Publishing papers at Science magazine

Andrew Sugden, International Managing Editor, Science magazine (Hills Road, Cambridge)

The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.

Site Tools

Site Search Site Area Terms

Science magazine - contents  News: News of the Week, Sciencescope, News Focus  Commentary: Letters, Books, Policy Forum, Perspectives, Reviews  Research: Brevia, Research Articles, Reports

Writing and submitting a paper to Science

.

Is it (one of) your best ever?

Will it have impact and/or lasting value?

Will it interest scientists in other fields?

Does it overturn conventional wisdom?

More than incremental?

• Answer to a longstanding question

• Significant leap forward

• Different way of thinking

• Important application

Run your own review process first

Assess both research and presentation

Ask for feedback- specialist / non specialist

What helps - 1

internal review

Convincing data

Appropriate controls

What helps - 2

Concise presentation

What helps

.

Clear writing

What helps - 3

Follow Instructions to Authors!

What helps

.

http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/

What helps - 4

• The LPU (…’Least Publishable Unit’) • Excessive or unfounded speculation

• Repeat examples of a known phenomenon • Insufficient advance over previous work

What doesn’t help

.

What Doesn’t Matter The eminence of the authors

The prestige of the institution

Whether you contacted Science before submitting

Whether you are a member of AAAS

The field of inquiry

Whether you are from the USA

Preparation and submission of a paper

Main elements

The results and figures

The text

The Supporting Online Material Hori et al. 1 Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Mice. BALB/c and C.B-17 SCID mice were purchased from CLEA Japan (Tokyo, Japan). RAG- 2–deficient DO11.10 TCR transgenic mice (S1) were bred in our animal facility. All mice were used at 6 to 12 weeks of age and maintained under specific pathogen-free conditions in accordance with institutional guidelines for animal welfare. Antibodies, reagents, and medium. The following reagents were purchased from PharMingen (San Diego, CA); purified mAb for CD3ε (145-2C11), CD28 (37.51), IL-10 receptor (1B1.3a), anti-IL-4 (11B11), anti-IL- 12 (C17.8); FITC-conjugated mAb for CD4 (RM4-5); PE-conjugated mAb for CD4 (H129.19), CD8 (53-6.7), CD19 (1D3), CD45RB (16A), CD103 (M290), CTLA-4 (UC10- 4F10-11), IL-2 (JES6-5H4), IL-4 (11B11), IFN-γ (XMG1.2); CyChrome-conjugated anti- CD4 mAb (RM4-5); biotinylated mAb for CD25 (7D4) and CD44 (IM7). Anti-TGF-β1 (9016.2) and anti-TGF-β1, -β2, -β3 mAbs (1D11) were purchased from R&D systems (Minneapolis, MN). Anti-GITR mAb (DTA-1) was produced, purified, and biotinylated in our laboratory. Anti-IL-10 receptor and TGF-β mAbs were used at either 50 or 100 µg/ml, concentrations sufficient to block IL-10 receptor or neutralize TGF-β according to the manufacturers’ instructions and the results of others (S2, S3). Mouse recombinant IL-2 (rIL- 2) was a gift from Shionogi Co. (Osaka, Japan). Mouse rIL-4 and rIL-12 were purchased from PeproTech (London, UK) and R&D systems, respectively. T cells were cultured in RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with 10% FBS, 100 U/ml penicillin, 100 µg/ml streptomycin, 50 µM 2-ME, 10 mM HEPES, and 1 mM sodium pyruvate (all purchased from Sigma, St. Louis, MO). The packaging cell line, Plat-E (S4), was grown in DMEM medium (Sigma) supplemented with 10% FBS, 100 U/ml penicillin, 100 µg/ml streptomycin and 10 mM HEPES. Preparation of lymphocytes, flow cytometry, and cell sorting. Lymphocyte suspensions were prepared from the thymus, spleen, and lymph nodes (inguinal, axillar, brachial, cervical, and mesenteric) by forcing the organs through a 100 µm nylon mesh into HBSS supplemented with 2% FBS and washed. Splenic erythrocytes were eliminated with ACK buffer. For cell surface staining, 106 cells were incubated with fluorescent or biotinylated mAbs for 30 min at 4°C, then with PE-conjugated Streptavidin (PharMingen) as a secondary reagent for biotinylated Abs. Cells were analyzed on an Epics-XL flow cytometer (Beckman Coulter, Miami FL) with exclusion of dead cells by propidium iodide incorporation. To detect intracellular CTLA-4, cells were fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde, permeabilized with 0.5% saponin, and stained with PE-conjugated anti-CTLA-4 or its isotype-matched control mAb in the presence of 0.5% saponin. To sort peripheral CD4+ T cell subpopulations, CD4+ cells were first enriched by Hori et al. 2 eliminating B cells, CD8+ cells, and adherent cells by panning as described (S5). To sort

The abstract

The title

Ready?

Good cover letter: outline conclusions and their significance in plain language without hype

European office

Life Science: Caroline Ash (microbiology) Stella Hurtley (cell biology), Peter Stern (neuroscience), Andrew Sugden (ecology)

Physical Science: Julia Fahrenkamp-Uppenbrink (Perspectives), Ian Osborne (physics), Maria Cruz (astro, planetary science)

Editor contact information http://www.sciencemag.org/about/meet_editors.dtl

Editor’s role

  Evaluate manuscript submissions

  Decide what to publish and what to reject

  Travel to meetings/lab visits

  Writing (TWIS, Editors’ Choice etc)

  Commissioning (Reviews, Special Issues)

  Liaison with lay press

21%

4%

72%

3%

rejected before in-depth review rejected after in-depth review published (biological) published (physical)

Quality of research scope interest novelty

Main principles of selection

Submitted Manuscripts

Submitted Manuscripts Board of Reviewing

Editors

Science Editorial Staff

Submitted Manuscripts Board of Reviewing

Editors

Science Editorial Staff Selected for

In-Depth Review (~25%)

Submitted Manuscripts Board of Reviewing

Editors

Science Editorial Staff Selected for

In-Depth Review (~25%)

Questions posed to referees

- Give a brief synopsis of the paper

- Analyze the quality of experiments

- Analyze the validity of interpretation

- Distinguish from related publications or prior work

- Discuss the paper’s significance and likely impact:

-In its own specialty?

-In a broader context?

Submitted Manuscripts Board of Reviewing

Editors

External Referees Science Editorial Staff Selected for

In-Depth Review (~25%)

Science Editorial Staff

Submitted Manuscripts Board of Reviewing

Editors

External Referees

Selected for Publication in Science (6-7%)

Science Editorial Staff Selected for

In-Depth Review (~25%)

Science Editorial Staff

Belongs in a specialized journal Too little advance over previous work Unconvincing data

Common reasons for rejecting a paper - 1

Common reasons for rejecting a paper - 2

.

Observations without interpretations…

Common reasons for rejecting a paper - 3

…interpretations without observations!

“…resources required for sustaining metabolism and growth…”

Editing for economy…

“food”

The editor’s task is complex, delicate, and silent. We spend an awful lot of time as editors in a craft that is meaningful mostly to ourselves and that almost nobody appreciates …..when the editing is good no one notices and the reader just assumes that the author did it perfectly in the first place. The better the job of editing, the more closely it sticks to the author’s meaning….and the less the editor’s contribution is recognized.

CBE Views, Vol 13, No. 5, 1990