Storytelling for Science

I have nightmares about the scientific method… 😵 When it was first taught to me, it seemed dull, dry, and dead. But then, I heard we could blow stuff up … wait… back up… What? I love these toys!   Why are we told that the methodology section in a research paper is the "easiest" to write? If you have done the experiments, and repeated them, you know how to do them. But would you be able to teach them? 😯 Explain them to your colleague in the lab? 😔 The methodology section of the research paper is the first that peer reviewers will prod and test. For them, it's the most important. 😧 Why?   If the design of a study is not sound,  then you can not trust the results,  discussion, or conclusions.     So, the main characteristics of adequate methodology are: Validity   Make sure your technique enables you to measure what you intend to measure. This seems trivial... but how many times did you run a Western blot without a loading control when you were first starting out? 😕 Re

When the reviewers say “it’s unclear which is the relevance this study may have"...😖 When I first started doing proper research, everybody in the lab I worked in wanted to cure cancer. At least, that’s what all their papers said… Why? Set the scene Cancer is one of the main causes of death worldwide, accounting for nearly 10 million deaths in 2020, or nearly one in six deaths (WHO).  👆 This is what is called setting the scene. A claim comprised by one or two sentences, often backed up by one or more citations, that highlights the relevance and timeliness of the research. 🕕 It should be within the 1 st paragraph of your introduction , and accurately reflect what the paper is about. Here are some examples of this I wrote myself: Most of us at least know someone that died, survived, or is still struggling with cancer, so curing cancer would make a massive difference in everybody’s lives. But not all research is obviously relevant. Background and research gap In the broad field of

Medical journals have specific instructions for authors, including word counts and format (see example here ).   Abiding by style guides is often what takes the most time when authors wish to re-submit papers to different journals, especially when English is not their first language. Although some publications embrace the use of templates , others have opted to allow for free-form first submission. I started working on research manuscripts by focusing at the paragraph level. This microediting examined the function of the language, to determine whether it supported the author’s intention.  The goal of microediting is to  increase the value of the document  by improving grammar, syntax, style,  tone, clarity, and credibility. I'm much more interested in the content. Substantive editing permits the shaping of the broad focus, or architecture, of a scientific document. Let's call it the big picture . The goal of macroediting is to  ensure that authors are conveying what they inten

 What is peer/content review? ✒ Peer review is the refereeing work done by subject matter experts during the screening of research manuscripts. Also called content review. 👀 When is content review done? Post-publication review (auditing) focuses on identification of flaws, significance of findings, impact of the research, and reproducibility of methods. 📊   Read my take on it here and here . 📢 It can lead to withdrawals or retractions of published papers. 👮 Today, I'll talk about pre-publication review , which analyses quality of research design, rigour of data collection and interpretation, and novelty of the research findings. 🔍 It usually ends with a recommendation to the editor, either to accept for publication, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject. Why should content review be performed? It reduces the dissemination 🛂 of: irrelevant findings,  unwarranted claims,  unacceptable interpretations,  and personal views. This process encourages authors to meet the acc

The papers I audit passed peer review before publication? Well… sometimes it does not look like they did. 😒 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) states that:  “Researchers (must) take seriously their commitment and responsibility to the research community, through refereeing, reviewing, and assessment” Illustration by Mohamed_hassan. Most of the time, scientists review the work of their peers solely for peer recognition. Gratification may never happen. When were you ever paid for that? 💸 Reviewers are obliged to confidentiality 🙊, must declare actual or perceived conflicts of interest 🙉, and respect the rights of authors 🙈 (i.e., not use the ideas/findings they are reviewing for their own research without permission). With so little in terms of rewards, why would you do this immensely challenging, labour-intensive, and unpaid work? Because the cost of not doing it far outweighs the discomfort. 💪 Peer review has uncovered: Fabrication: making up data. Falsi

After they have been published, I audit research papers.  Image by @freepik Why? How does that work? 😕 A new revised version of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) has been produced by Allea , and recognised by the European Commission, one of the world's largest research funding bodies. This revision focuses on a heightened awareness of issues pertaining to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion ( EDI ), but also the General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ), and even Open Science . I know.. too much legal speak, too many acronyms... 😬 So, let me sum it up for you. 🔊 All institutions, organizations, and individuals that engage in or interact with research must always abide by the principles of: Honesty Respect   Reliability   Accountability  Simple enough, right? Humm.. I analyse papers that have been flagged as "of concern". 😟 The issues I most commonly see have to do with lack of funding or data availability statements, inappropriate citati

What interesting abstracts did for me Most young scientists dream with a call for papers! When you're doing your postdoc, often the first chance you get to get your name associated with your area and your work, is to present at a conference. I was very present in those things. I liked them, and often won prizes. 🏆 Look, it's me! My feet are in the Pacific! 😊 How? With a good abstract, how else?   See here the citation for the one below. Let's explore how I got to attend conferences with paid travel expenses (university funding), hotel money (invititation to speak at a special symposium by a learned society), and a well deserved holiday (money from a research recognition award). 💰

Why is this not accepted already? You designed the research.  Collected data.  Analysed it.  Wrote the paper.  Submitted it.   It bounced. 😧 😞   You re-formatted it.  Submitted to another journal.  It went to peer review. Reviewers asked for extra experiments you never thought were necessary.  You spent time, money, and energy working on those.  Resubmitted.   Rejected again. 😖😠   What are you doing wrong?  That should be more than enough, right? Some things you just can't polish... 💩   Go back to basics.   Was the research design sound?   Were the findings interesting and/or novel?  Did you compare them to all the relevant literature?     It's dog eat dog out there. 🐕   In the time it took for you to conduct and write up your extra experiments, a competitor may have submitted their paper to another or the same journal as you. Maybe theirs is further ahead in the editorial process. Maybe they have collaborations with more well-known names. Maybe their design is just bette

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists were seen as credible but unapproachable , according to 3M's State of Science Index ( SoSI 2022 ).   So now what?      Let me tell you a story. At the end of his life , my dad decided to not have vascular surgery.  He had a chronic illness that had developed beyond the possibility of cure. That surgery could have limited pain. He worked in healthcare, he knew the consequences. His doctors were incredulous.   A lot of this has to do with misunderstanding.  M y personal experience on how doctors and scientists are perceived is with confusion and fear . 😕 😨   Science relies upon information that is accurate and complete.  While most doctors try to present information in an easily understood language, this does not evoke reactions in most people. 💜    Going to the hospital is scary. 🏥  Staying home is safe.🏡 Doctors were offering the best options. So, how could he decide between complicated options and doing nothing?    Thi