Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

So you thought that publishing your brilliant research in a new field
was a simple matter of drawing your graphs, constructing the tables, describing
your results and discussing their world-shattering significance? Forget
it, sweetheart. You wanna publish? Get dirty.

The first thing to realise, in this modern cutthroat world, is that
your achievement is somebody else’s failure. The somebody else is, of course,
the referees who resent anybody breaking onto their patch. They’ll hate
you if you’re clever. So, if you have something interesting to say, here
are some handy tips to help you get into print.

Use good English: I don’t mean clear English, of course, I mean the
sort of English, like Hemingway’s, which acknowledges that the language
is so rich in verbs that you don’t need adverbs. My friend George Stern,
who writes for the Literary Review, reckons that you can even do without
adjectives. After a few fumblings with the Concise Oxford, any reviewer
will treat you with respect.

On the other hand, you inevitably come to grief if you write simply.
I swear to God I once got a referee’s report which read: ‘The manuscript
is written in a relaxed, conversational style that leads the reader to feel
uncertain concerning the rigour with which the experiments were performed’.
Clear lesson there.

Legends to Figures: As a general rule write: ‘for further details see
Methods and Materials’. In Materials and Methods write: ‘for further details
see Legends to Figures’.

Statistics: These are nasty but necessary. Cite five textbooks (to be
on the safe side). But most referees seem happy with: ‘Statistical analyses
were performed with the GLUM program for Spearman’s chi polyvariate distribution
correlation pooled variance analysis of variance Pearson’s T-test employing
the Bonferroni correction (and now the clincher), where appropriate.’ Don’t
use Student’s T-test, as the name makes you look amateur.

Coauthors: Everybody you can think of. A manuscript should have more
coauthors than figures. Invent people with obscure-sounding Italian, German
and Hungarian names who sound vaguely famous. Federico Fermi, Hans Kreps,
Albert Syzent-Gorgyzii are fine. Don’t put your own name on the original
manuscript.

This can easily be inserted at proof stage (see below). It is, of course,
essential to have as the first author: John Jones* (and the footnote: *deceased)
to attract the all-important sympathy vote in case the manuscript should
fall into enemy hands. Invent someone at your address ‘to whom all correspondence
should be addressed’.

Acknowledgements: These are critical and must go on the front page.
You must thank all the main players in the field for ‘invaluable advice
in experimental design and critical appraisal of the manuscript in draft
stages’. It matters not a jot that these people have never heard of you.
The editor of the journal (being an upright citizen) will refuse to send
the paper to people who appear to have contributed.

References: The first and the last reference must be to an unpublished
(and fictitious) report, in your name, giving an address and, preferably,
telephone number:

Ref 1. Wolff S P: Chairman of First World Consensual Report on Importance
of (insert title of research here) in the Strategic Plan for TransDisciplinary
Research Targets. EC, WHO, UN & WDBM Commissioners’ Convention July
1991 (Department of Clinical Pharmacology; University College London, 5
University Street, LONDON WC₁ 6JJ. Tel: 071 380 9678). WDBM,
of course, stands for We Do Bar Mitzvahs.

Ref 69. Wolff S P: Chairman of Second Ditto.

The editor, being lazy, will inevitably send your manuscript straight
back for you to review as you appear to be the only expert who hasn’t contributed.
Write glowing praise. Wait for the proofs. Cross off the Jones (deceased),
the acknowledgements and all the other fictions. Insert your own name. Sit
back, relax, then start writing the grant.

Simon Wolff is the name to look for among the references. He lectures
in toxicology at University College, London.