Научный «туризм»

Undoubtedly, the major part of a paper, its name card, so to say, a hook which catches the reader. It must be sonorous, readable, informative enough. Also the name should be intriguing, attracting, thrilling, mysterious, with an impurity something beyond. If your chief or the reviewer is the fossil from the beginning of the XX century, the tittle should begin with words: “To a question on”… or “Some features of”… This cast over on them pleasant memoirs on a happy youth when still knew nothing about marasm, phenol phthalene and stenocardia named as angina pectoris. Now it is recommended to take at once the bull for horns in the title, for example: “RNA-polymerase consists of four subunits”. Listen attentively to this naked, dry and primitive phrase! Would it be necessary to the experienced and respected scientist to study all 18 pages of your paper if he already knows, that RNA-polymerase consists of four subunits? And let us take other name: “To a question on some particular structurally functional features of DNA-dependent RNA-polymerase , as such, in view of the concept… “, etc. As far as this phrase is more resonant, more significant, sounds more scientifically, at last! Even if the conclusion of this paper will be the same as previous, the reader after its perusal will not calm down – he will overturn last page of the work pending to find continuation, and the sharpest will iron its with hot iron. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to make the title too long – the reader can understand it in wrong way and will not read paper at all.

Bibliography

It was already spoken about references, therefore I shall add only some remarks. The list of the cited literature should not be too long – it irritates editors (when because of two superfluous sources the text falls at a new page of a journal), and not too short – it testifies for disrespect to the scientific world. Cite all your papers, basic works of the head of your lab, works of your friends and acquaintances in the laboratory. If still there is some room, add to the list a little (no more than 2–3) of references to papers on this problem. It is possible to add 1–2 works published at the beginning of biochemistry (preferably in a German journal) – the reviewer will note your deep knowledge of the scientific literature. The list is better for making by way of citing works in the text – then your chief will borrow its worthy top line of the bibliography.

Style

It is necessary to let the reader know that you are not a simple person. All sentences should be complex and not less than 6–8 lines long. So that when the reader reaches the end of your sentence, he must forget at all that was contained in its beginning. It is desirable to use Latin and ancient Greek expressions (et cetera, ad hoc, inter alii…), that will undoubtedly ennoble you in the reader opinion, will emphasize your erudition. It is possible to build phrase according to German grammar (“experiment additional performed has been… “). Sometimes it is benefitial to introduce 2–3 new terms or to place an epigraph from Plato’s early works.

Co-authors

If your surname is Аabaev, there is nothing you have to worry about. It is worse if the first letter of your surname comes from the second half of alphabet. In such case try to put yourself on the last place of the list. Usually it the place of a head of laboratory (if he is modest enough), and the reader, having seen several times your name at the end of the list of authors, will write in the review: “…on the basis of results received in the laboratory of Yamamoto…” If nevertheless you have got in the faceless middle of the list, it is necessary after receiving paper reprints to distribute them immediately among leading scientists in this field on behalf of your own. But the best way is to publish paper without co-authors.

Acknowledgements

Express deep gratitude to the head of the lab for valuable advices and discussion throughout the work, thank aunt Dusja for excellent technical help (she washed test tubes) and Pete from the nearby lab who donated you two rats (yours had died one month before the experiment). If the chief is included into the list of authors, it is not worth to thank him – one can misunderstand. Students who actually have carried out your experiment should not be acknowledged also – they can put it on airs.

Our biotechnician Sasha

Sasha appeared in the lab in the beginning of the year. After his interview with the head of the lab he was assigned as a technician to work with a senior scientist Inna Sergeevna.