sampled in 2000–2001 were
analyzed in this study, where 13 ones from the Atlantic North had already been
analyzed in Pita et al. (2011) and 15 additional ones enlarged that previous study to the
remaining Atlantic range of the species, including the Western Mediterranean Sea.
Additionally, a Merluccius senegalensis sample was used as outgroup to the
phylogenetic reconstruction (Table 1). A piece of muscle tissue was removed from
each 20–40 individual collected per sample onboard of commercial vessels.
Populations sampled spanned from the Tyrrhenian Sea to the Alboran Sea in the
Mediterranean, from the Gulf of Cadiz to the Bay of Biscay in Atlantic Iberia and south
to the Canarian Sea, and from the Bay of Biscay to the Celtic Sea extending to the
North Sea. Samples were kept in 96% ethanol upon collection until genomic DNA was
extracted and purified using the method FENOSALT (Pérez and Presa, 2011). Purified
PAGE 41 DNA was resuspended in 500 μL of TE buffer and kept at –20 °C until analysis»
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Can you improve this?

1. Read the passage (the abstract of a published
article): https://goo.gl/AvGJD4

2. Summarize what the authors are trying to say

3. Re-write the sentences that are not clear,
replacing words that might be mis-understood

PAGE 42
Developing the correct scientific
writing style for scientific
journals –

It makes knowledge exchange

more efficient!
Counting Vowels in 45 seconds

How accurate are you?

Count all the vowels

in the words on the next
slide.
Dollar Bill Cat Lives
Dice Bowling Pins
Tricycle Football Team
Four-leaf Clover Dozen Eggs
Hand Unlucky Friday
Six-Pack Valentine’s Day
Seven-Up Quarter Hour
Octopus
How many words or phrases
do you remember?
Let’s look at the words again…

What are they arranged

according to?
Dollar Bill Cat Lives
Dice Bowling Pins
Tricycle Football Team
Four-leaf Clover Dozen Eggs
Hand Unlucky Friday
Six-Pack Valentine’s Day
Seven-Up Quarter Hour
Octopus
NOW, how many words or phrases do
you remember?
 What were two major differences
between the two attempts?
1. We knew what the task was
2. We knew how the information
was organized

The structure and style of a

scientific article works this way
How to be a better writer:
Write regularly!
Spend 1 hr per day on a paper
– don’t worry about quantity

Learn to be a better Reader!

A Reading Strategy that Works: SQ5R
 Survey (look at intro, summary, bold
print, italicized words, etc.)
 Question (devise questions that you think
the reading will answer)
 Read (one paragraph at a time)
 Recite (summarize in your own words)
 Record or wRite (annotate in margins)
 Review (summarize the information in
your words)
 Reflect (other views, remaining questions)
Ethics of using sources
and citations

Practice with SQ5R helps!

How to avoid Plagarism

 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

What needs to be cited?

Statements from other sources (not your own

material or thoughts) need to be referenced / cited
Direct quotations – limit the length
****Indirect quotation – paraphrase and interpret

PAGE 54
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

Example of how to cite

The following original passage can be found in MacIntosh, R. and MacLean,
D. (1999), Conditioned Emergence: A Dissipative Structures Approach to
Transformation, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 20, No. 4, 1999 … this
passage appears on p299-300.

“… It is clear that in many respects the content and process views of

strategy are complementary if taken as a set or incomplete if treated as
individual elements. If one likens the issue to a journey, the content
approach has a clear destination but the means of transport is
indeterminate whereas with the process approach the transport is known
and in motion, but the journey is something of a “mystery tour.” One could
argue that if a complete theory of strategy is in fact needed, why not just
use the two approaches as appropriate as is indeed the practice in many
institutions. It is our belief however that an overall framework which
transforms and reconciles the mutually contradictory assumptions of each
approach would constitute a significant step forward, in both practical and
scholarly terms. …”

PAGE 55
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN
In many respects the content and process
views of strategy are complementary if A
taken as a set or incomplete if treated as
individual elements.

In many respects the content and process

views of strategy are complementary if
taken as a set or incomplete if treated as
individual elements (MacIntosh and B
MacLean, 1999).

The process and content views of strategy

may be viewed as complementary. The
content view focuses on a clear destination
but doesn’t explain the means of transport. C
The process view focuses on the means of
transport but the destination remains a
mystery tour.

PAGE 56
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN
‘It could be argued that a complete
theory of strategy is needed using D
the two approaches as appropriate.’
(MacIntosh and MacLean, 1999

When considering the literature on

strategy research, some argue that
the process and content views of
strategy may be complementary so
long as they are considered in
tandem (e.g. MacIntosh and E
MacLean 1999). Indeed is has been
argued that ‘an overall framework
which transforms and reconciles the
mutually contradictory assumptions
of each approach would constitute a
significant step forward, in both
practical and scholarly terms.’ (op cit.
p300)
PAGE 57
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN
In many respects the content and
process views of strategy are
complementary if taken as a set or
incomplete if treated as individual
elements.
In many respects the content and
process views of strategy are
complementary if taken as a set or
incomplete if treated as individual
elements (MacIntosh and MacLean,
1999).
The process and content views of
strategy may be viewed as
complementary. The content view
focuses on a clear destination but
doesn’t explain the means of
transport. The process view focuses
on the means of transport but the
destination remains a mystery tour.
PAGE 58
Obvious plagiarism
Word-for-word repetition without
acknowledgement.
Still plagiarism
The footnote alone does not help. The language
in the main body of the text is still that of the
original authors. Only quotation marks around
the whole passage plus the page numbers
where the quote appears would be correct.
Still plagiarism
The original work has been paraphrased, with a
few words changed or omitted, but by no
stretch of the imagination is the student writer
using his own language.
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN
‘It could be argued that a complete
theory of strategy is needed using
the two approaches as appropriate.’
(MacIntosh and MacLean, 1999
When considering the literature on
strategy research, some argue that
the process and content views of
strategy may be complementary so
long as they are considered in
tandem (e.g. MacIntosh and
MacLean 1999). Indeed is has been
argued that ‘an overall framework
which transforms and reconciles the
mutually contradictory assumptions
of each approach would constitute a
significant step forward, in both
practical and scholarly
PAGE 59 terms.’ (op cit.
p300)
Not quite plagiarism, but incorrect and
inaccurate The quotation marks indicate exact
repetition of what was originally written. The
student writer, however, has changed some of
the original and is not entitled to use the
quotation marks. Also, there is no indication of
which page number the quotes were taken
from.
Correct
In the first sentence, the student writer uses
his own words to summarize a view found in
the literature whilst acknowledging the source
of the insight. In the second sentence, a
quotation is used to make a specific point and
the citation specifies which article the quote is
drawn from and the page on which it appears.
The quotation is also an accurate and verbatim
copy from the original source.
How to review and
critique articles (including
your own)
Reviewing contributes to
the scientific community –
the 3:1 rule
Twenty questions to guide your scientific
reading and writing
1. Is the manuscript timely and relevant to a current problem?
2. Does the Introduction provide clearly the rationale for the
study?
3. Is there a clearly stated hypothesis?
4. Has the research question been answered previously by
another study?
5. Is the ms well written, logical and easy to understand?
6. Can the Methods section be used as a guide to replicate the
study?
7. Is the study well-designed with the appropriate
methodology? Do the Methods adequately test the
hypothesis?
8. Are the statistics completely described? Is there a biased or
small sample population? Is the collecting of data sufficiently
described?
Twenty questions to guide your scientific
reading and writing (cont.)
9. Are the Results clear?
10. Are the Results over-interpreted?
11. Do the figures and tables illustrate important features of methods and
results?
12. Do the figures and tables support the text, or repeat the text?
13. Does the Discussion state if the hypothesis is rejected or if the research
questions are answered?
14. Are unexpected findings explained or ignored?
15. Are the limitations to the study addressed?
16. Are the authors’ claims reasonable?
17. Who paid for the research?
18. Who do(es) the author(s) work for?
19. What do the conclusions mean in a wider context?
20. Who would find this of interest and why?
Choosing the right journal
How do you want to be known?
(ecologist, geneticist, climate researcher)

Where are your readers? Where do they publish?

What does your career need?

(prestige, bibliometrics, widespread name)

Publish in journals with titles from A-Z

UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN
Anti-establishment
alternatives: risks and
benefits, and types of
Open Access journals
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

New models:

PAGE 66 https://www.biogeosciences.net/
 UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN

New models – changing peer review

PAGE 67
https://www.biogeosciences.net/
 Statement:
This is an
important step
towards equality
within the
scientific
community, by
scratching away at
the bias towards
US and EU-centric
views of our
understanding the
world, connecting
scientific
communities and
allowing them to
exchange data and
research findings
freely.
Discuss……
From https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/06/why-science-needs-to-open-up
Anti-establishment
alternatives: risks and
benefits of predatory
journals
The business model of scientific publishing
(2017)
“At the start of my career, nobody took much notice of where you published,
and then everything changed in 1974 with Cell,”
Randy Schekman, the Berkeley molecular biologist and Nobel prize winner

Robert Maxwell
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
What are scientific articles
used for?

USED FOR:
Accreditation as:
PhD (thesis)
scientist (job)
grant proposals
job applications
tenure
Basis for central funding of:
public research Institutions
patents
ownership of discoveries
international reputation of institution
What are scientific articles used for?
-follow the money
How much money do journal publishers make?
Here are some impressive numbers from an article
that appeared on a French website called "Rue89.«
The figures are for the year 2011 and are in euros.
They include revenue from all science publishing, not just medicine.

As you can see profit margins range from 32% to nearly 42%.
Elsevier's profit of over €878 million converts to just over $1 billion.

Hindawi is twice as profitable…..

Beall's list and the Science sting
In 2013, Science published the results of a sting operation
in which a scientifically flawed spoof publication was submitted to open access publications.[22]
Many accepted the manuscript, and a disproportionate number of the accepting journals were on Beall's list.[23]
The publication, entitled Who's Afraid of Peer Review?,
concluded that Beall is "good at spotting publishers with poor quality control".
Of publishers on his list that completed the review process, it was accepted by 82%.[22]
Beall remarked that the author of the sting, John Bohannon,
"basically found what I've been saying for years".[24]

From http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full October 2013

OMICS and HINDAWI
OMICS (text from
Questionable publishers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Beall accessed 18 sept 2017)

In May 2013, OMICS Publishing Group, which had also been

included on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers,[20]
issued a warning to Beall in a poorly-written letter[37]
stating that they intended to sue him, and were seeking $1 billion
in damages[38][39] under section 66A of India's Information
Technology Act, 2000.[40] ….[41]

In 2016, …the U.S. Federal Trade Commission had filed a lawsuit

in Federal District Court[43] against the OMICS group.[44][45]
The complaint is the first against an academic publisher[46] and
alleges that the defendants have been "deceiving academics
and researchers about the nature of its publications
and hiding publication fees ranging from hundreds to
thousands of dollars,"[43] holding manuscripts hostage
by seeking fees to allow them to be withdrawn,[42][46] and
promoting predatory conferences;[43][44]

Inside Higher Education reports that Beall has published

examples of these sorts of activities by OMICS, and he has
previously said of the organisation:

"If anything is predatory, it's that publisher.

It's the worst of the worst."[44][47] OMICS' attorneys have
described the allegations as baseless.[45]
From: http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/new-owner-of-
two-canadian-medical-journals-is-publishing-fake-research-for-cash-and-pretending-its-genuine
Published Nov 2016, accessed Sept 2017
Beall’s list of predatory journals

http://beallslist.weebly.com/
How many journal approaches do active scientists field each month??
Do science that matters rather than science that «counts»!

Note how many times David Brown

is in my mailbox in the last 2 weeks alone
Based on what you know, how would you critique this email??

Source? A bot, unsolicited

Name? No full names given

Realism? A 5 day deadline

Fee? 450 USD or 3600 NOK

Who benefits? Guess….

1st issue Nov 2016 first article available, note mistake in title:
“Bioengineering for health: development of a knowledge-based for the benefit of
environmental health care”
Useful critical resources

How to tell fake from real

From: Shamseer et al 2017 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5353955/

Useful resources

From:
http://thinkchecksubmit.org/check/
Useful resources
• http://www.oalib.com/rank/showKeywordsOfJournal
• https://publicationethics.org/
• https://clinicallibrarian.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/bealls-list-
of-predatory-publishers/
• https://www.nature.com/news/stop-this-waste-of-people-
animals-and-money-1.22554 (2017 : the podcast link is interesting too)
• http://retractionwatch.com/
• https://www.etikkom.no/FBIB/Praktisk/Lover-og-
retningslinjer/Vancouverreglene/
• http://tidsskriftet.no/2016/09/leder/ti-ar-etter-sudbo-saken
With thanks to:
Karin Pittman
Saundra McGuire

…..and authors of the papers used in the role playing exercise

UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN