Publishing papers at
Science magazine
Andrew Sugden, International Managing Editor,
Science magazine (Hills Road, Cambridge)
The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.
Site Tools
Site Search
Site Area Terms
Science magazine contents
 News: News of the Week, Sciencescope,
News Focus
 Commentary: Letters, Books, Policy
Forum, Perspectives, Reviews
 Research: Brevia, Research Articles,
Reports
Writing and
submitting a paper
to Science
.
Is it (one of) your best ever?
Will it have impact and/or lasting value?
Will it interest scientists in other fields?
Does it overturn conventional wisdom?
More than incremental?
• Answer to a longstanding question
• Significant leap forward
• Different way of thinking
• Important application
What helps - 1
Assess both research and presentation
Run your own review process first
Ask for feedback- specialist / non specialist
internal review
What helps - 2
Convincing data
Appropriate controls
What helps
What helps - 3
Concise presentation
Clear writing
.
What helps
What helps - 4
Follow Instructions to Authors!
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/
.
What doesn’t help
•The LPU (…’Least Publishable Unit’)
•Excessive or unfounded speculation
•Repeat examples of a known phenomenon
•Insufficient advance over previous work
.
What Doesn’t Matter
The eminence of the authors
The prestige of the institution
Whether you contacted Science before
submitting
Whether you are a member of AAAS
The field of inquiry
Whether you are from the USA
Preparation and submission of a
paper
Main elements
The results and figures
The text
The Supporting Online
Material
Hori et al.
1
Supporting Online Material
Materials and Methods
Mice.
BALB/c and C.B-17 SCID mice were purchased from CLEA Japan (Tokyo, Japan). RAG-
2–deficient DO11.10 TCR transgenic mice (S1) were bred in our animal facility. All mice
were used at 6 to 12 weeks of age and maintained under specific pathogen-free conditions
in accordance with institutional guidelines for animal welfare.
Antibodies, reagents, and medium.
The following reagents were purchased from PharMingen (San Diego, CA); purified mAb
for CD3ε (145-2C11), CD28 (37.51), IL-10 receptor (1B1.3a), anti-IL-4 (11B11), anti-IL-
12 (C17.8); FITC-conjugated mAb for CD4 (RM4-5); PE-conjugated mAb for CD4
(H129.19), CD8 (53-6.7), CD19 (1D3), CD45RB (16A), CD103 (M290), CTLA-4 (UC10-
4F10-11), IL-2 (JES6-5H4), IL-4 (11B11), IFN-γ (XMG1.2); CyChrome-conjugated anti-
CD4 mAb (RM4-5); biotinylated mAb for CD25 (7D4) and CD44 (IM7). Anti-TGF-β1
(9016.2) and anti-TGF-β1, -β2, -β3 mAbs (1D11) were purchased from R&D systems
(Minneapolis, MN). Anti-GITR mAb (DTA-1) was produced, purified, and biotinylated in
our laboratory. Anti-IL-10 receptor and TGF-β mAbs were used at either 50 or 100 µg/ml,
concentrations sufficient to block IL-10 receptor or neutralize TGF-β according to the
manufacturers’ instructions and the results of others (S2, S3). Mouse recombinant IL-2 (rIL-
2) was a gift from Shionogi Co. (Osaka, Japan). Mouse rIL-4 and rIL-12 were purchased
from PeproTech (London, UK) and R&D systems, respectively.
T cells were cultured in RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with 10% FBS, 100 U/ml
penicillin, 100 µg/ml streptomycin, 50 µM 2-ME, 10 mM HEPES, and 1 mM sodium
pyruvate (all purchased from Sigma, St. Louis, MO). The packaging cell line, Plat-E (S4),
was grown in DMEM medium (Sigma) supplemented with 10% FBS, 100 U/ml penicillin,
100 µg/ml streptomycin and 10 mM HEPES.
Preparation of lymphocytes, flow cytometry, and cell sorting.
Lymphocyte suspensions were prepared from the thymus, spleen, and lymph nodes
(inguinal, axillar, brachial, cervical, and mesenteric) by forcing the organs through a 100
µm nylon mesh into HBSS supplemented with 2% FBS and washed. Splenic erythrocytes
were eliminated with ACK buffer.
For cell surface staining, 106 cells were incubated with fluorescent or biotinylated
mAbs for 30 min at 4°C, then with PE-conjugated Streptavidin (PharMingen) as a
secondary reagent for biotinylated Abs. Cells were analyzed on an Epics-XL flow
cytometer (Beckman Coulter, Miami FL) with exclusion of dead cells by propidium iodide
incorporation. To detect intracellular CTLA-4, cells were fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde,
permeabilized with 0.5% saponin, and stained with PE-conjugated anti-CTLA-4 or its
isotype-matched control mAb in the presence of 0.5% saponin.
To sort peripheral CD4+ T cell subpopulations, CD4+ cells were first enriched by
Hori et al.
2
The abstract
The title
Ready?
Good cover letter:
outline conclusions
and their
significance in plain
language without
hype
European office
Life Science: Caroline Ash
(microbiology) Stella Hurtley (cell
biology), Peter Stern (neuroscience),
Andrew Sugden (ecology)
Physical Science: Julia FahrenkampUppenbrink (Perspectives), Ian
Osborne (physics), Maria Cruz
(astro, planetary science)
Editor contact information
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/meet_editors.dtl
Editor’s role
  Evaluate manuscript submissions
  Decide what to publish and what to reject
  Travel to meetings/lab visits
  Writing (TWIS, Editors’ Choice etc)
  Commissioning (Reviews, Special Issues)
  Liaison with lay press
4% 3%
21%
72%
rejected before in-depth review
rejected after in-depth review
published (biological)
published (physical)
Main principles
of selection
Quality of research
scope
interest
novelty
Submitted
Manuscripts
Submitted
Manuscripts
Science Editorial
Staff
Board of Reviewing
Editors
Submitted
Manuscripts
Science Editorial
Staff
Board of Reviewing
Editors
Selected for
In-Depth
Review (~25%)
Submitted
Manuscripts
Science Editorial
Staff
Board of Reviewing
Editors
Selected for
In-Depth
Review (~25%)
Questions posed to referees
- Give a brief synopsis of the paper
- Analyze the quality of experiments
- Analyze the validity of interpretation
- Distinguish from related publications or prior work
- Discuss the paper’s significance and likely impact:
-In its own specialty?
-In a broader context?
Submitted
Manuscripts
Science Editorial
Staff
Board of Reviewing
Editors
Selected for
In-Depth
Review (~25%)
Science Editorial
Staff
External Referees
Submitted
Manuscripts
Science Editorial
Staff
Board of Reviewing
Editors
External Referees
Selected for
In-Depth
Review (~25%)
Science Editorial
Staff
Selected for Publication
in Science (6-7%)
Common reasons for
rejecting a paper - 1
Belongs in a specialized journal
Too little advance over previous work
Unconvincing data
Common reasons for
rejecting a paper - 2
Observations without interpretations…
.
Common reasons for
rejecting a paper - 3
…interpretations without observations!
Editing for economy…
“…resources required for sustaining
metabolism and growth…”
“food”
The editor’s task is complex, delicate, and
silent. We spend an awful lot of time as
editors in a craft that is meaningful mostly to
ourselves and that almost nobody appreciates
…..when the editing is good no one notices
and the reader just assumes that the author
did it perfectly in the first place. The better the
job of editing, the more closely it sticks to the
author’s meaning….and the less the editor’s
contribution is recognized.
CBE Views, Vol 13, No. 5, 1990