Search

An editorial is presented which discusses the collaborative writing with multiple authors which has additional challenges including varied levels of engagement of coauthors, provision of fair credit through authorship or acknowledgements and acceptance of diversity of work styles. Also discussed are the 10 simple rules for collaboratively writing a multi-authored paper which include to build a writing team wisely; to create a data management plan and to jointly decide on authorship guidelines.

The article presents several rules for restructuring papers to avoid losing readers. Authors are instructed to focus their papers on a central contribution and to concentrate on the context-content-conclusion (C-C-C) scheme. They are also advised to optimize a paper's logical flow by avoiding zig-zag and using parallelism and to include complete story in the abstract.

The article offers several rules for writing a reply paper. It mentions that before writing a reply determine if it is appropriate to write and writing a perspectives papers are applicable for annual reviews or for journals. It states that one should not overawe with bid data or big name like genomics, proteomics and GenBank, and highlights that always follow facts rather than being personal while writing a reply paper.

The author discusses the factors which should be considered by researchers while writing research papers. Topics discussed include analyzing the logical flow of experiments, choosing a target audience or a right journal for delivering main messages of the research to them, and discussion of various aspects of a hypothesis pursued in the research. Also mentioned are a Nobel-Prize-winning paper on the DNA double helix structure, and objective reading of reviews of the papers.

Biological network figures are ubiquitous in the biology and medical literature. On the one hand, a good network figure can quickly provide information about the nature and degree of interactions between items and enable inferences about the reason for those interactions. On the other hand, good network figures are difficult to create. In this paper, we outline 10 simple rules for creating biological network figures for communication, from choosing layouts, to applying color or other channels to show attributes, to the use of layering and separation. These rules are accompanied by illustrative examples. We also provide a concise set of references and additional resources for each rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Workshops are used to explore a specific topic, to transfer knowledge, to solve identified problems, or to create something new. In funded research projects and other research endeavours, workshops are the mechanism used to gather the wider project, community, or interested people together around a particular topic. However, natural questions arise: how do we measure the impact of these workshops? Do we know whether they are meeting the goals and objectives we set for them? What indicators should we use? In response to these questions, this paper will outline rules that will improve the measurement of the impact of workshops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses rules for considering regarding preprint submission of scientific work in journals. Topics include analysis of published papers undertaken by cell biologist Stephen Royle for estimating the average time from first submission to publication, data mining of the written content for making it better utilizing the knowledge, and encouraging authors to licenses and formats for facilitating reuse while retaining copyright to their work.

The article presents ten simple rules for effective online outreach. Topics discussed include writing blog posts for newly published paper, need of formal planning mechanism for all online outreach projects, need of good content, and use of online social networking tools including Twitter and Facebook, to promote content, and collection of data.

The author reflects on the importance of reproducibility and replication which has been illustrated by studies resulting that scientific papers commonly leave out experimental details which are important for reproduction. He states that there are few simple rules for reproducible computational research such as For Every Result, Keep Track of How it Was Produced, and Version Control All Custom Scripts.

The author reflects on the simple rules for writing a literature review in scientific fields. He suggests the importance for scientists to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature as they cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests. He cites the characteristics of a topic that are likely to lead to a literature review. He also advises the need to search and re-search the literature.