Hell – is sitting on a hot stone reading your own scientific publications
A top-10 list of recommendations for how to write consistently boring scientific publications by Kaj Sand-Jensen
• Avoid focus
• Avoid originality and personality
• Write l o n g contributions
• Remove implications and speculations
• Leave out illustrations
• Omit necessary steps of reasoning
• Use many abbreviations and terms
• Suppress humor and flowery language
• Degrade biology to statistics
• Quote numerous papers for trivial statements
• Avoid focus
• Avoid originality and personality
• Write l o n g contributions
• Remove implications and speculations
• Leave out illustrations
• Omit necessary steps of reasoning
• Use many abbreviations and terms
• Suppress humor and flowery language
• Degrade biology to statistics
• Quote numerous papers for trivial statements
3 Responses to “Hell – is sitting on a hot stone reading your own scientific publications”
Latest Tweets
-
Hello OzFebruary 11, 2012 at 5:56 pm -
Good move by Elsevier, but company need more than PR efforts to save it's ground. Why so afraid accepting the new reality, open is future.February 11, 2012 at 3:01 am
-
Dear Entrepreneur, CXO of unknown start-up with uncertain business model, be grounded and humble. cheersFebruary 10, 2012 at 2:53 am
Hell – is sitting on a hot stone reading your own scientific publications http://bit.ly/9asGd
Hell is sitting on a hot stone reading your own scientific publications http://bit.ly/9asGd
Hell – is sitting on a hot stone reading your own scientific publications http://tinyurl.com/yhqe5nz