Hamming Rules

Editorial

Ten Simple Rules for Doing Your BestResearch, According to HammingThomas C. Erren*, Paul Cullen, Michael Erren, Philip E. Bourne

This editorial can be consideredthe preface to the ‘‘Ten SimpleRules’’ series [1–7]. The rules

presented here are somewhatphilosophical and behavioural ratherthan concrete suggestions for how totackle a particular scientificprofessional activity such as writing apaper or a grant. The thoughtspresented are not our own; rather, wecondense and annotate some excellentand timeless suggestions made by themathematician Richard Hamming twodecades ago on how to do ‘‘first-classresearch’’ [8]. As far as we know, thetranscript of the Bell CommunicationsResearch Colloquium Seminarprovided by Dr. Kaiser [8] was neverformally published, so that Dr.Hamming’s thoughts are not as widelyknown as they deserve to be. Bydistilling these thoughts into somethingthat can be thought of as ‘‘Ten SimpleRules,’’ we hope to bring these ideas tobroader attention.

Hamming’s 1986 talk wasremarkable. In ‘‘You and YourResearch,’’ he addressed the question:How can scientists do great research,i.e., Nobel-Prize-type work? Hisinsights were based on more than fortyyears of research as a pioneer ofcomputer science andtelecommunications who had theprivilege of interacting with suchluminaries as the physicists RichardFeynman, Enrico Fermi, EdwardTeller, Robert Oppenheimer, HansBethe, and Walter Brattain, withClaude Shannon, ‘‘the father ofinformation theory,’’ and with thestatistician John Tukey. Hamming‘‘became very interested in thedifference between those who do andthose who might have done,’’ and heoffered a number of answers to thequestion ‘‘why . . . so few scientistsmake significant contributions and somany are forgotten in the long run?’’We have condensed Hamming’s talkinto the ten rules listed below:

Rule 1: Drop Modesty

To quote Hamming: ‘‘Say to yourself:‘Yes, I would like to do first-class work.’Our society frowns on people who setout to do really good work. But youshould say to yourself: ‘Yes, I would liketo do something significant.’’’

Rule 2: Prepare Your Mind

Many think that great science is theresult of good luck, but luck is nothingbut the marriage of opportunity andpreparation. Hamming cites Pasteur’sadage that ‘‘luck favours the preparedmind.’’

Rule 3: Age Is Important

Einstein did things very early, and allthe ‘‘quantum mechanic fellows,’’ aswell as most mathematicians andastrophysicists, were, as Hammingnotes, ‘‘disgustingly young’’ when theydid their best work. On the other hand,in the fields of music, politics, andliterature, the protagonists oftenproduce what we consider their bestwork late in life.

Rule 4: Brains Are Not Enough,You Also Need Courage

Great scientists have more than justbrainpower. To again cite Hamming:‘‘Once you get your courage up andbelieve that you can do importantthings, then you can. If you think youcan’t, almost surely you are not goingto. Great scientists will go forwardunder incredible circumstances; theythink and continue to think.’’

Rule 5: Make the Best of YourWorking Conditions

To paraphrase Hamming, what mostpeople think are the best workingconditions clearly are not, becausepeople are often most productive whenworking conditions are bad. One of thebetter times of the Cambridge PhysicalLaboratories was when they workedpractically in shacks—they did some of

the best physics ever. By turning theproblem around a bit, great scientistsoften transform an apparent defectinto an asset. ‘‘It is a poor workmanwho blames his tools—the good mangets on with the job, given what he’sgot, and gets the best answer he can.’’

Rule 6: Work Hard and Effectively

Most great scientists havetremendous drive, and most of uswould be surprised how much wewould know if we worked as hard assome great scientists did for manyyears. As Hamming says: ‘‘Knowledgeand productivity are like compoundinterest. Given two people with exactlythe same ability, the one person whomanages day in and day out to get inone more hour of thinking will betremendously more productive over alifetime.’’ But, Hamming notes, hardwork alone is not enough—it must beapplied sensibly.

Rule 7: Believe and Doubt YourHypothesis at the Same Time

Great scientists tolerate ambiguity.They believe the theory enough to go

Citation: Erren TC, Cullen P, Erren M, Bourne PE(2007) Ten simple rules for doing your best research,according to Hamming. PLoS Comput Biol 3(10):e213. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030213

Copyright: � 2007 Erren et al. This is an open-accessarticle distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution License, which permitsunrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction inany medium, provided the original author and sourceare credited.

Thomas C. Erren is with the Institute and Policlinic forOccupational and Social Medicine, School ofMedicine and Dentistry, University of Cologne, Koln,Lindenthal, Germany. Paul Cullen is with theMedizinisches Versorgungszentrum furLaboratoriumsmedizin Dr. Loer, Dr.Treder, Munster,Germany. Michael Erren is with the Institute ofClinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine,Westphalian Wilhelms-University of Munster,Munster, Germany. Philip E. Bourne is a Professor inthe Department of Pharmacology, University ofCalifornia San Diego, La Jolla, California, UnitedStates of America.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed.E-mail: [email protected]

PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org October 2007 | Volume 3 | Issue 10 | e2131839

ahead; they doubt it enough to noticethe errors and faults so they can stepforward and create the newreplacement theory. As Hamming says:‘‘When you find apparent flaws, you’vegot to be sensitive and keep track ofthose things, and keep an eye out forhow they can be explained or how thetheory can be changed to fit them.Those are often the great scientificcontributions.’’

Rule 8: Work on the ImportantProblems in Your Field

It is surprising but true that theaverage scientist spends almost all histime working on problems that hebelieves not to be important and not tobe likely to lead to important results.By contrast, those seeking to do greatwork must ask: ‘‘What are theimportant problems of my field? Whatimportant problems am I working on?’’Hamming again: ‘‘It’s that simple. Ifyou want to do great work, you clearlymust work on important problems. . . . Ifinally adopted what I called ‘GreatThoughts Time.’ When I went to lunchFriday noon, I would only discuss greatthoughts after that. By great thoughts Imean ones like: ‘What will be theimpact of computers on science andhow can I change it?’’’

Rule 9: Be Committed to YourProblem

Scientists who are not fullycommitted to their problem seldomproduce first-class work. To a largeextent, creativity comes out of thesubconscious. If you are deeply

immersed in and committed to a topic,day after day, your subconscious hasnothing to do but work on yourproblem. Hamming says it best: ‘‘So theway to manage yourself is that whenyou have a real important problem youdon’t let anything else get the center ofyour attention—you keep yourthoughts on the problem. Keep yoursubconscious starved so it has to workon your problem, so you can sleeppeacefully and get the answer in themorning, free.’’

Rule 10: Leave Your Door Open

Keeping the door to your officeclosed makes you more productive inthe short term. But ten years later,somehow you may not quite know whatproblems are worth working on, and allthe hard work you do will be ‘‘sort oftangential’’ in importance. He (or she)who leaves the door open gets all kindsof interruptions, but he (or she) alsooccasionally gets clues as to what theworld is and what might be important.Again, Hamming deserves to be quotedverbatim: ‘‘There is a pretty goodcorrelation between those who workwith the doors open and those whoultimately do important things,although people who work with doorsclosed often work harder. Somehowthey seem to work on slightly the wrongthing—not much, but enough that theymiss fame.’’

In our view, Rule 10 may be the key togetting the best research done becauseit will help you to obey Rules 1–9, and,most importantly, it will foster groupcreativity [9]. A discussion over lunch

with your colleagues is often worthmuch more than a trip to the library.However, when choosing yourlunchmates (and, by implication, yourinstitution), be on your toes. AsHamming says: ‘‘When you talk to otherpeople, you want to get rid of thosesound absorbers who are nice peoplebut merely say ‘Oh yes,’ and to findthose who will stimulate you right back.’’

Acknowledgments

Funding. The authors received no specificfunding for this article.

Competing interests. The authors havedeclared that no competing interests exist.

References1. Bourne PE (2005) Ten simple rules for getting

published. PLoS Comp Biol 1: e57. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057

2. Bourne PE, Chalupa LM (2006) Ten simplerules for getting grants. PLoS Comp Biol 2:e12. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020012

3. Bourne PE, Korngreen A (2006) Ten simplerules for reviewers. PLoS Comp Biol 2: e110.doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110

4. Bourne PE, Friedberg I (2006) Ten simple rulesfor selecting a postdoctoral position. PLoSComp Biol 2: e121. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020121

5. Vicens Q, Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rulesfor a successful collaboration. PLoS Comp Biol3: e44. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030044

6. Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rules for makinggood oral presentations. PLoS Comp Biol 3:e77. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030077

7. Erren TC, Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rulesfor a good poster presentation. PLoS CompBiol 3: e102. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030102

8. Hamming R (1986) You and your research. In:Kaiser JF Transcription of the BellCommunications Research ColloquiumSeminar; 7 March 1986; Morristown, NewJersey, United States. Available: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/;robins/YouAndYourResearch.html. Accessed 24 September 2007.

9. Erren TC (2007) Hamming’s ‘‘open doors’’ andgroup creativity as keys to scientific excellence:The example of Cambridge. Med Hypotheses2007 Sep 3: 17804173.


Editorial

Ten Simple Rules for Getting PublishedPhilip E. Bourne

The student council (http://www.iscbsc.org/) of the InternationalSociety for Computational

Biology asked me to present mythoughts on getting published in thefield of computational biology at theIntelligent Systems in MolecularBiology conference held in Detroit inlate June of 2005. Close to 200 brightyoung souls (and a few not so young)crammed into a small room for whatproved to be a wonderful interchangeamong a group of whom approximatelyone-half had yet to publish their firstpaper. The advice I gave that day I havemodified and present as ten rules forgetting published.

Rule 1: Read many papers, and learnfrom both the good and the badwork of others.

It is never too early to become acritic. Journal clubs, where you critiquea paper as a group, are excellent forhaving this kind of dialogue. Reading atleast two papers a day in detail (not justin your area of research) and thinkingabout their quality will also help. Beingwell read has another potential majorbenefit—it facilitates a more objectiveview of one’s own work. It is too easyafter many late nights spent in front ofa computer screen and/or laboratorybench to convince yourself that yourwork is the best invention since slicedbread. More than likely it is not, andyour mentor is prone to falling into thesame trap, hence rule 2.

Rule 2: The more objective you canbe about your work, the better thatwork will ultimately become.

Alas, some scientists will never beobjective about their own work, andwill never make the best scientists—learn objectivity early, the editors andreviewers have.

Rule 3: Good editors and reviewerswill be objective about your work.

The quality of the editorial board isan early indicator of the reviewprocess. Look at the masthead of the

journal in which you plan to publish.Outstanding editors demand and getoutstanding reviews. Put your energyinto improving the quality of themanuscript before submission. Ideally,the reviews will improve your paper.But they will not get to impartingthat advice if there are fundamentalflaws.

Rule 4: If you do not write well in theEnglish language, take lessons early;it will be invaluable later.

This is not just about grammar, butmore importantly comprehension. Thebest papers are those in which complexideas are expressed in a way that thosewho are less than immersed in the fieldcan understand. Have you noticed thatthe most renowned scientists often givethe most logical and simply stated yetstimulating lectures? This extends totheir written work as well. Note thatwriting clearly is valuable, even if yourultimate career does not hinge onproducing good scientific papers inEnglish language journals. Submittedpapers that are not clearly written ingood English, unless the science is trulyoutstanding, are often rejected or atbest slow to publish since they requireextensive copyediting.

Rule 5: Learn to live with rejection.A failure to be objective can make

rejection harder to take, and you willbe rejected. Scientific careers are full ofrejection, even for the best scientists.The correct response to a paper beingrejected or requiring major revision isto listen to the reviewers and respondin an objective, not subjective, manner.Reviews reflect how your paper is beingjudged—learn to live with it. Ifreviewers are unanimous about thepoor quality of the paper, move on—invirtually all cases, they are right. If theyrequest a major revision, do it andaddress every point they raise both inyour cover letter and through obviousrevisions to the text. Multiple rounds ofrevision are painful for all thoseconcerned and slow the publishingprocess.

Rule 6: The ingredients of goodscience are obvious—novelty ofresearch topic, comprehensivecoverage of the relevant literature,good data, good analysis includingstrong statistical support, and athought-provoking discussion. Theingredients of good sciencereporting are obvious—goodorganization, the appropriate use oftables and figures, the right length,writing to the intended audience—do not ignore the obvious.

Be objective about these ingredientswhen you review the first draft, and donot rely on your mentor. Get a candidopinion by having the paper read bycolleagues without a vested interest inthe work, including those not directlyinvolved in the topic area.

Rule 7: Start writing the paper theday you have the idea of whatquestions to pursue.

Some would argue that this placestoo much emphasis on publishing, butit could also be argued that it helpsdefine scope and facilitates hypothesis-driven science. The temptation ofnovice authors is to try to includeeverything they know in a paper. Yourthesis is/was your kitchen sink. Yourpapers should be concise, and impart asmuch information as possible in theleast number of words. Be familiar withthe guide to authors and follow it, theeditors and reviewers do. Maintain agood bibliographic database as you go,and read the papers in it.

Citation: Bourne PE (2005) Ten simple rules forgetting published. PLoS Comput Biol 1(5): e57.

Copyright: � 2005 Philip E. Bourne. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License, whichpermits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the originalauthor and source are properly credited.

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057

Philip E. Bourne is Editor-in-Chief of PLoSComputational Biology. E-mail: [email protected]


Rule 8: Become a reviewer early inyour career.

Reviewing other papers will help youwrite better papers. To start, work withyour mentors; have them give youpapers they are reviewing and do thefirst cut at the review (most mentorswill be happy to do this). Then, gothrough the final review that gets sentin by your mentor, and where allowed,as is true of this journal, look at thereviews others have written. This willprovide an important perspective onthe quality of your reviews and,hopefully, allow you to see your ownwork in a more objective way. You willalso come to understand the reviewprocess and the quality of reviews,

which is an important ingredient indeciding where to send your paper.

Rule 9: Decide early on where to tryto publish your paper.

This will define the form and level ofdetail and assumed novelty of the workyou are doing. Many journals have apresubmission enquiry systemavailable—use it. Even before the paperis written, get a sense of the novelty ofthe work, and whether a specificjournal will be interested.

Rule 10: Quality is everything.It is better to publish one paper in a

quality journal than multiple papers inlesser journals. Increasingly, it is harderto hide the impact of your papers; tools

like Google Scholar and the ISI Web ofScience are being used by tenurecommittees and employers to definemetrics for the quality of your work. Itused to be that just the journal namewas used as a metric. In the digitalworld, everyone knows if a paper haslittle impact. Try to publish in journalsthat have high impact factors; chancesare your paper will have high impact,too, if accepted.

When you are long gone, yourscientific legacy is, in large part, theliterature you left behind and theimpact it represents. I hope these tensimple rules can help you leave behindsomething future generations ofscientists will admire. &


Editorial

Ten Simple Rules for Getting GrantsPhilip E. Bourne*, Leo M. Chalupa

This piece follows an earlierEditorial, ‘‘Ten Simple Rulesfor Getting Published’’ [1],

which has generated significantinterest, is well read, and continues togenerate a variety of positivecomments. That Editorial was aimed atstudents in the early stages of a life ofscientific paper writing. This interesthas prompted us to try to helpscientists in making the next academiccareer step—becoming a youngprincipal investigator. Leo Chalupa hasjoined us in putting together ten simplerules for getting grants, based on ourmany collective years of writing bothsuccessful and unsuccessful grants.While our grant writing efforts havebeen aimed mainly at United Statesgovernment funding agencies, webelieve the rules presented here aregeneric, transcending fundinginstitutions and national boundaries.

At the present time, US funding isfrequently below 10% for a given grantprogram. Today, more than ever, weneed all the help we can get in writingsuccessful grant proposals. We hopeyou find these rules useful in reachingyour research career goals.

Rule 1: Be Novel, but Not Too NovelGood science begins with new and

fresh ideas. The grant writing processshould be a pleasure (no, we are notkidding), for it allows you to articulatethose ideas to peers who have to readyour grants but not necessarily yourpapers. Look at grant writing as anopportunity to have an impact. Feelpassionate about what you arewriting—if you are not passionateabout the work, it is probably not agood grant and is unlikely to getfunded. ‘‘Me-too’’ science will not getfunded when funding levels are low. Onthe other hand, science that is toospeculative will not be supportedeither, particularly when funds aretight—sad but true.

Rule 2: Include the AppropriateBackground and Preliminary Data asRequired

You need to convince reviewers thatthe work you propose needs to be done

and that you are the best person to doit. Different granting programs requirediffering amounts of preliminary data.For certain programs, it can be saidthat the work must be essentially donebefore the grant is awarded, and thatthe funds are then used for the nextphase of the research program. There issome truth in this. So whereappropriate, do provide sometantalizing preliminary result, makingsure to tell the reviewers what theseresults imply with respect to thespecific aims of your proposal. Informulating the motivation for yourproposal, make sure to cite all relevantwork—there is nothing worse than notappropriately citing the work of areviewer! Finally, convince the reviewerthat you have the technical andscientific background to perform thework as proposed.

Rule 3: Find the Appropriate FundingMechanism, Read the AssociatedRequest for Applications VeryCarefully, and Respond Specifically tothe Request

Most funding organizations havespecific staff to assist in finding fundingopportunities, and most fundingagencies have components of their Websites designed to help investigators findthe appropriate programs. Remember,programs want to give away money—the jobs of the program’s staff dependon it. The program staff can help youidentify the best opportunities. If yourgrant does not fit a particular program,save your time and energy, and applyelsewhere, where there is a betterprogrammatic fit.

Rule 4: Follow the Guidelines forSubmission Very Carefully andComply

Many funding bodies willimmediately triage grants that do notcomply with the guidelines—it savesthe program time and money. Thisextends to all the onerous supportingmaterial—budget justification,bibliographies, etc. Get them right andkeep them updated for futureapplications. Even if it goes to review,

an inappropriately formulatedapplication may aggravate thereviewers, and will have a negativeimpact even if the science is sound.Length and format are the mostfrequent offenders.

Rule 5: Obey the Three Cs—Concise,Clear, and Complete

The grant does not have to fill theallotted page count. Your goal shouldbe to provide a complete reckoning ofwhat is to be done, as briefly aspossible. Do not rely on supplements(which may not be allowed) or on Websites (review may be activelydiscouraged since it has the potentialto compromise anonymity). Specify thescope up-front and make sure it isrealistic with respect to the fundsrequested. A common temptation forinexperienced grant writers is topropose to do too much. Suchapplications are usually judged asoverly ambitious and consequentlypoorly rated.

Rule 6: Remember, Reviewers ArePeople, Too

Typically, reviewers will have a largenumber of grants to review in a shortperiod. They will easily loseconcentration and miss key points ofyour proposal if these are buried in anoverly lengthy or difficult-to-readdocument. Also, more than likely, notall the reviewers will be experts in your

Citation: Bourne PE, Chalupa LM (2006) Ten simplerules for getting grants. PLoS Comput Biol 2(2): e12.

Copyright: � 2006 Bourne and Chalupa. This is anopen-access article distributed under the terms ofthe Creative Commons Attribution License, whichpermits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the originalauthor and source are credited.

Philip E. Bourne is a professor in the Department ofPharmacology, University of California San Diego, LaJolla, California, United States of America, and isEditor-in-Chief of PLoS Computational Biology. Leo M.Chalupa is a professor and chair in the Section ofNeurobiology, Physiology, and Behavior, University ofCalifornia Davis, Davis, California, United States ofAmerica.


* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org February 2006 | Volume 2 | Issue 2 | e120059

discipline. It is a skill to capture theinterest of experts and nonexpertsalike. Develop that skill. Unlike a paper,a grant provides more opportunity toapply literary skills. Historicalperspectives, human interest, andhumor can all be used judiciously ingrants to good effect. Use formattingtricks (without disobeying rule 4), forexample, underlining, bolding, etc., andrestate your key points as appropriate.Each section can start with a summaryof the key points.

Rule 7: Timing and Internal ReviewAre Important

Give yourself the appropriate leadtime. We all have different approachesto deadlines. Ideally, you shouldcomplete a draft, leave sufficient timeto get feedback from colleagues, andthen look at the grant again yourselfwith a fresh eye. Having a spectrum ofscientific colleagues who are similar tothe likely reviewer pool critique yourgrant is very valuable.

Rule 8: Know Your GrantAdministrator at the InstitutionFunding Your Grant

At the end of the day, this person isyour best advocate. How well you

understand each other can make adifference. Many grant administratorshave some measure (limited tocomplete) discretionary control overwhat they fund. The more they knowand understand you and your work, thebetter your chances of success. Do notrely just on E-mail to get to know thegrant administrator. Do not beintimidated. Talk to them on thetelephone and at meetings wherepossible—they want to help.

Rule 9: Become a Grant ReviewerEarly in Your Career

Being on review panels will help youwrite better grants. Understanding whygrants get triaged before completereview, how a panel reacts to a grant,what the discretionary role of programofficers is, and what the role ofoversight councils is provide valuablelessons for writing successful grants ofyour own and for giving others adviceabout this process.

Rule 10: Accept Rejection and Dealwith It Appropriately

Rejection is inevitable, even for verygood grants when funding levels arelow. Learn to live with rejection and torespond appropriately. Do not be

defensive; address each criticism headon and respond with facts and notemotional arguments. Whenresubmission is necessary, make it veryclear to the reviewer that youunderstand what was wrong the firsttime. Indicate precisely how you havefixed the problems. In the resubmittedapplication, never argue with thevalidity of the prior review. If the grantwas close to being funded the first timearound, remind the reviewers of thatfact by including the previous score ifappropriate, and make it crystal clearwhy this version is much improved.

There are no previously unrevealedsecrets to grant writing presented here.Rather, it is a concise picture intendedto help our early career readers takethe next step. If you feel like you needmore detail, take a look at Kraicer’sarticle [2]. Good luck on getting thosegrants. “


published. PLoS Comput Biol 1: DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057

2. Kraicer J (1997) The art of grantmanship.Strasbourg: Human Frontier Science Program.Available: http://www.hfsp.org/how/ArtOfGrants.htm. Accessed 19 January 2006.

PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org February 2006 | Volume 2 | Issue 2 | e120060

Editorial

Ten Simple Rules for ReviewersPhilip E. Bourne

*, Alon Korngreen

Last summer, the StudentCouncil of the InternationalSociety for Computational

Biology prompted an Editorial, ‘‘TenSimple Rules for Getting Published’’[1]. The interest in that piece (it hasbeen downloaded 14,880 times thus far)prompted ‘‘Ten Simple Rules forWriting a Grant’’ [2]. With this thirdcontribution, the ‘‘Ten Rules’’ serieswould seem to be established, and morerules for different audiences are in themaking. Ten Simple Rules for Reviewers isbased upon our years of experience asreviewers and as managers of thereview process. Suggestions also camefrom PLoS staff and Editors and ourresearch groups, the latter being newand fresh to the process of reviewing.

The rules for getting articlespublished included advice onbecoming a reviewer early in yourcareer. If you followed that advice, byworking through your mentors whowill ask you to review, you will thenhopefully find these Ten Rules forReviewers helpful. There is no magicformula for what constitutes a good ora bad paper—the majority of papersfall in between—so what do you lookfor as a reviewer? We would suggest,above all else, you are looking for whatthe journal you are reviewing forprides itself on. Scientific novelty—there is just too much ‘‘me-too’’ inscientific papers—is often theprerequisite, but not always. There iscertainly a place for papers that, forexample, support existing hypotheses,or provide a new or modifiedinterpretation of an existing finding.After journal scope, it comes down toa well-presented argument andeverything else described in ‘‘TenSimple Rules for Getting Published’’[1]. Once you know what to look for ina paper, the following simple reviewerguidelines we hope will be useful.Certainly (as with all PLoSComputational Biology material) weinvite readers to use the PLoS eLetters

feature to suggest their own rules andcomments on this important subject.

Rule 1: Do Not Accept a ReviewAssignment unless You CanAccomplish the Task in theRequested Timeframe—Learn toSay No

Late reviews are not fair to theauthors, nor are they fair to journalstaff. Think about this next time youhave a paper under review and thereviewers are unresponsive. You do notlike delays when it is your paper,neither do the authors of the paper youare reviewing. Moreover, a significantpart of the cost of publishing isassociated with chasing reviewers foroverdue reviews. No one benefits fromthis process.

Rule 2: Avoid Conflict of InterestReviews come in various forms—

anonymous, open, and double-blind,where reviewers are not revealed to theauthors and authors are not revealed toreviewers. Whatever the process, actaccordingly and with the highest moralprinciples. The cloak of anonymity isnot intended to cover scientificmisconduct. Do not take on the reviewif there is the slightest possibility ofconflict of interest. Conflicts arisewhen, for example, the paper is poorand will likely be rejected, yet theremight be good ideas that you couldapply in your own research, or,someone is working dangerously closeto your own next paper. Most reviewrequests first provide the abstract andthen the paper only after you acceptthe review assignment. In clear cases ofconflict, do not request the paper. Withconflict, there is often a gray area; ifyou are in any doubt whatsoever,consult with the Editors who haveasked you to review.

Rule 3: Write Reviews You Would BeSatisfied with as an Author

Terse, ill-informed reviews reflectbadly on you. Support your criticismsor praise with concrete reasons that arewell laid out and logical. While you may

not be known to the authors, the Editorknows who you are, and your reviewsare maintained and possibly analyzedby the publisher’s manuscript trackingsystem. Your profile as a reviewer isknown by the journal—that profile ofreview quality as assessed by the Editorand of timeliness of review should besomething you are proud of. Manyjournals, including this one, provideyou with the reviews of your fellowreviewers after a paper is accepted orrejected. Read those reviews carefullyand learn from them in writing yournext review.

Rule 4: As a Reviewer You Are Part ofthe Authoring Process

Your comments, when revisions arerequested, should lead to a betterpaper. In extreme cases, a novel findingin a paper on the verge of rejection canbe saved by (often) multiple rounds ofrevision based on detailed reviewers’comments and become highly cited.You are an unacknowledged partner inthe success of the paper. It is alwaysbeneficial to remember that you arethere to help the authors in their work,even if this means rejecting theirmanuscript.

Citation: Bourne PE, Korngreen A (2006) Ten simplerules for reviewers. PLoS Comput Biol 2(9): e110. DOI:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110


Copyright: � 2006 Philip E. Bourne. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License, whichpermits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the originalauthor and source are credited.

Philip E. Bourne is a professor in the Department ofPharmacology, University of California San Diego, LaJolla, California, United States of America, and isEditor-in-Chief of PLoS Computational Biology. AlonKorngreen is a Lecturer in the Mina and EverardFaculty of Life Sciences and the Leslie and SusanGonda Multidisciplinary Brain Research Center, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.


PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org September 2006 | Volume 2 | Issue 9 | e1100973

Rule 5: Be Sure to Enjoy and to Learnfrom the Reviewing Process

Peer review is an importantcommunity service and you shouldparticipate. Unfortunately, the moreyou review, in all likelihood the moreyou will be asked to review. Often youwill be asked to review boring papersthat are of no interest to you. While itis important to serve as a reviewer,only accept papers in which you arekeenly interested, because either theyare close to your area of research oryou feel you can learn something. Youmight say, should I not know the workvery well to be a reviewer? Often aperspective from someone in a slightlydifferent area can be very effective inimproving a paper. Do not hesitate toindicate to the Editor the perspectivethat you can bring to a paper (see Rule10); s/he can then decide how to weighyour review. Editors would of courselike to see you review papers even ifyou are not particularly interested inthem, but the reality is that goodreviewers must use their reviewingtime wisely.

Rule 6: Develop a Method ofReviewing That Works for You

This may be different for differentpeople. A sound approach may be toread the manuscript carefully frombeginning to end before consideringthe review. This way you get a completesense of the scope and novelty of thework. Then read the journal’s Guide toAuthors, particularly if you have notpublished in the journal yourself, or ifthe paper is a particular class of articlewith which you are not overly familiar,a review for example. With this broadbackground, you can move to analyzingthe paper in detail, providing asummary statement of your findings aswell as detailed comments. Use clearreasoning to justify each criticism, andhighlight the good points about thework as well as the weaker points.Including citations missed by theauthor (not your own) is often a short

but effective way to help improve apaper. A good review touches on bothmajor issues and minor details in themanuscript.

Rule 7: Spend Your Precious Time onPapers Worthy of a Good Review

The publish-or-perish syndromeleads to many poor papers that may notbe filtered out by the Editors prior tosending it out for review. Do not spenda lot of time on poor papers (this maynot be obvious when you take on thepaper by reading only the abstract), butbe very clear as to why you have spentlimited time on the review. If there arepositive aspects of a poor paper, try tofind some way of encouraging theauthor while still being clear on thereasons for rejection.

Rule 8: Maintain the Anonymity ofthe Review Process if the JournalRequires It

Many of us have received reviewswhere it is fairly obvious who reviewedthe work, sometimes because theysuggest you cite their work. It is hard tomaintain anonymity in small scientificcommunities, and you should rereadyour review to be sure it does notendanger the anonymity if anonymousreviews are the policy of the journal. Ifanonymity is the rule of the journal, donot share the manuscript withcolleagues unless the Editor has giventhe green light. Anonymity as a journalpolicy is rather a religious rule—peopleare strongly for and against. Conformstrictly to the policy defined by thejournal asking you to review.

Rule 9: Write Clearly, Succinctly, andin a Neutral Tone, but Be Decisive

A poorly written review is as bad as apoorly written paper (see Rule 3). Tryto be sure the Editors and the authorscan understand the points you aremaking. A point-by-point critique isvaluable since it is easy to read and torespond to. For each point, indicatehow critical it is to your accepting the

paper. If English is not your strongpoint, have someone else read thepaper and the review, but withoutviolating other rules, particularly Rule2. Further, as passionate as you mightbe about the subject of the paper, donot push your own opinion orhypotheses. Finally, give the Editors aclear answer as to yourrecommendation for publication.Reviewers frequently do not give arating even when requested. Provide arating—fence-sitting prolongs theprocess unnecessarily.

Rule 10: Make Use of the ‘‘Commentsto Editors’’

Most journals provide theopportunity to send comments to theEditors, which are not seen by theauthors. Use this opportunity toprovide your opinion or personalperspective of the paper in a few clearsentences. However, be sure thosecomments are clearly supported byyour review—do not leave the Editorguessing with comments like ‘‘thisreally should not be published’’ if yourreview does not strongly support thatstatement. It is also a place whereanonymity can be relaxed and reasonsfor decisions made clearer. Forexample, your decision may be basedon other papers you have reviewed forthe journal, which can be indicated inthe Editor-only section. It is also agood place to indicate your ownshortcomings, biases, etc., with regardto the content of the paper (see Rule5). This option is used too infrequentlyand yet can make a great deal ofdifference to an Editor trying to dealwith a split decision. “


published. PLoS Comput Biol 1 (5): DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057

2. Bourne PE, Chalupa LM (2006) Ten simplerules for getting grants. PLoS Comput Biol 2(2): DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020012

PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org September 2006 | Volume 2 | Issue 9 | e1100974

Editorial

Ten Simple Rules for Selecting a PostdoctoralPositionPhilip E. Bourne*, Iddo Friedberg

You are a PhD candidate andyour thesis defense is already insight. You have decided you

would like to continue with apostdoctoral position rather thanmoving into industry as the next step inyour career (that decision should be thesubject of another ‘‘Ten Simple Rules’’).Further, you already have ideas for thetype of research you wish to pursue andperhaps some ideas for specificprojects. Here are ten simple rules tohelp you make the best decisions on aresearch project and the laboratory inwhich to carry it out.

Rule 1: Select a Position thatExcites You

If you find the position boring, youwill not do your best work—believe us,the salary will not be what motivatesyou, it will be the science. Discuss theposition fully with your proposedmentor, review the literature on theproposed project, and discuss it withothers to get a balanced view. Try andevaluate what will be published duringthe process of your research. Beingscooped during a postdoc can be a bigsetback. Just because the mentor isexcited about the project does notmean you that will be six months into it.

Rule 2: Select a Laboratory ThatSuits Your Work and Lifestyle

If at all possible, visit the laboratorybefore making a decision. Laboratoriesvary widely in scope and size. Thinkabout how you like to work—as part of ateam, individually, with littlesupervision, with significantsupervision (remembering that this ispart of your training where you aresupposed to be becomingindependent), etc. Talk to othergraduate students and postdoctoralfellows in the laboratory and determinethe work style of the laboratory. Also,your best work is going to be done whenyou are happiest with the rest of yourlife. Does the location of the laboratory

and the surrounding environmentsatisfy your nonwork interests?

Rule 3: Select a Laboratory and aProject That Develop New Skills

Maximizing your versatility increasesyour marketability. Balance this againstthe need to ultimately be recognizedfor a particular set of contributions.Avoid strictly continuing the work youdid in graduate school. A postdoctoralposition is an extension of yourgraduate training; maximize your gainin knowledge and experience. Thinkvery carefully before extending yourgraduate work into a postdoc in thesame laboratory where you are now—to some professionals this raises a redflag when they look at your resume.Almost never does it maximize yourgain of knowledge and experience, butthat can be offset by rapid andimportant publications.

Rule 4: Have a Backup Plan

Do not be afraid to take risks,although keep in mind that pursuing arisky project does not mean it shouldbe unrealistic: carefully research andplan your project. Even then, the mostresearched, well-thought-out, and well-planned project may fizzle; research islike that. Then what? Do you have abackup plan? Consider working on atleast two projects. One to which youdevote most of your time and energyand the second as a fallback. Thesecond project should be more of the‘‘bread and butter’’ type, guaranteed togenerate good (if not exciting) resultsno matter what happens. Thiscontradicts Rule 1, but that is allowedfor a backup plan. For as we see in Rule5, you need tangible outcomes.

Rule 5: Choose a Project withTangible Outcomes That MatchYour Career Goals

For a future in academia, the mosttangible outcomes are publications,

followed by more publications. Doesthe laboratory you are entering have atrack record in producing high-qualitypublications? Is your future mentorwell-respected and recognized by thecommunity? Talk to postdocs who haveleft the laboratory and find out. If thementor is young, does s/he have thepromise of providing those outcomes?Strive to have at least one qualitypublication per year.

Rule 6: Negotiate FirstAuthorship before You Start

The average number of authors on apaper has continued to rise over theyears: a sign that science continues tobecome more collaborative. This isgood for science, but how does itimpact your career prospects? Think ofit this way. If you are not the firstauthor on a paper, your contribution isviewed as 1/n where n is the number ofauthors. Journals such as this one try todocument each author’s contributions;this is a relatively new concept, and fewpeople pay any attention to it. Have anunderstanding with your mentor onyour likelihood of first authorshipbefore you start a project. It is best totackle this problem early during theinterview process and to achieve an

Citation: Bourne PE, Friedberg I (2006) Ten simplerules for selecting a postdoctoral position. PLoSComput Biol 2(11): e121. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020121

Copyright: � 2006 Bourne and Friedberg. This is anopen-access article distributed under the terms ofthe Creative Commons Attribution License, whichpermits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the originalauthor and source are credited.

Philip E. Bourne is a professor in the Department ofPharmacology, University of California San Diego, LaJolla, California, United States of America, and isEditor-in-Chief of PLoS Computational Biology. IddoFriedberg is a research assistant in the Bioinformaticsand Systems Biology program at the BurnhamInstitute for Medical Research, La Jolla, California,United States of America.


PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org November 2006 | Volume 2 | Issue 11 | e1211327

understanding; this prevents conflictsand disappointments later on. Don’t beshy about speaking frankly on thisissue. This is particularly importantwhen you are joining an ongoing study.

Rule 7: The Time in aPostdoctoral Fellowship ShouldBe Finite

Mentors favor postdocs second onlyto students. Why? Postdocs are secondonly to students in providing a talentedlabor pool for the least possible cost. Ifyou are good, your mentor may wantyou to postdoc for a long period. Threeyears in any postdoc is probablyenough. Three years often correspondsto the length of a grant that pays thepostdoctoral fellowship, so the grantmay define the duration. Definitely findout about the source and duration offunding before accepting a position. Bevery wary about accepting one-yearappointments. Be aware that the lengthof a postdoc will likely be governed bythe prevailing job market. When thejob market is good, assistantprofessorships and suitable positions inindustry will mean you can transitionearly to the next stage of your career.Since the job market even a year out isunpredictable, having at least the

option of a three-year postdocfellowship is desirable.

Rule 8: Evaluate the Growth Path

Many independent researcherscontinue the research they startedduring their postdoc well into theirfirst years as assistant professors, andthey may continue the same line ofwork in industry, too. Whenresearching the field you are about toenter, consider how much has beendone already, how much you cancontribute in your postdoc, andwhether you could take it with youafter your postdoc. This should bediscussed with your mentor as part ofan ongoing open dialog, since in thefuture you may be competing againstyour mentor. A good mentor willunderstand, as should you, that yourhorizon is independence—your ownfuture lab, as a group leader, etc.

Rule 9: Strive to Get Your OwnMoney

The ease of getting a postdoc iscorrelated with the amount ofindependent research monies available.When grants are hard to get, so arepostdocs. Entering a position with your

own financing gives you a level ofindependence and an important extraline on your resume. This requiresforward thinking, since most sources offunding come from a joint applicationwith the personwhowillmentor you as apostdoc. Few graduate students thinkabout applying for postdoctoralfellowships in a timely way. Even if youdo not apply for funding early, itremains an attractive option, even afteryour postdoc has startedwith a differentfunding source. Choosing one to twopotential mentors and writing a grant atleast a year before you will graduate isrecommended.

Rule 10: Learn to RecognizeOpportunities

New areas of science emerge andbecome hot very quickly. Gettinginvolved in an area early on hasadvantages, since you will be moreeasily recognized. Consider alaboratory and mentor that have atrack record in pioneering new areas orat least the promise to do so. “

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank MickeyKosloff for helpful discussions.


Editorial

Ten Simple Rules for a SuccessfulCollaborationQuentin Vicens, Philip E. Bourne*

S cientific research has alwaysbeen a collaborativeundertaking, and this is

particularly true today. For example,between 1981 and 2001, the averagenumber of coauthors on a paper forthe Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences U S A rose from3.9 to 8.4 [1]. Why the increase? Biologyhas always been considered the study ofliving systems; many of us now think ofit as the study of complex systems.Understanding this complexityrequires experts in many differentdomains. In short, these days success inbeing a biologist depends more onone’s ability to collaborate than everbefore. The Medical Research Centersin the United Kingdom figured this outlong ago, and the new Janelia Farmresearch campus of the HowardHughes Medical Institute in the UnitedStates has got the idea, as it stronglypromotes intra- and inter-institutionalcollaborations [2].

Given that collaboration is crucial,how do you go about picking the rightcollaborators, and how can you bestmake the collaboration work? Here areten simple rules based on ourexperience that we hope will help.Additional suggestions can be found inthe references [3,4]. Above all, keep inmind that these rules are for both youand your collaborators. Alwaysremember to treat your collaboratorsas you would want to be treatedyourself—empathy is key.

Rule 1: Do Not Be Lured into Just AnyCollaboration

Learn to say no, even if it is to anattractive grant that would involvesignificant amounts of money and/or ifit is a collaboration with someone moreestablished and well-known. It is easierto say no at the beginning—the longeran ill-fated collaboration drags on, theharder it is to sever, and the worse itwill be in the end. Enter a collaborationbecause of a shared passion for thescience, not just because you think

getting that grant or working with thisperson would look good on yourcurriculum vitae. Attending meetings isa perfect opportunity to interact withpeople who have shared interests [5].Take time to consider all aspects of thepotential collaboration. Ask yourself,will this collaboration really make adifference in my research? Does thisgrant constitute a valid motivation toseek out that collaboration? Do I havethe expertise required to tackle theproposed tasks? What priority will thisteamwork have for me? Will I be able todeliver on time? If the answer is no foreven one of these questions, thecollaboration could be ill-fated.

Enter a collaborationbecause of a shared

passion for the science . . .

Rule 2: Decide at the Beginning WhoWill Work on What Tasks

Carefully establishing the purpose ofthe collaboration and delegatingresponsibilities is priceless. Often thecollaboration will be defined by a grant.In that case, revisit the specific aimsregularly and be sure the respectiveresponsibilities are being met.Otherwise, consider writing a memo ofunderstanding, or, if that is too formal,at least an e-mail about who isresponsible for what. Given thedelegation of tasks, discussexpectations for authorship early in thework. Having said that, leave room forevolution over the course of thecollaboration. New ideas will arise.Have a mutual understanding up-frontsuch that these ideas can be embracedas an extension of the originalcollaboration. Discuss adjustments tothe timelines and the order of authorson the final published paper,accordingly. In any case, becomfortable with the anticipated credit

you will get from the work. The historyof science is littered with stories ofunacknowledged contributions.

Rule 3: Stick to Your TasksScientific research is such that every

answered question begs a number ofnew questions to be answered. Do notdigress into these new questionswithout first discussing them with yourcollaborators. Do not change yourinitial plans without discussing thechange with your collaborators.Thinking they will be pleased with yournew approach or innovation is oftenmisplaced and can lead to conflict.

Rule 4: Be Open and HonestShare data, protocols, materials, etc.,

and make papers accessible prior topublication. Remain available. Atrusting relationship is important forthe collaborative understanding of theproblem being tackled and for thesubsequent joint thinking throughoutthe evolution of the collaboration.

Rule 5: Feel Respect, Get RespectIf you do not have respect for the

scientific work of your collaborators,you should definitely not becollaborating. Respect here especiallymeans playing by Rules 2–4. If you donot respect your collaborators, it willshow. Likewise, if they don’t respectyou. Look for the signs. The signs willdepend on the personality of your

Citation: Vicens Q, Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rulesfor a successful collaboration. PLoS Comput Biol 3(3):e44. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030044

Copyright: � 2007 Vicens and Bourne. This is anopen-access article distributed under the terms ofthe Creative Commons Attribution License, whichpermits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the originalauthor and source are credited.

Quentin Vicens is a Howard Hughes Medical InstituteFellow at the University of Colorado, Boulder,Colorado, United States of America. Philip E. Bourneis the Editor-in-Chief of PLoS Computational Biology.


PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org March 2007 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | e440335

collaborators and range from beingaggressive to being passive–aggressive.For example, getting your tasks done ina timely manner should be yourpriority. There is nothing morefrustrating for your collaborators thanto have to throttle their progress whilethey are waiting for you to send themyour data. Showing respect would be toinform your collaborator when youcannot make a previously agreed-upondeadline, so that other arrangementscan be made.

Rule 6: Communicate, Communicate,and Communicate

Consistent communication with yourcollaborators is the best way to makesure the partnership is going in theplanned direction. Nothing new here, itis the same as for friendship andmarriage. Communication is alwaysbetter face-to-face if possible, forexample by traveling to meet yourcollaborators, or by schedulingdiscussion related to yourcollaborations during conferences thatthe people involved will attend.Synchronous communication bytelephone or video teleconferencing ispreferred over asynchronouscollaboration by e-mail (data could beexchanged by e-mail prior to a call sothat everyone can refer to the datawhile talking).

Rule 7: Protect Yourself from aCollaboration That Turns Sour

The excitement of a newcollaboration can often quicklydissipate as the first hurdles to any newproject appear. The direct consequencecan be a progressive lack of interest andfocus to get the job done. To avoid thesubsequent frustrations andresentment that could even impact yourwork in general, give three chances toyour collaborators to get back on track.After all, your collaborators could justbe having a difficult time for reasons

outside of their control andunanticipated at the time thecollaboration started. After threechances, if it feels like the collaborationcannot be saved, move on. At that pointtry to minimize the role of yourcollaborators in your work: thinkcarefully about the most basic help youneed from them and get it while you can(e.g., when having a phone call or ameeting in person). You may still needto deal with the co-authorship, buthopefully for one paper only!

Rule 8: Always Acknowledge and CiteYour Collaborators

This applies as soon as you mentionpreliminary results. Be clear on whoundertook what aspect of the workbeing reported. Additionally, citingyour collaborators can reveal yourdynamism and your skills at developingprosperous professional relationships.This skill will be valued by your peersthroughout your career.

Rule 9: Seek Advice fromExperienced Scientists

Even though you may not encountersevere difficulties that would result inthe failure of the partnership, eachcollaboration will come with aparticular set of challenges. Toovercome these obstacles, interact withcolleagues not involved in the work,such as your former advisors orprofessors in your department whohave probably been through all kinds ofcollaborations. They will offerinsightful advice that will help youmove beyond the current crisis.Remember, however, that a crisis canoccasionally lead to a breakthrough. Donot, therefore, give up on thecollaboration too easily.

Rule 10: If Your CollaborationSatisfies You, Keep It Going

Ever wondered why a pair of authorshas published so many papers together?

Well, it is like any good recipe: whenyou find one that works, you cook itagain and again. Successful teamworkwill tend to keep flourishing—the firstpaper will stimulate deeper and/orbroader studies that will in turn lead tomore papers. As you get to know yourcollaborators, you begin to understandwork habits, strengths but alsoweaknesses, as well as respective areasof knowledge. Accepting these thingsand working together can make thework advance rapidly, but do not hurry:it takes time and effort from both sidesto get to this point.

Collaborations often comeunexpectedly, just like this one. One ofus (PEB) as Editor-in-Chief wasapproached not just with the idea forthese Ten Rules, but with a draft set ofrules that needed only minorreworking. As you can see, we haveobeyed Rule 8. &

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Tom Cech for insightfuldiscussions, and Chrysa Latrick, DavidZappulla, Barbara Cohen, Emma Veitch,Catherine Nancarrow, and HemaiParthasarathy for helpful suggestions on themanuscript.

Author contributions. QV and PEB wrotethe paper.



References1. Borner K, Maru JT, Goldstone RL (2004) The

simultaneous evolution of author and papernetworks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101: 5266–5273.

2. Rubin GM (2006) Janelia Farm: An experimentin scientific culture. Cell 125: 209–212.

3. Smalheiser NR, Perkins GA, Jones S (2005)Guidelines for negotiating scientificcollaboration. PLoS Biol 3: e217.

4. Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Howard HughesMedical Institute (2006) Making the rightmove. A practical guide to scientificmanagement for postdocs and new faculty.Chevy Chase. Available: http://www.hhmi.org/labmanagement. Accessed 21 February 2007.

5. Aiken JW (2006) What’s the value ofconferences? Scientist 20: 54–56.

PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org March 2007 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | e440336

Editorial

Ten Simple Rules for Making Good OralPresentationsPhilip E. Bourne

Continuing our ‘‘Ten SimpleRules’’ series [1–5], we considerhere what it takes to make a

good oral presentation. While the rulesapply broadly across disciplines, theyare certainly important from theperspective of this readership. Clearand logical delivery of your ideas andscientific results is an importantcomponent of a successful scientificcareer. Presentations encouragebroader dissemination of your workand highlight work that may notreceive attention in written form.

Rule 1: Talk to the AudienceWe do not mean face the audience,

although gaining eye contact with asmany people as possible when youpresent is important since it adds alevel of intimacy and comfort to thepresentation. We mean preparepresentations that address the targetaudience. Be sure you know who youraudience is—what are theirbackgrounds and knowledge level ofthe material you are presenting andwhat they are hoping to get out of thepresentation? Off-topic presentationsare usually boring and will not endearyou to the audience. Deliver what theaudience wants to hear.

Rule 2: Less is MoreA common mistake of

inexperienced presenters is to try tosay too much. They feel the need toprove themselves by proving to theaudience that they know a lot. As aresult, the main message is often lost,and valuable question time is usuallycurtailed. Your knowledge of thesubject is best expressed through aclear and concise presentation that isprovocative and leads to a dialogduring the question-and-answersession when the audience becomesactive participants. At that point, yourknowledge of the material will likelybecome clear. If you do not get anyquestions, then you have not beenfollowing the other rules. Most likely,

your presentation was eitherincomprehensible or trite. A sideeffect of too much material is that youtalk too quickly, another ingredient ofa lost message.

Rule 3: Only Talk When You HaveSomething to Say

Do not be overzealous about whatyou think you will have available topresent when the time comes. Researchnever goes as fast as you would like.Remember the audience’s time isprecious and should not be abused bypresentation of uninterestingpreliminary material.

Rule 4: Make the Take-HomeMessage Persistent

A good rule of thumb would seem tobe that if you ask a member of theaudience a week later about yourpresentation, they should be able toremember three points. If these are thekey points you were trying to getacross, you have done a good job. Ifthey can remember any three points,but not the key points, then youremphasis was wrong. It is obvious whatit means if they cannot recall threepoints!

Rule 5: Be LogicalThink of the presentation as a story.

There is a logical flow—a clearbeginning, middle, and an end. You setthe stage (beginning), you tell the story(middle), and you have a big finish (theend) where the take-home message isclearly understood.

Rule 6: Treat the Floor as a StagePresentations should be

entertaining, but do not overdo it anddo know your limits. If you are nothumorous by nature, do not try and behumorous. If you are not good attelling anecdotes, do not try and tellanecdotes, and so on. A goodentertainer will captivate the audienceand increase the likelihood of obeyingRule 4.

Rule 7: Practice and Time YourPresentation

This is particularly important forinexperienced presenters. Even moreimportant, when you give thepresentation, stick to what youpractice. It is common to deviate, andeven worse to start presenting materialthat you know less about than theaudience does. The more you practice,the less likely you will be to go off ontangents. Visual cues help here. Themore presentations you give, the betteryou are going to get. In a scientificenvironment, take every opportunity todo journal club and become a teachingassistant if it allows you to present. Animportant talk should not be given forthe first time to an audience of peers.You should have delivered it to yourresearch collaborators who will bekinder and gentler but still point outobvious discrepancies. Laboratorygroup meetings are a fine forum forthis.

Rule 8: Use Visuals Sparingly butEffectively

Presenters have different styles ofpresenting. Some can captivate theaudience with no visuals (rare); othersrequire visual cues and in addition,depending on the material, may not beable to present a particular topic wellwithout the appropriate visuals such asgraphs and charts. Preparing goodvisual materials will be the subject of afurther Ten Simple Rules. Rule 7 will

Citation: Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rules formaking good oral presentations. PLoS Comput Biol3(4): e77. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030077

Copyright: � 2007 Philip E. Bourne. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License, whichpermits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the originalauthor and source are credited.

Dr. Philip E. Bourne is a Professor in the Departmentof Pharmacology, University of California San Diego,La Jolla, California, United States of America. E-mail:[email protected]

PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org April 2007 | Volume 3 | Issue 4 | e770593

help you to define the right number ofvisuals for a particular presentation. Auseful rule of thumb for us is if youhave more than one visual for eachminute you are talking, you have toomany and you will run over time.Obviously some visuals are quick,others take time to get the messageacross; again Rule 7 will help. Avoidreading the visual unless you wish toemphasize the point explicitly, theaudience can read, too! The visualshould support what you are sayingeither for emphasis or with data toprove the verbal point. Finally, do notoverload the visual. Make the pointsfew and clear.

Rule 9: Review Audio and/or Video ofYour Presentations

There is nothing more effective thanlistening to, or listening to andviewing, a presentation you havemade. Violations of the other rules willbecome obvious. Seeing what is wrongis easy, correcting it the next timearound is not. You will likely need tobreak bad habits that lead to the

violation of the other rules. Work hardon breaking bad habits; it isimportant.

Rule 10: Provide AppropriateAcknowledgments

People love to be acknowledged fortheir contributions. Having manygratuitous acknowledgements degradesthe people who actually contributed. Ifyou defy Rule 7, then you will not beable to acknowledge people andorganizations appropriately, as you willrun out of time. It is often appropriateto acknowledge people at thebeginning or at the point of theircontribution so that theircontributions are very clear.

As a final word of caution, we havefound that even in following the TenSimple Rules (or perhaps thinking weare following them), the outcome of apresentation is not always guaranteed.Audience–presenter dynamics are hardto predict even though the metric ofdepth and intensity of questions andoff-line followup provide excellentindicators. Sometimes you are sure a

presentation will go well, andafterward you feel it did not go well.Other times you dread what theaudience will think, and you comeaway pleased as punch. Such is life. Asalways, we welcome your comments onthese Ten Simple Rules by ReaderResponse. &

Acknowledgments

The idea for this particular Ten SimpleRules was inspired by a conversation withFiona Addison.

Funding. The author received no specificfunding for this article.

Competing interests. The author has declaredthat no competing interests exist.


published. PLoS Comp Biol 1: e57.2. Bourne PE, Chalupa LM (2006) Ten simple

rules for getting grants. PLoS Comp Biol 2:e12.

3. Bourne PE, Korngreen A (2006) Ten simplerules for reviewers. PLoS Comp Biol 2: e110.

4. Bourne PE, Friedberg I (2006) Ten simple rulesfor selecting a postdoctoral fellowship. PLoSComp Biol 2: e121.

5. Vicens Q, Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rulesfor a successful collaboration. PLoS Comp Biol3: e44.

PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org April 2007 | Volume 3 | Issue 4 | e770594

Editorial

Ten Simple Rules for a Good PosterPresentationThomas C. Erren*, Philip E. Bourne

P osters are a key component ofcommunicating your scienceand an important element in a

successful scientific career. Posters,while delivering the same high-qualityscience, offer a different medium fromeither oral presentations [1] orpublished papers [2], and should betreated accordingly. Posters should beconsidered a snapshot of your workintended to engage colleagues in adialog about the work, or, if you are notpresent, to be a summary that willencourage the reader to want to learnmore. Many a lifelong collaboration [3]has begun in front of a poster board.Here are ten simple rules formaximizing the return on the time-consuming process of preparing andpresenting an effective poster.

Rule 1: Define the PurposeThe purpose will vary depending on

the status and nature of the work beingpresented, as well as the intent. Someposters are designed to be used againand again; for example, those makingconference attendees aware of a sharedresource. Others will likely be usedonce at a conference and then berelegated to the wall in the laboratory.Before you start preparing the poster,ask yourself the following questions:What do you want the person passingby your poster to do? Engage in adiscussion about the content? Learnenough to go off and want to trysomething for themselves? Want tocollaborate? All the above, or none ofthe above but something else? Styleyour poster accordingly.

Rule 2: Sell Your Work in Ten SecondsSome conferences will present

hundreds of posters; you will need tofight for attention. The firstimpressions of your poster, and to alesser extent what you might say whenstanding in front of it, are crucial. It isanalogous to being in an elevator andhaving a few seconds to peak someone’sinterest before they get off. The sad

truth is that you have to sell your work.One approach is to pose your work asaddressing a decisive question, whichyou then address as best you can. Onceyou have posed the question, whichmay well also be the motivation for thestudy, the focus of your poster shouldbe on addressing that question in aclear and concise way.

Rule 3: The Title Is Important

The title is a good way to sell yourwork. It may be the only thing theconference attendee sees before theyreach your poster. The title shouldmake them want to come and visit.The title might pose a decisivequestion, define the scope of the study,or hint at a new finding. Above all, thetitle should be short andcomprehensible to a broad audience.The title is your equivalent of anewspaper headline—short, sharp, andcompelling.

Rule 4: Poster AcceptanceMeans Nothing

Do not take the acceptance of aposter as an endorsement of your work.Conferences need attendees to befinancially viable. Many attendees whoare there on grants cannot justifyattending a conference unless theypresent. There are a small number ofspeaking slots compared withattendees. How to solve the dilemma?Enter posters; this way everyone canpresent. In other words, your posterhas not been endorsed, just accepted.To get endorsement from your peers,do good science and present it well onthe poster.

Rule 5: Many of the Rules for Writinga Good Paper Apply to Posters, Too

Identify your audience and providethe appropriate scope and depth ofcontent. If the conference includesnonspecialists, cater to them. Just as theabstract of a paper needs to be asuccinct summary of the motivation,

hypothesis to be tested, major results,and conclusions, so does your poster.

Rule 6: Good Posters Have UniqueFeatures Not Pertinent to Papers

The amount of material presented ina paper far outweighs what is presentedon a poster. A poster requires you todistill the work, yet not lose themessage or the logical flow. Postersneed to be viewed from a distance, butcan take advantage of your presence.Posters can be used as a distributionmedium for copies of associatedpapers, supplementary information,and other handouts. Posters allow youto be more speculative. Often only thetitles or at most the abstracts of posterscan be considered published; that is,widely distributed. Mostly, they maynever be seen again. There is theopportunity to say more than youwould in the traditional literature,which for all intents and purposes willbe part of the immutable record. Takeadvantage of these unique features.

Rule 7: Layout and FormatAre Critical

Pop musician Keith Richards put thematter well in an interview with DerSpiegel [4]: ‘‘If you are a painter, thenthe most important thing is the barecanvas. A good painter will never coverall the space but will always leave some

Citation: Erren TC, Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rulesfor a good poster presentation. PLoS Comput Biol3(5): e102. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030102

Copyright: � 2007 Erren and Bourne. This is anopen-access article distributed under the terms ofthe Creative Commons Attribution License, whichpermits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the originalauthor and source are credited.

Thomas C. Erren is with the Institute and Policlinic forOccupational and Social Medicine, School ofMedicine and Dentistry, University of Cologne,Lindenthal, Germany. Philip E. Bourne is a Professorin the Department of Pharmacology, University ofCalifornia San Diego, La Jolla, California, UnitedStates of America.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.E-mail: [email protected]

PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org May 2007 | Volume 3 | Issue 5 | e1020777

blank. My canvas is silence.’’ Yourcanvas as poster presenter is also whitespace. Guide the passerby’s eyes fromone succinct frame to another in alogical fashion from beginning to end.Unlike the literature, which is linear byvirtue of one page following another,the reader of a poster is free to wanderover the pages as if they are tacked tothe poster board in a random order.Guide the reader with arrows,numbering, or whatever else makessense in getting them to move from onelogical step to another. Try to do thisguiding in an unusual and eye-catchingway. Look for appropriate layouts inthe posters of others and adopt some oftheir approaches. Finally, never use lessthan a size 24 point font, and make surethe main points can be read at eye level.

Rule 8: Content Is Important, butKeep It Concise

Everything on the poster should helpconvey the message. The text mustconform to the norms of soundscientific reporting: clarity, precisionof expression, and economy of words.The latter is particularly important forposters because of their inherent spacelimitations. Use of first-rate pictorialmaterial to illustrate a poster cansometimes transform what wouldotherwise be a bewildering mass ofcomplex data into a coherent andconvincing story. One carefullyproduced chart or graph often saysmore than hundreds of words. Usegraphics for ‘‘clear portrayal ofcomplexity’’ [5], not to impress (andpossibly bewilder) viewers withcomplex artistry. Allow a figure to beviewed in both a superficial and adetailed way. For example, a large tablemight have bold swaths of colorindicating relative contributions fromdifferent categories, and the smallertext in the table would provide grittydetails for those who want them.Likewise, a graph could provide a boldtrend line (with its interpretationclearly and concisely stated), and alsohave many detailed points with errorbars. Have a clear and obvious set ofconclusions—after the abstract, this is

where the passerby’s eyes will wander.Only then will they go to the results,followed by the methods.

Rule 9: Posters Should HaveYour Personality

A poster is a different medium from apaper, which is conventionally dry andimpersonal. Think of your poster as anextension of your personality. Use it todraw the passerby to take a closer lookor to want to talk to you. Scientificcollaboration often starts for reasonsother than the shared scientific interest,such as a personal interest. A photo ofyou on the poster not only helpssomeone find you at the conferencewhen you are not at the poster, it canalso be used to illustrate a hobby or aninterest that can open a conversation.

Rule 10: The Impact of a PosterHappens Both During and After thePoster Session

When the considerable effort ofmaking a poster is done, do not blowit on presentation day by failing tohave the poster achieve maximumimpact. This requires the rightpresenter–audience interaction. Workto get a crowd by being engaging; oneengaged viewer will attract others.Don’t badger people, let them read. Beready with Rule 2. Work all theaudience at once, do not leave visitorswaiting for your attention. Make eyecontact with every visitor.

Make it easy for a conferenceattendee to contact you afterward.Have copies of relevant papers on handas well as copies of the poster onstandard-sized paper. For work that ismore mature, have the poster onlineand make the URL available as ahandout. Have your e-mail and otherdemographics clearly displayed. Followup with people who come to the posterby having a signup sheet.

The visitor is more likely toremember you than the content of yourposter. Make yourself easy toremember. As the host of the workpresented on the poster, be attentive,open, and curious, and self-confidentbut never arrogant and aggressive.

Leave the visitors space and time—theycan ‘‘travel’’ through your poster attheir own discretion and pace. If avisitor asks a question, talk simply andopenly about the work. This is likelyyour opportunity to get feedback onthe work before it goes to publication.Better to be tripped up in front of yourposter than by a reviewer of themanuscript.

Good posters and their presentationscan improve your reputation, bothwithin and outside your working groupand institution, and may alsocontribute to a certain scientificfreedom. Poster prizes count whenpeers look at your resume.

These ten rules will hopefully helpyou in preparing better posters. For amore humorous view on what not to doin preparing a poster, see [6], and forfurther information, including theopportunity to practice your German,see [7]. &

Acknowledgments

Thomas Erren’s contributions to this pieceare based on [7] and were stimulated byexchanges with Michael Jacobsen. Thanksalso to Steven E. Brenner for useful input.



References1. Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rules for making

good oral presentations. PLoS Comput Biol 3:e77. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030077

2. Bourne PE (2005) Ten simple rules for gettingpublished. PLoS Comput Biol 1: e57. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057

3. Vicens Q, Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rulesfor a successful collaboration. PLoS ComputBiol 3: e44. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030044

4. (1998) Interview with Keith Richards. MeineLeinwand ist die Stille. Der Spiegel 45: 167–170.

5. Tufte ER (2001) The visual display ofquantitative information. Cheshire(Connecticut): Graphics Press. p. 191.

6. Wolcott TG (1997) Mortal sins in posterpresentations or how to give the poster no oneremembers. Newsletter Soc Integr ComparBiol Fall: 10–11. Available: http://www.sicb.org/newsletters/fa97nl/sicb/poster.html. Accessed23 April 2007.

7. Erren TC (2006). Schau mich an! Ein Leitfadenzur Erstellung und Prasentation von Postern inder Medizin und den Naturwissenschaften.Munchen/Wien/New York: W. ZuckschwerdtVerlag.

PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org May 2007 | Volume 3 | Issue 5 | e1020778

Editorial

Ten Simple Rules for Graduate StudentsJenny Gu, Philip E. Bourne

*

Choosing to go to graduateschool is a major life decision.Whether you have already

made that decision or are about to,now it is time to consider how best tobe a successful graduate student. Hereare some thoughts from someone whoholds these memories fresh in her mind(JG) and from someone who has had awhole career to reflect back on thedecisions made in graduate school,both good and bad (PEB). Thesethoughts taken together, from formerstudent and mentor, representexperiences spanning some 25 or moreyears. For ease, these experiences arepresented as ten simple rules, inapproximate order of priority asdefined by a number of graduatestudents we have consulted here in theUS; but we hope the rules are moreglobally applicable, even though length,method of evaluation, and institutionalstructure of graduate education varieswidely. These rules are intended as acompanion to earlier editorialscovering other areas of professionaldevelopment [1–7].

Rule 1: Let Passion Be the DrivingForce of Your Success

As with so many other things in life,your heart and then your head shoulddictate what thesis project makes senseto embark on. Doing your best workrequires that you are passionate aboutwhat you are doing. Graduate school isan investment of up to a seven-yearcommitment, a significant chunk ofyour life. Use the time wisely. Theeducational system provides a varietyof failsafe mechanisms depending onthe part of the world where you study.Laboratory rotations and other formsof apprenticeship should not beoverlooked, for they are opportunitiesto test the waters and measure yourpassion in a given subject area. It is alsoa chance to test your aptitude forresearch. Take advantage of it!Research is very different from simplytaking courses. If you do not feelexcited about doing research and theproject selected, do not do it;reevaluate your career decisions.

Rule 2: Select the Right Mentor,Project, and Laboratory

Finding the right mentor can be hardsince it is not always possible to knowthe kind of mentoring that is going towork best for you until you actually startdoing research. Some of us like to workindependently, others like significantfeedback and supervision. Talk to otherstudents in the laboratory and get theirimpressions of how the principleinvestigator’s mentoring works forthem. In a large laboratory, chances areyou will get less direct mentoring fromthe principle investigator. In that case,other senior scientists in the laboratorybecome important. What mentoring arethey likely to offer? Judge, as best youcan, if the overall environment willwork for you. A key element is thestanding of your mentor in his or herscientific field. When you graduate, thelaboratory you graduate from is goingto play a role in determining whatopportunities exist for yourpostdoctoral work, either in academia,industry, or other sectors. Yourproposed mentor should be veryenthusiastic about the project youdiscuss. If he or she is not, you have thewrong mentor and/or project. At thesame time, beware that suchenthusiasm, however senior the mentor,may be misplaced as far as yourinterests are concerned. Gauge thenovelty of the research project andpotential for high-quality publicationsby doing your own background checkthrough reading previously publishedresearch and talking to other scientistsin related areas. Also consider if theproject can be reasonably completed inthe allocated time for graduation. Topropel your career, you want to comeout of a higher degree as a recognizedindividual having made a significantscientific contribution. Thus, it isabsolutely critical that you do take thetime to find the project andmentor thatis going to fulfill this goal.

Rule 3: Independent Thinking Is aMark of a True Scientist

Regardless of your initial work habitsand how much you depend on your

mentor (Rule 2), eventually you willhave to be more independent thanwhen you started graduate school. Theearlier you start on that path toindependence the better. Independencewill play a critical part in your career asan innovative scientist. As much aspossible define your own researchproject with a view to make a significantand unique scientific contribution.

Rule 4: Remember, Life Is All aboutBalance

Take the time to meet your ownneeds. Graduate school is highlydemanding, both mentally andphysically. Your health comes first,spend the time being healthy or elseyou might find yourself spending moretime being sick. Hard work should bebalanced with other activities that youenjoy and give you a break. Theseactivities can often become importantin your future scientific career.Collaborations sometimes start notbecause of a shared scientific interestinitially, but because you share thesame hobby or other interest.

Rule 5: Think Ahead and DevelopYour Professional Career Early

There are two parts to this. Thefirst part relates to professionaldevelopment. Being a successfulscientist is more involved than justdoing good science. You need to be ableto write good papers, submitcompelling scholarship and grantapplications, make powerful

Citation: Gu J, Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rules forgraduate students. PLoS Comput Biol 3(11): e229. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030229

Copyright: � 2007 Gu and Bourne. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License, whichpermits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the originalauthor and source are credited.

Jenny Gu is with the University of Texas, MedicalBranch, Galveston, Texas, United States of America.Philip E. Bourne is with the University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La Jolla, California, United States ofAmerica.



presentations, and communicate andcollaborate with other researchers. Theother Ten Simple Rules editorials are astart here [1–7], but you need to work ondeveloping these skills at the same timeas you work on your thesis. The secondpart involves using these emergent skillsto figure out what to do with the higherpostgraduate degree. Do not wait untilyou graduate to take the next step. Havea position and a fellowship, if possible,lined up ahead of time.

Rule 6: Remain Focused on YourHypothesis While Avoiding BeingHeld Back

Formulation of the hypothesis is thefirst thing you’ll learn in Science 101,and yet somehow it seems to getoccasionally thrown out the window.When you find yourself lost in the detailsof your research, take a step back andremind yourself of the big picture.Revaluate your hypothesis from time totime to see if it still makes sense, becauseyoumayfindyourself needinganewone.Always keep this in mind in discussionswith your mentor. As you have thesediscussions, remember you are cheaplabor, and, if you are a good student, asource of success to your mentor. Thetemptation is that yourmentorwill wantto keep you around as long as possible.Define the scope of your project earlywith your mentor and agree that this iswhat you will attempt to complete inorder to receive the degree. A careerawaits youbeyond the laboratoryof yourgraduate student days. Do not prolongmoving on to new challenges.

Rule 7: Address Problems EarlierRather Than Later

If graduate school wasn’t quite whatyou thought it would be, be itscientifically or otherwise, find outwhat your options are to address theproblem. Discuss these problems withyour mentors. A good mentor is therenot just to guide you scientifically, butalso in your personal development.Remember, they have been therethemselves and have likely seen similarissues with earlier students. Take timeoff to reflect on your future if this is

needed. A good mentor will understandthat you come first.

Rule 8: Share Your Scientific Successwith the World

Being recognized by your peers assomeone who does good science isimportant both within your institution,nationally, and internationally. Whenopportunities arise to give seminarsand presentations to other groups, takethem. Before starting with a mentor,come to an agreement as to when andwhat meetings you can attend locallyand globally. Scientific meetings are afun and fruitful venue for exchange. Besure to venture beyond the comfortzone of familiar faces, because it isimportant to meet other colleagues inyour field. These people may becomeyour future collaborators, friends,advocates, and employers.

Rule 9: Build Confidence and a ThickSkin

As you pave the road to scientificfame with Rule 8, expect your work tobe criticized and scoffed at, for that ispart of the scientific process ofchallenging new ideas. The best way tobuild self-confidence for theseotherwise defensive moments is to beprepared and to present your workclearly with a confident display of yourexpansive knowledgebase of therelevant related work. Do not beintimidated by big names who questionyour work; counter knowledge withknowledge. Another reason to have athick skin is that the path to success willnot be without setbacks—setbacks suchas experiments that fail, andexperiments that succeed but do notyield a useful result causing you to havewasted significant time. Undergraduatetraining is usually much morestructured and does not prepare youfor such setbacks. Learn as much as youcan from these situations both aboutthe science and yourself and move on.

Rule 10: Help Select andSubsequently Engage Your ThesisCommittee

This rule depends somewhat on howyour institution is structured. Some

institutions do not convene a thesiscommittee until near the end of yourwork. For those institutions thatrequire a thesis committee to beconvened early, talk with your mentorand be involved in the selectionprocess. The committee is there towork for you as secondary mentors.Consider people whose own researchexperience will be valuable to you orwho have a reputation for ongoingmentoring in all areas of professionaldevelopment. Make a point of talkingto members of the committee fromtime to time and keep them abreast ofwhat you are doing. On occasion, youand your primary mentor may havedisagreements; committee memberscan be invaluable here. &

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Kristine Briedis, Jo-Lan Chung,Ruben Valas, and Song Yang, current andformer students in the Bourne Laboratory,and members of the Bioinformatics andChemistry/Biochemistry Programs at theUniversity of California San Diego, for theirinsightful comments on these rules. Asalways, we invite you to comment, eitherformally through the journal, via blogs andlist servers, and to the authors directly.



References

1. Bourne PE (2005) Ten simple rules for gettingpublished. PLoS Comp Biol 1: e57. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057

2. Bourne PE, Chalupa LM (2006) Ten simplerules for getting grants. PLoS Comp Biol 2:e12. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020012

3. Bourne PE, Korngreen A (2006) Ten simplerules for reviewers. PLoS Comp Biol 2: e110.doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110

4. Bourne PE, Friedberg I (2006) Ten simple rulesfor selecting a postdoctoral fellowship. PLoSComp Biol 2: e121. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020121

5. Vicens Q, Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rulesfor a successful collaboration. PLoS Comp Biol3: e44. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030044

6. Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rules for makinggood oral presentations. PLoS Comp Biol 3:e77. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030077

7. Erren TC, Bourne PE (2007) Ten simple rulesfor a good poster presentation. PLoS CompBiol 3: e102. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030102


Documents

Hamming Rules