32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ten simple rules for scientists: Improving your writing productivity

      editorial

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction … As a scientist, you are a professional writer. Writing is as important a tool in your toolbox as molecular biology, chemical analysis, statistics, or other purely “scientific” tools. Some of these tools allow us to generate data; others to analyze and communicate results. Writing is the most important of the latter. Because it forms the bridge to your audience, it can act as the rate-limiting step that constrains the effectiveness of all other tools.—Joshua Schimel [1] Science requires communicating new and exciting findings to diverse audiences. Written communication is especially critical for our success as scientists because we must write to receive degrees (e.g., dissertations), share our discoveries (e.g., manuscripts and abstracts for professional meetings), request funding (e.g., grants, contracts), etc. The process of writing can also refine our research because good writing is an iterative process, with feedback leading to new ideas and experimental follow-up. In reality, we often postpone working on communication until we feel ready or a deadline is imminent, which diminishes our ability for clear writing. We often procrastinate sharing our writing because we consider our audience to be only the peer reviewers of grants and manuscripts. We neglect the opportunity to use perhaps the most important audience of all: ourselves. The best way to engage with ourselves is to develop a strong and sustained writing practice. Writing every day, even for a short time, improves our thinking and our productivity as scientists. It provides time and space for reflection, allowing new ideas to mature, and maintains perspective on challenging work. We agree with Scott Montgomery that “… ‘clear thinking can emerge from clear writing.’ Imposing order by organizing and expressing ideas has great power to clarify. In many cases, writing is the process through which scientists come to understand the real form and implications of their work” [2]. However, even with the best of intentions, it is easy to postpone writing (Box 1). We believe that establishing a writing practice must be a deliberate act. We further believe that the pay-off for establishing this practice will be found in increased productivity and impact. Here, we outline 10 simple rules for improving your writing productivity, which will also enhance your thinking as a scientist. Box 1. Hurdles to writing that all scientists can face Types of Writing Resistance Evaluation: “This draft stinks.” Inspiration: “I don’t have a good idea yet.” Motivation: “I just don’t feel like it.” Optimization: “I need to make this sentence perfect.” Procrastination: “I will start working on it tomorrow.” Separation: “I need a lot of time in a quiet place to write.” Temptation: “My lab bench is really disorganized; it needs to be cleaned now.” Rule 1: Define your writing time The essential key for writing is to write regularly—like it or not—great ideas come often by writing; releasing the subconscious—waiting for inspiration and ideas will not work, but it does help to have a notebook with you all the time for sudden brainstorms or inspiration.—Dr. Robert Marc Friedman [3] Commit yourself to writing daily or at least three to four times per week by defining the time when you will write. Pick a bitesize chunk of time where you are unlikely to have conflicts, so that this time is protected for writing and nothing else. For example, if writing right before bed results in a conflict with exhaustion, choose a time earlier in the day. Setting aside just 15 to 30 minutes each day may be sufficient because even short amounts of time can enable meaningful increases in your productivity. As you set your initial goal, consider the SMART criteria: specific, measurable, action-oriented, reasonable, time-bound [4]. For example: “I am going to write from 8:30 AM to 9:30 AM on weekdays.” Write down your goal on a sticky note, and place it where you will have a daily reminder of your goal—attach it to your coffee grinder or stick it on your computer screen or near your pipettes. Block off the time on your calendar as another permanent reminder of your commitment to writing. You might also use a calendar reminder or an alarm on your phone to catch your attention when it is time to start writing. Then, when you are more comfortable with your writing schedule, consider building up the time you spend writing. Rule 2: Create a working environment that really works Where are you most likely to settle in and write without external distractions? Some people work best in a café or on a flight. Others need complete silence and are most effective working in the library. Once you have identified your preferred writing space, learn to manage distractions. If you find yourself focused on that email you forgot to send, or if finding an antibody for your upcoming experiment suddenly seems urgent, you may want to start a running “to do” list and address it at the conclusion of your writing time. Resist the urge to write a quick email or other small task because it creates further opportunities to procrastinate. Unavoidable interruptions can be managed by saying, “I am committing this time to writing, can I contact you when I am done?” If you have difficulty ignoring the siren call of new emails or the internet, turn it off for the duration of your writing time. Constant interruptions disrupt your thinking and eat up your time for writing. Rule 3: Write first, edit later During your designated writing time: Write! If you feel stuck, try writing whatever pops into your head for the first five minutes, or label your draft as a “cruddy first draft,” or write your thoughts as a letter to someone who you care about so you are not distracted by making it perfect. Just putting something down on paper will drive the creative process. Ignore your internal editor when it interferes—your task is to write without inhibition. The evaluative component, i.e., editing and polishing, should come later. Rule 4: Use triggers to develop a productive writing habit Maintaining a concrete habit can shift your attitude towards writing and reduce anxiety about how to start, how to finish, and how to make your work flow. To ensure your habit develops, make use of triggers to kick off that automatic urge to write like taking a brisk walk before writing or making a pot of your favorite tea. Maybe you decide to write after your department’s weekly research seminar. Music can be an effective trigger too, as long as it doesn’t take too much of your attention. Spend some time determining a few effective triggers and strategically place these before your writing time to help you write routinely. Your goal should be to make writing a habit, like brushing your teeth, so even if you don’t feel like writing you still do it. Rule 5: Be accountable Establishing any new habit is hard without accountability. How can you best ensure that you stick to it? You can work with rewards—allowing yourself to read a chapter in that new book you love, watch a short video, or have a second cup of coffee after completing your writing time. We have found it helpful to pair up with a writing buddy. For example, once you have a time established, you can text or email your colleague to say, “I’m starting,” and then contact them again when you are done. The simple act of communicating your habit can help you keep on course. You could also arrange to meet somewhere and write together, as long as you remain focused on the tasks at hand. Rule 6: Seek feedback and ask for what you want It can be scary to share your drafts and elicit feedback, but writing effectively is not a solitary activity. Eventually someone is going to read what you wrote, and you can help make that experience a good one for your audience. You can and should elicit feedback from all sorts of people. Ask for feedback early and often from fellow graduate students or postdocs, other colleagues or collaborators, and research mentors, both within and outside of your discipline. Nonscientists can also provide valuable feedback about the clarity of your ideas. When you share a draft, give your reader some idea of where you are in the writing process and what kinds of things you would like them to focus on. For example, you might ask whether the first paragraph is clear, or what they think the major point is, or if the overall argument is persuasive. Many readers end up focusing on grammar, so let them know ahead of time if you want something more than copyediting. Ask your readers to prioritize their feedback, and give you their top three issues in detail. Good writing requires this iterative process, and each revision will refine your writing. Rule 7: Think about what you’re writing outside of your scheduled writing time Sometimes the best thinking is done when you are otherwise occupied with a mundane task. Similarly, thinking about what you are working on outside your scheduled writing time can lead to more effective writing. Take time away from your writing to allow your mind to churn. Go to the animal facility to manage the murine colony, image cells on the confocal microscope, talk about your latest exciting result, etc. Use this time outside your scheduled writing time to mentally outline early drafts, deepen your argument, refine your hypothesis, etc. Most importantly, thinking about your writing can stimulate your desire to write. Rule 8: Practice, practice, practice Just like any other skill, through practice you will become a better writer. Seek out opportunities to learn new approaches to be a more effective writer. For example, if you are currently working on a manuscript, learn more about that genre. As an example, see the Massive Open Online Course Writing in the Sciences [5] and these other sources for best practices for composing effective manuscripts [6–8]. Reading relentlessly will also help you to become a better writer, so reread those high-impact papers in your field and analyze the authors’ effectiveness at communicating the significance of their research. Do not limit yourself to scientific papers; read a variety of good writing. It is also critical to sharpen your writing skills through exploring writing style and elegance. We recommend reading a classic book on the topic, Elements of Style [9]. It can be helpful to practice engaging audiences by writing for diverse genres (i.e., manuscript, research plan for a proposal, lay abstract, commentary, blog, etc.), which will also keep your writing practice from becoming monotonous. We also recommend that you surround yourself with a supportive community of other writers. Learn from these writers by offering to read and provide feedback on their writing. Asking for feedback and providing it to others will make you a more skilled editor, mentor, and writer. Rule 9: Manage your self-talk about writing Be mindful of your self-talk about writing because negative thinking is detrimental to your writing practice and can squelch your writing. Make a conscious effort to silence your internal editor and redirect demoralizing messages (“There is too much to do. I don’t have enough time.”) to positive, hopeful thoughts (“I am going to make progress today by writing for one hour”). Remind yourself that even incremental progress will lead to something bigger with time. Rule 10: Reevaluate your writing practice often Track your writing, perhaps by marking it off on a calendar, which can serve as a reminder when you have missed a few days. It is normal for your writing practice to have cyclic ups and downs. Don’t be discouraged; all writers must overcome writing resistance at some time or another. If your writing practice is not where you want it to be, think about what is holding you back (see Box 1), then develop strategies to overcome your resistance to writing (see Rules 1–10 and Box 2). Also, periodically accelerate your writing practice by joining a writing retreat or planning a weekend away to write. Truly, the only way to maintain your writing productivity is to keep writing. Box 2. Scientists can improve their written productivity using Rules 1–10 and advice from other writers Tips about writing from writers “The scariest moment is always just before you start.”—Stephen King [10] “Your desire to write grows with writing.”—Desiderius Erasmus [11] “Write freely and as rapidly as possible and throw the whole thing on paper. Never correct or rewrite until the whole thing is done. Rewrite in process is usually found to be an excuse for not moving on. It also interferes with flow and rhythm which can only come from a kind of unconscious association with the material…”—John Steinbeck [12] “Just write every day of your life. Read intensely. Then see what happens. Most of my friends who are put on that diet have very pleasant careers.”—Ray Bradbury [13] “This is how you do it: You sit down at the keyboard and you put one word after another until it’s done. It’s that easy, and that hard.”—Neil Gaiman [14] “Almost all good writing begins with terrible first efforts. You need to start somewhere.”—Anne Lamott [15] “My ideas usually come not at my desk writing but in the midst of living.”—Anais Nin [16] “Amateurs sit and wait for inspiration, the rest of us just get up and go to work.”—Stephen King [17] “You can’t think yourself out of a writing block; you have to write yourself out of a thinking block.”—John Rogers [18] “There is no failure unless one stops.”—Ray Bradbury [19] Conclusion Writing is one of the most important activities that we as scientists engage in because it is critical to share our findings both within and beyond our research community. Use these 10 simple rules to write more and increase your impact as a scientist. But like the iterative process of writing, also evaluate your writing practice often (see Rule 10). Note that it may not be necessary to follow all the rules all the time; experiment and find what works for your writing practice. If you find your writing sessions are becoming less productive because you are facing new hurdles to writing (see Box 1), refine your writing practice using Rules 1–10.

          Related collections

          Most cited references2

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Ten Simple Rules for Writing Research Papers

          The importance of writing well can never be overstated for a successful professional career, and the ability to write solid papers is an essential trait of a productive researcher. Writing and publishing a paper has its own life cycle; properly following a course of action and avoiding missteps can be vital to the overall success not only of a paper but of the underlying research as well. Here, we offer ten simple rules for writing and publishing research papers. As a caveat, this essay is not about the mechanics of composing a paper, much of which has been covered elsewhere, e.g., [1], [2]. Rather, it is about the principles and attitude that can help guide the process of writing in particular and research in general. In this regard, some of the discussion will complement, extend, and refine some advice given in early articles of this Ten Simple Rules series of PLOS Computational Biology [3]–[8]. Rule 1: Make It a Driving Force Never separate writing a paper from the underlying research. After all, writing and research are integral parts of the overall enterprise. Therefore, design a project with an ultimate paper firmly in mind. Include an outline of the paper in the initial project design documents to help form the research objectives, determine the logical flow of the experiments, and organize the materials and data to be used. Furthermore, use writing as a tool to reassess the overall project, reevaluate the logic of the experiments, and examine the validity of the results during the research. As a result, the overall research may need to be adjusted, the project design may be revised, new methods may be devised, and new data may be collected. The process of research and writing may be repeated if necessary. Rule 2: Less Is More It is often the case that more than one hypothesis or objective may be tackled in one project. It is also not uncommon that the data and results gathered for one objective can serve additional purposes. A decision on having one or more papers needs to be made, and the decision will be affected by various factors. Regardless of the validity of these factors, the overriding consideration must be the potential impact that the paper may have on the research subject and field. Therefore, the significance, completeness, and coherence of the results presented as a whole should be the principal guide for selecting the story to tell, the hypothesis to focus upon, and materials to include in the paper, as well as the yardstick for measuring the quality of the paper. By this metric, less is more, i.e., fewer but more significant papers serve both the research community and one's career better than more papers of less significance. Rule 3: Pick the Right Audience Deciding on an angle of the story to focus upon is the next hurdle to jump at the initial stage of the writing. The results from a computational study of a biological problem can often be presented to biologists, computational scientists, or both; deciding what story to tell and from what angle to pitch the main idea is important. This issue translates to choosing a target audience, as well as an appropriate journal, to cast the main messages to. This is critical for determining the organization of the paper and the level of detail of the story, so as to write the paper with the audience in mind. Indeed, writing a paper for biologists in general is different from writing for specialists in computational biology. Rule 4: Be Logical The foundation of “lively” writing for smooth reading is a sound and clear logic underlying the story of the paper. Although experiments may be carried out independently, the result from one experiment may form premises and/or provide supporting data for the next experiment. The experiments and results, therefore, must be presented in a logical order. In order to make the writing an easy process to follow, this logical flow should be determined before any other writing strategy or tactic is exercised. This logical order can also help you avoid discussing the same issue or presenting the same argument in multiple places in the paper, which may dilute the readers' attention. An effective tactic to help develop a sound logical flow is to imaginatively create a set of figures and tables, which will ultimately be developed from experimental results, and order them in a logical way based on the information flow through the experiments. In other words, the figures and tables alone can tell the story without consulting additional material. If all or some of these figures and tables are included in the final manuscript, make every effort to make them self-contained (see Rule 5 below), a favorable feature for the paper to have. In addition, these figures and tables, as well as the threading logical flow, may be used to direct or organize research activities, reinforcing Rule 1. Rule 5: Be Thorough and Make It Complete Completeness is a cornerstone for a research paper, following Rule 2. This cornerstone needs to be set in both content and presentation. First, important and relevant aspects of a hypothesis pursued in the research should be discussed with detailed supporting data. If the page limit is an issue, focus on one or two main aspects with sufficient details in the main text and leave the rest to online supporting materials. As a reminder, be sure to keep the details of all experiments (e.g., parameters of the experiments and versions of software) for revision, post-publication correspondence, or importantly, reproducibility of the results. Second, don't simply state what results are presented in figures and tables, which makes the writing repetitive because they are self-contained (see below), but rather, interpret them with insights to the underlying story to be told (typically in the results section) and discuss their implication (typically in the discussion section). Third, make the whole paper self-contained. Introduce an adequate amount of background and introductory material for the right audience (following Rule 3). A statistical test, e.g., hypergeometric tests for enrichment of a subset of objects, may be obvious to statisticians or computational biologists but may be foreign to others, so providing a sufficient amount of background is the key for delivery of the material. When an uncommon term is used, give a definition besides a reference to it. Fourth, try to avoid “making your readers do the arithmetic” [9], i.e., be clear enough so that the readers don't have to make any inference from the presented data. If such results need to be discussed, make them explicit even though they may be readily derived from other data. Fifth, figures and tables are essential components of a paper, each of which must be included for a good reason; make each of them self-contained with all required information clearly specified in the legend to guide interpretation of the data presented. Rule 6: Be Concise This is a caveat to Rule 5 and is singled out to emphasize its importance. Being thorough is not a license to writing that is unnecessarily descriptive, repetitive, or lengthy. Rather, on the contrary, “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication” [10]. Overly elaborate writing is distracting and boring and places a burden on the readers. In contrast, the delivery of a message is more rigorous if the writing is precise and concise. One excellent example is Watson and Crick's Nobel-Prize-winning paper on the DNA double helix structure [11] —it is only two pages long! Rule 7: Be Artistic A complete draft of a paper requires a lot of work, so it pays to go the extra mile to polish it to facilitate enjoyable reading. A paper presented as a piece of art will give referees a positive initial impression of your passion toward the research and the quality of the work, which will work in your favor in the reviewing process. Therefore, concentrate on spelling, grammar, usage, and a “lively” writing style that avoids successions of simple, boring, declarative sentences. Have an authoritative dictionary with a thesaurus and a style manual, e.g., [1], handy and use them relentlessly. Also pay attention to small details in presentation, such as paragraph indentation, page margins, and fonts. If you are not a native speaker of the language the paper is written in, make sure to have a native speaker go over the final draft to ensure correctness and accuracy of the language used. Rule 8: Be Your Own Judge A complete manuscript typically requires many rounds of revision. Taking a correct attitude during revision is critical to the resolution of most problems in the writing. Be objective and honest about your work and do not exaggerate or belittle the significance of the results and the elegance of the methods developed. After working long and hard, you are an expert on the problem you studied, and you are the best referee of your own work, after all. Therefore, inspect the research and the paper in the context of the state of the art. When revising a draft, purge yourself out of the picture and leave your passion for your work aside. To be concrete, put yourself completely in the shoes of a referee and scrutinize all the pieces—the significance of the work, the logic of the story, the correctness of the results and conclusions, the organization of the paper, and the presentation of the materials. In practice, you may put a draft aside for a day or two—try to forget about it completely—and then come back to it fresh, consider it as if it were someone else's writing, and read it through while trying to poke holes in the story and writing. In this process, extract the meaning literally from the language as written and do not try to use your own view to interpret or extrapolate from what was written. Don't be afraid to throw away pieces of your writing and start over from scratch if they do not pass this “not-yourself” test. This can be painful, but the final manuscript will be more logically sound and better organized. Rule 9: Test the Water in Your Own Backyard It is wise to anticipate the possible questions and critiques the referees may raise and preemptively address their concerns before submission. To do so, collect feedback and critiques from others, e.g., colleagues and collaborators. Discuss your work with them and get their opinions, suggestions, and comments. A talk at a lab meeting or a departmental seminar will also help rectify potential issues that need to be addressed. If you are a graduate student, running the paper and results through the thesis committee may be effective to iron out possible problems. Rule 10: Build a Virtual Team of Collaborators When a submission is rejected or poorly reviewed, don't be offended and don't take it personally. Be aware that the referees spent their time on the paper, which they might have otherwise devoted to their own research, so they are doing you a favor and helping you shape the paper to be more accessible to the targeted audience. Therefore, consider the referees as your collaborators and treat the reviews with respect. This attitude can improve the quality of your paper and research. Read and examine the reviews objectively—the principles set in Rule 8 apply here as well. Often a criticism was raised because one of the aspects of a hypothesis was not adequately studied, or an important result from previous research was not mentioned or not consistent with yours. If a critique is about the robustness of a method used or the validity of a result, often the research needs to be redone or more data need to be collected. If you believe the referee has misunderstood a particular point, check the writing. It is often the case that improper wording or presentation misled the referee. If that's the case, revise the writing thoroughly. Don't argue without supporting data. Don't submit the paper elsewhere without additional work. This can only temporally mitigate the issue, you will not be happy with the paper in the long run, and this may hurt your reputation. Finally, keep in mind that writing is personal, and it takes a lot of practice to find one's style. What works and what does not work vary from person to person. Undoubtedly, dedicated practice will help produce stronger papers with long-lasting impact.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preparing manuscripts for submission to medical journals: the paper trail.

            H Welch (1999)
            Preparing a manuscript for publication in a medical journal is hard work.
              Bookmark

              Author and article information

              Contributors
              Role: Editor
              Journal
              PLoS Comput Biol
              PLoS Comput. Biol
              plos
              ploscomp
              PLoS Computational Biology
              Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
              1553-734X
              1553-7358
              4 October 2018
              October 2018
              : 14
              : 10
              : e1006379
              Affiliations
              [1 ] Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America
              [2 ] Office of Postdoctoral Affairs, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America
              [3 ] Stanford Biosciences Grant Writing Academy, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America
              Dassault Systemes BIOVIA, UNITED STATES
              Author notes

              The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

              Author information
              http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7510-6112
              Article
              PCOMPBIOL-D-17-02136
              10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006379
              6171789
              30286072
              a554e971-3ec0-4e69-92c4-e2a15bdf932b
              © 2018 Peterson et al

              This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

              History
              Page count
              Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Pages: 6
              Funding
              The authors received no funding for this manuscript.
              Categories
              Editorial
              Science Policy
              Science and Technology Workforce
              Careers in Research
              Scientists
              People and Places
              Population Groupings
              Professions
              Scientists
              Biology and Life Sciences
              Behavior
              Habits
              Biology and Life Sciences
              Molecular Biology
              Physical Sciences
              Chemistry
              Analytical Chemistry
              Chemical Analysis
              Science Policy
              Research Funding
              Research Grants
              Research and Analysis Methods
              Research Assessment
              Peer Review
              Physical Sciences
              Physics
              Classical Mechanics
              Reflection
              Physical Sciences
              Physics
              Acoustics
              Quiet

              Quantitative & Systems biology
              Quantitative & Systems biology

              Comments

              Comment on this article