Научный «туризм»

When citing yourself, do it a little bit carelessly not bringing it into a focus. References to the boss’s works should include epithets such as: “brilliant”, “magnificent”, “elegant” (about experiment), “deep”, “comprehensive”, “ingenious” (about analysis, hypothesis, theory). At the very end it is possible to mention 2 or 3 works of extraneous authors if you feel absolute necessity in it. However, data received by these authors are scanty, insignificant, contradictory, inconsistent and is not data at all – that is substantiation of a doubtless urgency of your work.

It is desirable that the size of “introduction” would not exceed the sum of all other sections of the paper.

Materials and methods

This part of paper serves exceptionally to throw dust in eyes of scientific public, to create in some way the image of “a master of experiment”. Write it in details – a lot of headings, subtitles and sub-subtitles. Devote separate section to the quality of used reagents. Here it is possible to boast with a bouquet of highly reputable foreign companies (salts from “Меrck”, enzymes – “Sigma”, sucrose – “Schwartz-Mann”) though you have seen only by a glance at the chief’s safe a ten years-old АТP from “Reanal”. All the rest reagents you have purified, distilled, recrystallized and sublimated many times (actually all your purification was limited to that you have thrown out the dead cockroach from the can with magnesium chloride). A centrifuge necessarily – last model of “Spinco”, spec – “Gilford”, and even рН-meter “Pye-Unicam”. Rats you used were of precisely fixed weight – 100 g ± 500 mg. Animals weighing 100 g 510 mg, were not taken in experiment any more. If you used wheat in your experiments, it should be refered to as “Kentucky 301” (in brackets it is necessary to specify, that it is a kind gift of professor Mattias), as a last resort – “Chuckchee 12”. Your method, if you have it, should be described very widely and in all details (2138 wheat germs washed out with 8620 ml extra pure water at 18.560C …). If you do not have one – think up updating a well-known method. For this purpose ,a great intellect it is not necessary: instead of 0.25 M of sucrose accept 0.27, instead of 40000 rpm – 38000, and updating is ready.

Important note. The detailed description of experimental techniques does not mean that it is necessary to give out all cherished secrets. By no means. Follow main principle of advertising – tell the truth, a lot of true, much more true, than they wait from you, but never tell all the truth. Indeed, that extremely convenient simplification of a well-known method which has allowed you to obtain such wonderful results in fortnight term, appeared to result in a complete and irretrievable loss of your enzyme already at the second stage of the isolation procedure. So refrain from needless details there, where you feel any doubts.

Experiment can be considered successful if it is necessary to reject no more than 50% of obtained results to reach accordance with the theory.

(2nd corollary of Myers law )

Results

If you have got such data that there is nothing to discuss, the section is better to be named “results and discussion”. In this part of paper you are obliged to bring in the accessible form all the obtained information to the reader. This can be done very simply. The table of data is presented, and then every figure of this table is described in great details. It takes at least 3 pages in order to describe even a small table; the description of big tables can be stretched up to 20 sheets. The material should be expounded in a self-possessed, sustained scientific language, periodically inserting archaisms, but it is not worth to turn completely on old language – the reader can think, that this is study in philology. In general, the section should be written in the way that any expert could not read it up to the end, otherwise crazy thought to repeat your experiments can come to his mind.

Never try to repeat successful experiment.

(Fett’s law)

Always provide the statistical analysis of data even if you have not done it. To achive this, add to the plotted figures 0.65 with plus and a minus. Explaining what is this is unnecessary – this would humiliate your dignity. Usually one experiment is enough to write a paper. Otherwise you are at risk to obtain absolutely non-concerted data that will deprive you of calmness and self-confidence, and also (most unpleasant) will lead to the necessity of the third experiment. If you nevertheless, in an impulse of diligence, have carried out the second experiment and received an opposite data, with some share of risk you can forward it to other journal.

Discussion