7 results
Search Results
2. Women are underrepresented in computational biology: An analysis of the scholarly literature in biology, computer science and computational biology.
- Author
-
Bonham KS and Stefan MI
- Subjects
- Career Choice, Female, Humans, Sex Distribution, Women, Authorship, Biology organization & administration, Biology statistics & numerical data, Computational Biology organization & administration, Computational Biology statistics & numerical data, Information Science organization & administration, Information Science statistics & numerical data, Publications statistics & numerical data
- Abstract
While women are generally underrepresented in STEM fields, there are noticeable differences between fields. For instance, the gender ratio in biology is more balanced than in computer science. We were interested in how this difference is reflected in the interdisciplinary field of computational/quantitative biology. To this end, we examined the proportion of female authors in publications from the PubMed and arXiv databases. There are fewer female authors on research papers in computational biology, as compared to biology in general. This is true across authorship position, year, and journal impact factor. A comparison with arXiv shows that quantitative biology papers have a higher ratio of female authors than computer science papers, placing computational biology in between its two parent fields in terms of gender representation. Both in biology and in computational biology, a female last author increases the probability of other authors on the paper being female, pointing to a potential role of female PIs in influencing the gender balance.
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Ten Simple (Empirical) Rules for Writing Science.
- Author
-
Weinberger, Cody J., Evans, James A., and Allesina, Stefano
- Subjects
TECHNICAL writing ,AUTHORSHIP ,LANGUAGE & languages ,TECHNOLOGICAL terminology ,ADVERBS (Grammar) ,PRESENT tense (Grammar) - Abstract
The article presents ten simple rules for scientific writing. Topics discussed include priority to be given for shorter abstracts, use of present tense, avoiding adjectives and adverbs, keeping sentences or phrasing short and breaking compound sentences into simpler sentences, and use of plain language rather than technical terms.
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Ten simple rules for writing a popular science book.
- Author
-
Kucharski, Adam J.
- Subjects
AUTHORSHIP ,AUTHORS ,AUTHOR-reader relationships ,BOOKS ,WRITING - Abstract
The article focuses on main points to be considered by a budding author while writing a book. It is advised to write a complete draft, put it in a drawer, then forget about it while writing a good novel. It is recommended to find the right topic for the book and it is better if the topic is timely and new.
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. Ten simple rules for writing a career development award proposal.
- Author
-
Botham, Crystal M., Arribere, Joshua A., Brubaker, Sky W., and Beier, Kevin T.
- Subjects
GRANT writing ,CAREER development ,GRANTS (Money) ,AUTHORSHIP ,MENTORING in the professions ,MENTORING - Abstract
The article presents rules for writing a proposal for a career development grant. Applicants are advised to have three months of full-time effort for completing the application, to use the review criteria as a guide for writing a proposal and to write a clear and concise proposal. The importance of having a mentoring team during the proposed funding program is discussed.
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. Ten simple rules for reviewers
- Author
-
Philip E. Bourne and Alon Korngreen
- Subjects
Time Factors ,Operations research ,Computer science ,QH301-705.5 ,Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience ,Argument ,Citation analysis ,None ,Genetics ,Biology (General) ,Molecular Biology ,Scientific misconduct ,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics ,Simple (philosophy) ,Ecology ,Conflict of Interest ,business.industry ,Interpretation (philosophy) ,Conflict of interest ,Subject (documents) ,Public relations ,Authorship ,Editorial ,Computational Theory and Mathematics ,Modeling and Simulation ,Science policy ,business ,Bioinformatics - Computational Biology - Abstract
Last summer, the Student Council of the International Society for Computational Biology prompted an Editorial, “Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published” [1]. The interest in that piece (it has been downloaded 14,880 times thus far) prompted “Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Grant” [2]. With this third contribution, the “Ten Rules” series would seem to be established, and more rules for different audiences are in the making. Ten Simple Rules for Reviewers is based upon our years of experience as reviewers and as managers of the review process. Suggestions also came from PLoS staff and Editors and our research groups, the latter being new and fresh to the process of reviewing. The rules for getting articles published included advice on becoming a reviewer early in your career. If you followed that advice, by working through your mentors who will ask you to review, you will then hopefully find these Ten Rules for Reviewers helpful. There is no magic formula for what constitutes a good or a bad paper—the majority of papers fall in between—so what do you look for as a reviewer? We would suggest, above all else, you are looking for what the journal you are reviewing for prides itself on. Scientific novelty—there is just too much “me-too” in scientific papers—is often the prerequisite, but not always. There is certainly a place for papers that, for example, support existing hypotheses, or provide a new or modified interpretation of an existing finding. After journal scope, it comes down to a well-presented argument and everything else described in “Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published” [1]. Once you know what to look for in a paper, the following simple reviewer guidelines we hope will be useful. Certainly (as with all PLoS Computational Biology material) we invite readers to use the PLoS eLetters feature to suggest their own rules and comments on this important subject.
- Published
- 2006
7. I Am Not a Scientist, I Am a Number
- Author
-
Philip E. Bourne and J. Lynn Fink
- Subjects
Computer science ,Science ,Scientific literature ,World Wide Web ,Unique identifier ,Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience ,Citation analysis ,Genetics ,Digital Object Identifier ,lcsh:QH301-705.5 ,Molecular Biology ,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics ,Publishing ,Ecology ,Media studies ,Records ,Computational Biology ,Authorship ,United States ,Identifier ,Scholarship ,Identification (information) ,lcsh:Biology (General) ,Computational Theory and Mathematics ,Bibliometrics ,Modeling and Simulation ,Perspective ,Journal Impact Factor ,Suspect ,Algorithms - Abstract
We suspect many of our readers will be familiar with the cult TV show The Prisoner, in which actor Patrick McGoohan had his identity taken away by unknown assailants for unknown reasons, and his pleas of “I am not a number, I am a person” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29JewlGsYxs&feature=related) were greeted with variants of “whatever you say, number six.” We would suggest that, as scientists, we are in a situation where the opposite will soon be true, at least for the purposes of scientific scholarship. Scientists will want to be assigned a number, or at least a unique identifier. Why? Imagine a time when you and your complete scholarly output—papers, grant applications, blog posts, etc.—could be identified online and in perpetuity and returned in a variety of easy-to-digest ways. While ego comes into it as a driver to make this happen, measuring scientific career advancement is something that lacks good metrics in a digital world. Unless one has a truly unique name, applying such a metric is not possible now. Even with a unique name, what is the guarantee that all of our scholarly output will be captured by one source of that information? In the end, we as individuals are the only ones who reliably track our scholarly output. This situation is beginning to change, and, as we shall see, new metrics have the promise of much more than simply returning references to our collective life's work as currently described by research papers, research proceedings, books, and book chapters. Although even a complete and current resume generated on demand would be a big step, if it could be returned in a variety of formats for a variety of purposes. These complete resumes are something many of us spend endless hours generating. The idea of having our scholarly output properly characterized is not out of reach, since the articles we write are already identified uniquely by a Digital Object Identifier (DOI; discussed further below). A book or journal is identified by an ISBN, and citations are identified by PubMed identifiers, and so on. The ideas discussed here simply take this identification process for individual publications and citations to the point of providing unique descriptors for each author and to uniquely identify all of each author's scholarly work.
- Published
- 2008
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.