Barry Canton/Thoughts/Papers: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
Barry Canton (talk | contribs) (New page: {{BCPost |Title=On submitting a aper |Date=2007/03/24 |Body=Here's the text |Tag=Publishing }}) |
Barry Canton (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Title=On submitting a aper | |Title=On submitting a aper | ||
|Date=2007/03/24 | |Date=2007/03/24 | ||
|Body= | |Body=I just resubmitted a paper. Now that the paper is in, I'm reflecting on things I should have done differently and on things I should do next. Three examples - | ||
#Reviewers asked us not to cite OpenWetWare pages (even archived versions) so I took such citations out prior to resubmission. What I should have done, and hopefully can do prior to publication, is to include a second citation to OpenWetWare or maybe a statement in the Supplementary Information saying that all the methods are described on OpenWetWare. | |||
#Drawing the graphics was one of the slower steps in preparing the submission. Since the paper is one of the first from our lab, there weren't many existing graphics I could make use of (e.g. copy the ideas or borrow bits of Illustrator files). I should share all of my graphics via OWW so fellow lab members and others can make use of elements of the Illustrator files. It is somewhat annoying that Biology or Synthetic Biology hasn't developed highly standardized symbolic representations of parts (for example, promoters, Ribosome Binding Sites etc.). The lack of such symbols means many people need to redraw similar elements over and over again. Partly as a result of the lack of standard symbols, researchers need to draw quite detailed representations of their parts so people understand the graphic. | |||
#In future, I should re-read the paper immediately prior to submission to make sure I don't leave discarded sentences in the text that shouldn't be there:( | |||
|Tag=Publishing | |Tag=Publishing | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:20, 24 March 2008
2007/03/24
{{{Excerpt}}} I just resubmitted a paper. Now that the paper is in, I'm reflecting on things I should have done differently and on things I should do next. Three examples -
- Reviewers asked us not to cite OpenWetWare pages (even archived versions) so I took such citations out prior to resubmission. What I should have done, and hopefully can do prior to publication, is to include a second citation to OpenWetWare or maybe a statement in the Supplementary Information saying that all the methods are described on OpenWetWare.
- Drawing the graphics was one of the slower steps in preparing the submission. Since the paper is one of the first from our lab, there weren't many existing graphics I could make use of (e.g. copy the ideas or borrow bits of Illustrator files). I should share all of my graphics via OWW so fellow lab members and others can make use of elements of the Illustrator files. It is somewhat annoying that Biology or Synthetic Biology hasn't developed highly standardized symbolic representations of parts (for example, promoters, Ribosome Binding Sites etc.). The lack of such symbols means many people need to redraw similar elements over and over again. Partly as a result of the lack of standard symbols, researchers need to draw quite detailed representations of their parts so people understand the graphic.
- In future, I should re-read the paper immediately prior to submission to make sure I don't leave discarded sentences in the text that shouldn't be there:(
