Eight Attributes of Highly Successful Post-docs

Constance Holden

Successful young faculty members offer post-docs some frank tips on how to pick the right lab--and how to flourish in it

Oliver Hobert had a clear vision of his ideal post-doc: Find a prominent principal investigator at a top U.S. lab in a nice geographic area with a well-developed scientific community. An impossible dream? Not for Hobert, who received his Ph.D. in neurobiology in 1995 from the Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry in Martinsried, Germany.

He snared a 2-year fellowship from the international Human Frontiers Science Program, based in Strasbourg, France, and won a spot in the Caenorhabditis elegans lab of biologist Gary Ruvkun at Harvard Medical School in Boston. Working with a well-known investigator in a lab small enough to ensure him individual attention but big enough to allow him some independence, Hobert honed his knowledge of the model organism, the first multicellular organism whose genome was fully sequenced, and in 3 years got his name on six published papers--four as first author.

Indeed, his post-doc experience was so productive that in January 1998 David Hirsh, chair of the biochemistry and molecular biophysics department at Columbia University, called him up and asked if he was interested in a job. Now, at 32, Hobert is an assistant professor of neurobiology at Columbia and the recipient of a prestigious international research grant from the same Human Frontiers organization that funded his post-doc.

Such a career trajectory is not in the cards for everyone. But Hobert's success to date rests on more than his intellect: Along the way he also made some canny career decisions that set him apart from his peers. Indeed, when Science called up a score of high-achieving young scientists to learn about their post-doc experiences, at least half of them began by explaining that they probably had not done things the way most people do. That was a tip-off to what's special about this group--they trust their own instincts and march to the beat of their own drums.

And that's only part of their formula for success. They've also had the foresight to pick promising fields before they got overcrowded and the ability to see where their work fits into a larger picture. And although they are independent thinkers, they also understand the importance of traditional markers of success: pedigree, publications, and fundability. Finally, they are the type of person others want to be around.

We've transformed these common themes into what might be called eight attributes of highly successful post-docs.

ATTRIBUTE #1: Get ahead of the curve

Every hot young scientist surveyed managed to meld what he or she is really interested in doing with an area that has a lot of growth potential. "Assess your research field," says Scot Martin, 29, an assistant professor of environmental sciences and engineering at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a recipient this year of the Presidential Early Career Award in Science and Engineering. "Think about what's opening up and what will be exciting areas that will interest academic departments once you finish your post-doc."

That approach has paid off handsomely for computer scientist Melanie Mitchell, 40, of The Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico. After doing a thesis on artificial intelligence and cognitive science, Mitchell switched to evolutionary computation--applying ideas from biological evolution to computer programming--for her post-doc at the University of Michigan in the early 1990s. "I was following what I wanted to do the most," she says. At the same time, "I thought the field had a lot of possibilities, and there were not that many people working in it." There are now, and Mitchell--a finalist this year for the McDonnell Foundation's $1 million Centennial award to young investigators--has become the scientific equivalent of an investor who bought into a hot stock before it shot up.

But picking a field just because it looks fashionable is not a good idea, warns Alexandre Barvinok, 36, an associate professor of mathematics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. "When you see a bandwagon approaching, it's already too late to jump on," he says. "Better to do what you think is right [for you]."

ATTRIBUTE #2: Follow your heart

Hot young scientists can't emphasize enough the importance of sticking with what turns you on. Barvinok recites the advice of one of his mentors, Louis Billera of Cornell University: "If you do things the way you want to and others are unhappy, it's their problem. If you do it the way they want you to and they're still unhappy, it's your problem."

Carolyn Bertozzi, a 32-year-old assistant professor of chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, agrees that you're more appealing to employers if you're following your bliss. "I definitely find myself most attracted to those who are in my mind a singularity. ... I like to see someone drawn to their chosen field out of pure interest, excitement, and passion," she says.

Bertozzi went against the advice of her professors when she decided to do a post-doc in immunology after her Berkeley Ph.D. in chemistry. "I was counseled very strongly against it. They warned me that everyone would forget me if I left chemistry," she says. But she wanted to apply chemistry to a "very interesting problem" involving cell adhesion that Steven Rosen was working on at the University of California, San Francisco.

The detour wound up helping, not hurting, her career. "When I applied for academic positions, I'm sure I gave a job talk that people hadn't heard from anyone else," says Bertozzi, who joined the Berkeley faculty in 1996. Her latest achievement is a MacArthur "genius" fellowship, given in June after she figured out how to modify sugar molecules on cell surfaces to reveal characteristics of carbohydrates. The technique can be applied to learning more about cell communication and protein folding, for example.

ATTRIBUTE #3: Remember the big picture

As important as knowing one's own field is knowing how it fits into the work of others. Nalini Ambady, an associate professor of psychology at Harvard University, wasn't thrilled about the prospect of a post-doc after getting her Ph.D. in social psychology from Harvard in 1991--"People [in psychology] usually go straight to academic positions," she says. But there weren't many jobs around, so when her adviser Bob Rosenthal offered her a position, she took it.

That decision allowed her to continue a line of research--studying how people make social judgments about each other after brief observations--that bears on such areas as teaching effectiveness and doctor-patient relationships. "I was able to plan for the next 3 to 4 years and start thinking programmatically about the work and where it fits in," says Ambady. "If I'd gone straight into an academic position, I would have been overwhelmed." The experience has clearly paid off: She was hired by Harvard in 1993, and this year she received a presidential early career award for "fundamental contributions to understanding the accuracy of social judgments based on thin slices of information."

ATTRIBUTE #4: Acquire a pedigree

Although following your own instincts is vital, it's also important to look good to potential employers. That's what doing a post-doc with a prominent person can achieve, as well as generating an invaluable network of contacts.

"The notion of the pedigree still holds some water," says Bertozzi. Neuroscientist Randy Buckner, 29, an assistant professor of psychology at Washington University in St. Louis and another Centennial finalist, agrees: "Coming from a great lab is a major predictor of future success." Chemist Cassandra Fraser, 36, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, who did her post-doc at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) with well-known chemist Robert Grubbs, says she has observed that a strong candidate from a top lab will often have an edge over even a reportedly brilliant applicant from a so-so lab.

Not everyone agrees. Ruvkun says some people coming out of great labs may look good based on the work of others, on the principle that a high tide raises all boats. "So someone [good] coming out of a lab not so well known is really impressive."

As important as a pedigree is a track record. A strong list of publications helps the potential employer figure out, as Buckner puts it, "Is this person a 'closer'?" For every paper published, Buckner believes, "there are two others that people have dropped" just short of getting them ready for publication.

ATTRIBUTE #5: Do your homework

So how do you land that great post-doc position? Start by acting like a grown-up. "There's a transition you have to make, from thinking of yourself as a person in training to thinking of yourself as an independent scientist with opinions to offer," says neuroscientist Jennifer Groh, a 33-year-old assistant professor at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.

Applicants need to be thoroughly prepared to explain what they can contribute to the lab. Ruvkun says he looks for people who "exude mastery"--something Hobert did "right from the start." But, he says, "when people apply I'm always surprised at how few of them have actually read everything from my lab." Hobert agrees: "Now I'm interviewing [post-doc applicants] myself, and it's important if this person really read the papers I've written. ... I would think only half of them do." Enthusiasm is important, too, he adds: "I just had an applicant here whom I really liked. But I did not make him an offer for the simple reason that he didn't send me an e-mail afterward telling me he was interested."

ATTRIBUTE #6: Bring money

Another very attractive quality is the ability to stand on your own feet financially. Hobert offers this bit of advice: "If you are accepted in a lab, and the principal investigator tells you you don't need to apply for funding, apply for funding anyway." It looks good on your CV, helps you organize your thoughts, and demonstrates that you can generate "excitement about your research plan." Conversely, adds North Carolina's Martin, if you are applying for a post-doc position, "a bad way to open the conversation is by asking, 'Do you have money?' "

Martin used his fund-raising prowess to land in the lab of a Nobel Prize-winner. After doing his Ph.D. at Caltech on water (aquatic photochemistry), he got interested in air and decided he wanted to work with Mario Molina at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Instead of asking for a job, however, Martin asked Molina to sponsor his fellowship application to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. From there it was a short step into the MIT lab, which Martin joined 2 weeks before Molina won the 1995 Nobel Prize for ozone chemistry.

The type of fellowship can also be very important, says Andres Garcia, 30, a biomedical engineer who snared a tenure-track position at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta only 1 year into a Ford Foundation minority post-doc in David Boettiger's microbiology lab at the University of Pennsylvania. "Bioengineering is a very hot field, and the prestige of the Ford Fellowship made me look good," says the Puerto Rican- born Garcia.

ATTRIBUTE #7: Forget the want ads

"A lot of people view the post-doc position as just a buffer against a bad job market. They look at the ads and see who will pick them up for 2 years while they wait to get their shot at the market," says Bruce McCandliss, who is finishing up a post-doc in cognitive neuroscience at the Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition at the University of Pittsburgh. That's the wrong approach, says McCandliss. A post-doc, he says, "offers the chance to form a unique collaborative relationship that should not be considered lightly."

McCandliss, 33, wanted to extend his doctoral work on tracking learning-related changes in brain waves into a project that uses functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to track changes in brain activation as children learn to read. "The domain was brand-new," he says, and very few investigators were working on this question. He decided that Pittsburgh was the best place in the country for him to both learn fMRI and collaborate with experts on reading. Although there was no direct funding available for such a post-doc position, McCandliss brainstormed with his Ph.D. adviser Michael Posner at the University of Oregon and several researchers in Pittsburgh. He ultimately won a grant from the McDonnell Foundation for his salary, and the Pittsburgh team later obtained a large grant from the National Science Foundation.

"I thought of the post-doc as a way to set up the most exciting collaboration I could imagine, rather than a process of hunting for an advertised job," says McCandliss. "People who wait and answer general ads for post-docs can wind up working on a preexisting project and have less of a hand in designing the whole experience."

Another high achiever who strayed off the beaten track is 32-year-old computer scientist Michael Littman, an assistant professor at Duke University, who pursued what he now calls a "predoc." He spent 4 years as a researcher at Bellcore after graduating from Yale University in 1988. "My family was convinced that I'd never go back to school," he says. But the experience allowed him to discover his real interests, laying a solid foundation that "helped me go through my Ph.D. faster." It also served the function of a regular post-doc: His current lines of research--artificial intelligence and cross-language information retrieval--"both have their roots in my time at Bellcore."

ATTRIBUTE #8: Be a team player

"Your accomplishments can get you into the top 20 out of 200," says Martin. "But after that any one of those top 20 can do the job well." At that point, it's the nuances that count--and that's where the interpersonal part comes in. Groh is a good example, according to Mike Shadlen of the University of Washington, who did a post-doc with her. Groh, who does experimental work with humans and monkeys on how visual and auditory signals combine and generate behavioral responses, is "extremely generous and kind-spirited," says Shadlen. She's "very open with her ideas--enthusiastic, willing to engage, willing to be wrong. She's the kind of person you want to hire in your lab."

Groh, who also has an impressive pedigree--she worked with David Sparks at the University of Pennsylvania and did a post-doc with William Newsome at Stanford University--makes it clear that interpersonal skills have to include savvy as well as nice. When she interviewed for a post-doc, she asked people about the atmosphere in the lab and whether there were any hidden conflicts. And she expects people applying to her lab to do the same. Her combination of attributes won her nine job offers while a post-doc, including a $1 million start-up offer--four times the norm--from The Rockefeller University, which she turned down because she and her husband were looking for jobs in the same place.

Following all these rules doesn't guarantee you the job of your dreams, of course. But ignore them at your peril, say those former postdocs who have found them helpful in achieving success at a young age.

--sciencemag

Ten Secrets to Giving a Good Scientific Talk

Mark Schoeberl and Brian Toon

More people will probably listen to your scientific talk than will read the paper you may write. Thus the scientific talk has become one of the most important communication forums for the scientific community. As proof, we need only look at the rising attendance at and the proliferation of meetings. In many ways your research reputation will be enhanced (or diminished) by your scientific talk. The scientific talk, like the scientific paper, is part of the scientific communication process. The modern scientist must be able to deliver a well organized, well delivered scientific talk

I have compiled this personal list of "Secrets" from listening to effective and ineffective speakers. I don't pretend that this list is comprehensive - I am sure there are things I have left out. But, my list probably covers about 90% of what you need to know and do.

Most scientific presentations use visual aids - and almost all scientific presentations are casual and extemporaneous¹. This "scientific style" places some additional burdens on the speaker because the speaker must both manipulate visual media, project the aura of being at ease with the material, and still have the presence to answer unanticipated questions. No one would argue with the fact that an unprepared, sloppy talk is a waste of both the speaker's and audience's time. I would go further. A poorly prepared talk makes a statement that the speaker does not care about the audience and perhaps does not care much about his subject.

So what are the secrets of a good talk? Here is my list of do's and don'ts.

1) Prepare your material carefully and logically. Tell a story. The story should have four parts:

(a)Introduction (b) Method (c) Results (d) Conclusion/Summary.

The Introduction should not just be a statement of the problem - but it should indicate your motivation to solve the problem, and you must also motivate the audience to be interested in your problem. In other words, the speaker must try and convince the audience that the problem is important to them as well as the speaker.

The Method includes your approach and the caveats. To me , the Method becomes more interesting to the listener if this section is "story like" rather than "text book like". In other words "I did this and then I did that, but that didn't work so I did something else." This Rather than, "The final result was obtained using this approach." This adds the human element to your research which is always interesting.

The Results section is a brief summary of your main results. Try and be as clear as possible in explaining your results - include only the most salient details. Less salient details will emerge as people ask questions.

The Conclusion/Summary section should condense your results and implications. This should be brief - a bullet or outline form is especially helpful. Be sure to connect your results with the overview statements in the Introduction. Don't have too many points - three or four is usually the maximum.

These four items are the core of a good talk. Good speakers often broaden the Introduction to set the problem within a very wide context. Good speakers may also add fifth item: Future Research.

There is a crusty old saying among good speakers that describes a presentation from the communication viewpoint: "Tell'em what you are going to tell'em. Tell'em. Then tell'em what you told'em." The point of this aphorism is people absorb very little information at first exposure - multiple exposures are the best way for ideas to sink in. Thus, it is ok to state some of your results in the introduction, and then to repeat your main points in the results/ conclusion sections.

2) Practice your talk. There is no excuse for this lack of preparation. The best way to familiarize yourself with the material and get the talk's timing right is to practice your talk. Many scientists believe that they are such good speakers, or so super-intelligent that practice is beneath them. This is an arrogant attitude. Practice never hurts and even a quick run through will produce a better talk. Even better, practice in front of a small audience.

3) Don't put in too much material. Good speakers will have one or two central points and stick to that material. How many talks have you heard where the speaker squanders their time on unessential details and then runs out of time at the end? The point of a talk is to communicate scientific results, not to show people how smart you are (in case they can't figure it out for themselves). Less is better for a talk. Here is a good rule of thumb - each viewgraph takes about 1.5-2 minutes to show. Thus a 12-minute AGU talk should only have 6-8 viewgraphs. How many "viewgraph movies" have you seen at the AGU? How effective were those presentations? Furthermore, no one has ever complained if a talk finishes early. Finally, assume most of the audience will know very little about the subject, and will need a clear explanation of what you are doing not just details.

4) Avoid equations. Show only very simple equations if you show any at all. Ask yourself - is showing the equation important? Is it central to my talk? The problem is that equations are a dense mathematical notation indicating quantitative relationships. People are used to studying equations, not seeing them flashed on the screen for 2 minutes. I have seen talks where giant equations are put up - and for no other purpose than to convince the audience that the speaker must be really smart. The fact is, equations are distracting. People stop listening and start studying the equation. If you have to show an equation - simplify it and talk to it very briefly.

5) Have only a few conclusion points. People can't remember more than a couple things from a talk especially if they are hearing many talks at large meetings. If a colleague asks you about someone's talk you heard, how do you typically describe it? You say something like "So and so looked at such and such and they found out this and that." You don't say, "I remember all 6 conclusions points." The fact is, people will only remember one or two things from your talk - you might as well tell them what to remember rather than let them figure it out for themselves.

6) Talk to the audience not to the screen. One of the most common problems I see is that the speaker will speak to the viewgraph screen. It is hard to hear the speaker in this case and without eye contact the audience loses interest. Frankly, this is difficult to avoid, but the speaker needs to consciously look at the object on the screen, point to it, and then turn back to the audience to discuss the feature. Here is another suggestion, don't start talking right away when you put up a viewgraph. Let people look at the viewgraph for a few moments - they usually can't concentrate on the material and listen to you at the same time. Speak loudly and slowly. . I like to pick out a few people in the audience and pointedly talk to them as though I were explaining something to them.

7) Avoid making distracting sounds. Everyone gets nervous speaking in public. But sometimes the nervousness often comes out as annoying sounds or habits that can be really distracting. Try to avoid "Ummm" or "Ahhh" between sentences. If you put your hands in your pockets, take the keys and change out so you won't jingle them during your talk.

8) Polish your graphics. Here is a list of hints for better graphics:

1. Use large letters (no fonts smaller than 16 pts!!)
To see how your graphics will appear to the audience, place the viewgraph on the floor - can you read it standing up? Special sore points with me are figure axis and captions - usually unreadable.
2. Keep the graphic simple.
Don't show graphs you won't need. If there are four graphs on the viewgraph and you only talk to one - cut the others out. Don't crowd the viewgraph, don't use different fonts or type styles - it makes your slide look like a ransom note. Make sure the graph is simple and clear. A little professional effort on graphics can really make a talk impressive. If someone in your group has some artistic talent (and you don't) ask for help or opinions.
3. Use color.
Color makes the graphic stand out, and it is not that expensive anymore. However avoid red in the text - red is difficult to see from a distance. Also, check your color viewgraph using the projector. Some color schemes look fine on paper, but project poorly.
4. Use cartoons
I think some of the best talks use little cartoons which explain the science. It is much easier for someone to follow logic if they can see a little diagram of the procedure or thought process that is being described. A Rube-Goldberg sort of cartoon is great for explaining complex ideas.

9) Use humor if possible. A joke or two in your presentation spices things up and relaxes the audience. It emphasizes the casual nature of the talk. I am always amazed how even a really lame joke will get a good laugh in a science talk.

10) Be personable in taking questions. Questions after your talk can be scary. But questions are very important. If there are no questions after a talk that I give, I am disappointed. It means that I failed to stimulate the audience, or that they understood nothing of what I said. I failed to communicate. Questions tell you what part of your talk the audience did not understand. Questions may also help you focus your research or help you in the write up. So what is the best way to answer questions?

1. First, repeat the question.
This gives you time to think, and the rest of the audience may not have heard the question. Also if you heard the question incorrectly, it presents an opportunity for clarification.
2. If you don't know the answer then say "I don't know, I will have to look into that.
" Don't try to invent an answer on the fly. Be honest and humble. You are only human and you can't have thought of everything.
3. If the questioner disagrees with you and it looks like there will be an argument then defuse the situation.
A good moderator will usually intervene for you, but if not then you will have to handle this yourself. e.g. "We clearly don't agree on this point, let's go on to other questions and you and I can talk about this later."
4. Never insult the questioner.
He/she may have friends, and you never need more enemies.

A couple miscellaneous points

Thank you - It is always a good idea to acknowledge people who helped you, and thank the people who invited you to give a talk.

Dress up - People are there to hear your material, but when you dress up you send the message that you care enough about the audience to look nice for them.

Check your viewgraphs before you give the talk. Are they all there? Are they in order? This is especially important with slides. Try to bring them to the meeting in a tray, or at least check them to be sure they are not upside down or backwards when the projectionist gets them. It is especially annoying to watch people fumble to get a viewgraph right side up. Don't do this by looking at the screen. Just look at the viewgraph directly. If it is right side up to you, then it will project correctly on the screen assuming that you are facing the audience. Go over the slides or viewgraphs quickly before the talk. Some people attach little post-it notes to viewgraphs to remind them of points to make. This seems like a good idea to me. However, It is very annoying to watch people peel their viewgraphs from sheets of paper. It suggests that they have never looked at them before. It is faster, more permanent, and you are less likely to have a mixed up shuffle, if you put them into viewgraph holders which clip in to a three ring binder.

If you have an electronic presentation - check out the system well before the talk.

¹ Amazingly, in the field of literature or history the talks are not given extemporaneously but read from written text. Sometimes this is also done in science talks and it can be an interesting and different experience.

--agu.org

Cover letter for a journal submission

Where required, the submitted manuscript must be accompanied by a cover letter stating that neither the manuscript nor any significant part of it is under consideration for publication elsewhere, or has appeared elsewhere in a manner that could be construed as a prior or duplicate publication of the same, or very similar, work. Should there be a possibility of doubt concerning such prior publications, the title page and abstract of such material should be included with the submitted manuscript. When appropriate, the cover letter should contain disclosures of any potential conflict of interest arising from associations with commercial or corporate interest in connection with the work submitted.

A cover letter should include:

• Title of manuscript
  
• Complete author listing
  
• A word count for the manuscript (refer to journal web sites for guidelines on limits.)
  
• An indication that the manuscript has been read and approved by all authors.
  
• An indication that all persons listed as authors have contributed to preparing the manuscript and that no person or persons other than the authors listed have contributed significantly to its preparation. (The intent of this requirement is to forestall the participation of outside parties ("ghost writers") who may stand to benefit by attempting to influence the content of a study or its results.)
• When appropriate, a specification of the subspecialty section for which the submission is intended (e.g., Cardiovascular, Ambulatory, Critical Care, etc Signature of corresponding author.
  
• Electronic signatures are acceptable.
  

Authorship and Copyright at Submission
Some journals require authors to transfer copyright of articles accepted for publication. Check individual journal web sites for information on this requirement.

Sample Cover Letter

RE: (title of manuscript), by (all authors in order listed on title page)

Word Count: (number of words in text of manuscript)

Dear (name of editor):

On behalf of my co-authors, I am submitting the enclosed material for possible publication in (name of journal). It has not been submitted for publication nor has it been published in whole or in part elsewhere. I attest to the fact that all authors listed on the title page have read the manuscript, attest to the validity and legitimacy of the data and its interpretation, and agree to its submission to (name of journal).

Possible conflicts of interest, sources of financial support, corporate involvement, patent holdings, etc. for each author are disclosed on the attached Checklist or in an accompanying letter. Copyright transfer and the signatures of all authors will be requested prior to publication of accepted manuscripts.

Signature, Date

--lwwonline

How do I submit a paper to a scientific journal?

Maxine Clarke, executive editor of Nature

Before submitting a paper to a scientific journal, two factors should be kept in mind. The first is the need to ensure that you have a clear, logical message. The second is to present your paper in the correct format for the journal to which you intend to submit the paper.

The first of these is the most important. However careful and beautiful the presentation, a paper will not be published unless it has a clear, sound conclusion (editors of reputable journals will always be happy to advise authors whose scientific conclusions are publishable but who have difficulty in presenting these conclusions in, say, a foreign language.)

Before submitting a paper, therefore, be sure that you have something important and publishable to say. To know this, you should discuss your results with others working in the field, both in your own institution and elsewhere.

The best way to do this is to present your results at scientific meetings — if you can get to them. An additional (or alternative) strategy is to join an e-mail list relevant to your field, and use that to obtain feedback about your research plans, and lean about results from others in the field.

Discuss your ideas and proposed paper with people whose work you respect and admire. It may be a good idea to send one or two key scientists a brief summary of your paper, and ask them to send you some informal comments on whether it is worth your while writing a full paper, or if whether you should to do some more work first (and if so, what).

Use the Internet and e-mail if you cannot speak to people directly at meetings. If you can discuss your work by telephone, then do so; but send the recipient a synopsis or draft of your proposed publication first, so that you have something concrete to discuss.

Writing a draft

When you are sure you are ready to write up the paper, prepare a first draft, including the figures, and repeat the consultation process. Ask people at this stage which journal they think would be most appropriate for publication of your work.

Once you feel you have a solid conclusion to present, you need to prepare a final draft of your paper in the format of the journal to which you intend to submit.

In deciding on the journal, you should bear in mind the advice you have received from others in the field (some of whom may be academic editors of journals and referees themselves, and hence experienced at judging which journal is most appropriate).

You should also be aware of which journals are publishing similar papers to yours, and whether the journal that you have selected has any rules that make it particularly easy — or difficult — for you to submit.

For example, some journals impose page charges (although many do not), which are typically US$ 50 -100 per page but vary greatly. A journal will state its page charges in its instructions to authors. If your institution cannot pay these, you should ask the journal before you submit whether it will waive the charges - many do under such circumstances.

Another factor to bear in mind is that although some journals allow electronic submission via the Internet or by e-mail, others only allow 'hard-copy' submission by post. This may affect your decision about where to submit.

Most journals or their publishers (for example, a scientific society) have websites containing information that will help you to make this decision. Alternatively you may be able to look at the journal of your choice in your library.

Follow the guidelines

Make sure you read thoroughly the journal's editorial policy, guidelines to authors and any other relevant information — for example, which people in your scientific field are on the editorial board — before you submit.

Author information of this type is usually on 'free access' areas of journals' websites, even if the content of the journal is only available to subscribers. But if your library does not subscribe to the journal of your choice and that journal has an online version, it is worth sending the journal an e-mail saying that you are planning to submit a paper, and asking the journal if it will arrange for you to have on-line access to its contents for a limited time.

This will allow you to look at the level and format of published papers, information that will be helpful when you prepare the final version of your own paper.

Submitting your paper

Once you have read the journal's instructions to authors and prepared your paper, you must submit it according to the journal's instructions.

Different journals have different rules about number of copies of papers to submit, how to prepare figures and tables, whether to include other information supplementary to your paper, whether all the authors have to sign the letter of submission (known as the 'cover letter') or just one, and so on.

When you submit your paper, the cover letter should contain:

• Your name, address, phone, fax and e-mail numbers.

• If you are going to be away from your usual address for any length of time during the three months after submission, include this information (dates and, where relevant, alternative contact details).

• State briefly, in a sentence or two, why you think the paper is important and why the journal should publish it (in other words, state the main conclusion of the paper).

• If anyone in the field has read the paper and commented on it before submission, name these people in the cover letter, particularly if they are individuals of high standing in the field and/or if they are on the editorial board of the journal.

• If you would like a particular person in the field to referee your paper, suggest this person (although you must be confident that the person is independent, in other words does not collaborate with you or have any other reason to be biased in your favour).

• Similarly, if there is anyone you would not like to review your paper because you think they would not give an objective assessment, state this person's name and laboratory.

• Any other details you think are relevant.

It is important to keep this cover letter as short as possible, as the editor who will read it probably receives many papers, and will find it easier to assess yours if you can be succinct.

Reacting to a journal's response

When your paper has been submitted, the journal will probably acknowledge receipt. If you do not hear anything from the journal for a couple of weeks, send the editor a short e-mail asking for an acknowledgement of receipt of your paper, a reference number, and the name of the editor who is handling it.

Use this reference number in any subsequent status enquiries. A journal usually provides an e-mail address on its list of staff (known as the 'masthead') that is published in each issue, usually on the front or the back page.

When the journal has assessed your paper (usually with the help of referees, who are independent scientists in the field selected by the journal's editors), the editor will write to you with a decision about publication, and enclosing referees' reports.

Sometimes an editor's letter will be clear, and it is obvious how you should revise your paper for resubmission. If the letter is not clear, write back to the editor (by e-mail) explaining what you do not understand, and ask for an explanation - for example if the referees' comments are difficult to understand, or you are not sure what the editor means in his or her instructions for revising your paper.

What to do if your paper is rejected

If the journal declines to publish your paper, it is a usually a good idea to discuss this decision with a colleague in the field, showing them the reports and editor's letter, before proceeding further. It might be worth appealing the decision, or it might be better to submit your paper to another journal.

If you do decide to appeal the journal's decision, send a letter stating your case, sticking to scientific points (for example, those parts of your conclusions that may have been misunderstood or not appreciated).

Do not send angry or abusive letters, as this will not help your case.

What to do if your paper is accepted

If your paper is accepted for publication, ask the editor immediately, certainly before the paper is published, about the journal's policy on copyright and reprints, and whether there are other conditions of publication.

A journal may provide you with some reprints free of charge if you do not have funds to pay for them. But it is important to ask about this before your paper is published; the journal may not be able to provide free reprints after publication, as they are much more expensive to produce than reprints made at the time of publication of your article.

Alternatively the journal may be prepared to waive its standard copyright restrictions. But you will probably need to ask for such concessions, explaining your circumstances.

When you are given a publication date for your paper, tell your institution so that it can include this information in its annual report or other documents promoting its research.

Finally, remember to thank personally all those who have helped you in preparing the paper, letting them know that it will be published and in which journal.

--SciDev.net

How to write a scientific paper?

Adapted with permission from a text developed by the Applied Ecology Research Group at the University of Canberra Australia, and prepared with the aid of 'How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper' by Robert Day (ISI Press, Philadelphia, 1979).

A scientific paper is a written report describing original research results whose format has been defined by centuries of developing tradition, editorial practice, scientific ethics and the interplay with printing and publishing services. The result of this process is that virtually every scientific paper has a title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion.

It should, however, be noted that most publications have rules about a paper's format: some divide papers into these or some of these sections, others do not, and the order may be different in different publications. So be prepared to revise your paper in to a publication's format when you are ready to submit.

One general points to remember is the need to avoid jargon and acronyms as much as possible. A second is the fact that some journals like papers to be written in the active voice - i.e. "we carried out a test..." rather than " test was carried out to..." — but that this is not always the case.

Title

A title should be the fewest possible words that accurately describe the content of the paper. Omit all waste words such as "A study of ...", "Investigations of ...", "Observations on ...", etc. Indexing and abstracting services depend on the accuracy of the title, extracting from it keywords useful in cross-referencing and computer searching.

An improperly titled paper may never reach the audience for which it was intended, so be specific. If the study is of a particular species or chemical, name it in the title. If the study has been limited to a particular region or system, and the inferences it contains are similarly limited, then name the region or system in the title.

Keyword List

The keyword list provides the opportunity to add keywords, used by the indexing and abstracting services, in addition to those already present in the title. Judicious use of keywords may increase the ease with which interested parties can locate your article.

Abstract

A well-prepared abstract enables the reader to identify the basic content of a document quickly and accurately, to determine its relevance to their interests, and thus to decide whether to read the document in its entirety. The abstract concisely states the principal objectives and scope of the investigation where these are not obvious from the title. More important, it concisely summarizes the results and principal conclusions. Do not include details of the methods used unless the study is methodological, i.e. primarily concerned with methods.

The abstract must be concise; most journals specify a length, typically not exceeding 250 words. If you can convey the essential details of the paper in 100 words, do not use 200. Do not repeat information contained in the title. The abstract, together with the title, must be self-contained as it is published separately from the paper in abstracting services such as Biological Abstracts or Current Contents. Omit all references to the literature and to tables or figures, and omit obscure abbreviations and acronyms even though they may be defined in main body of the paper.

Introduction

The introduction begins by introducing the reader to the pertinent literature. A common mistake is to introduce authors and their areas of study in general terms without mention of their major findings. For example: "Parmenter (1976) and Chessman (1978) studied the diet of Chelodina longicollis at various latitudes and Legler (1978) and Chessman (1983) conducted a similar study on Chelodina expansa" compares poorly with: "Within the confines of carnivory, Chelodina expansa is a selective and specialized predator feeding upon highly motile prey such as decapod crustaceans, aquatic bugs and small fish (Legler, 1978; Chessman, 1984), whereas C. longicollis is reported to have a diverse and opportunistic diet (Parmenter, 1976; Chessman, 1984)". The latter is a far more informative lead-in to the literature, but more importantly it will enable the reader to clearly place the current work in the context of what is already known.

Try to introduce references so they do not interfere with the flow of your argument: first write the text without references so that it reads smoothly, then add in the references at the end of sentences or phrases so they do not interrupt your flow. Note that not all journals use author's names in references, some use numbers in the text with a list of citations at the end of the article. Check the publication's style when you are ready to submit your paper.

An important function of the introduction is to establish the significance of your current work: Why was there a need to conduct the study? Having introduced the pertinent literature and demonstrated the need for the current study, you should state clearly the scope and objectives.

Avoid a list of points or bullets; use prose.

The introduction can finish with the statement of objectives or, as some people prefer, with a brief statement of the principal findings. Either way, the reader must have an idea of where the paper is heading to follow the development of the evidence.

Materials and Methods

The main purpose of the 'Materials and Methods' section is to provide enough detail for a competent worker to repeat your study and reproduce the results. The scientific method requires that your results be reproducible, and you must provide a basis for repetition of the study by others.

Equipment and materials available off the shelf should be described exactly (e.g. Licor underwater quantum sensor, Model LI 192SB) and sources of materials should be given if there is variation in quality among supplies. Modifications to equipment or equipment constructed specifically for the study should be carefully described in detail. The method used to prepare reagents, fixatives, and stains should be stated exactly, though often reference to standard recipes in other works will suffice.

The usual order of presentation of methods is chronological. However, related methods may need to be described together and strict chronological order cannot always be followed. If your methods are new (i.e. unpublished), you must provide all the detail required to repeat them. However, if a method has been previously published, only the name of the method and a literature reference need be given.

Be precise in describing measurements and include errors of measurement. Ordinary statistical methods should be used without comment; advanced or unusual methods may require a literature citation. Show your materials and methods section to a colleague. Ask if they would have difficulty in repeating your study.

Results

In the results section you present your findings: display items (figures and tables) are central in this section. Present the data, digested and condensed, with important trends extracted and described. Because the results comprise the new knowledge that you are contributing to the world, it is important that your findings be clearly and simply stated.

The results should be short and sweet. Do not say "It is clearly evident from Fig. 1 that bird species richness increased with habitat complexity". Say instead "Bird species richness increased with habitat complexity (Fig. 1)".

However, don't be too concise. Readers cannot be expected to extract important trends from the data unaided. Few will bother. Combine the use of text, tables and figures to condense data and highlight trends. In doing so be sure to refer to the guidelines for preparing tables and figures below.

Discussion

In the discussion you should discuss what principles have been established or reinforced; what generalizations can be drawn; how your findings compare to the findings of others or to expectations based on previous work; and whether there any theoretical/practical implications of your work.

When you address these questions, it is crucial that your discussion rests firmly on the evidence presented in the results section. Refer briefly to your results to support your discussion statements. Do not extend your conclusions beyond those that are directly supported by your results.

A brief paragraph of speculation about what your results may mean in a general sense is usually acceptable, but should not form the bulk of the discussion. Be sure to address the objectives of the study in the discussion and to discuss the significance of the results. Don't leave the reader thinking "So what?". End the discussion with a short summary or conclusion regarding the significance of the work.

References

Whenever you draw upon information contained in another paper, you must acknowledge the source. All references to the literature must be followed immediately by an indication of the source of the information that is referenced, e.g. "A drop in dissolved oxygen under similar conditions has been demonstrated before (Norris, l986)."

If two authors are involved, include both surnames in this reference. However if more authors are involved, you may use 'et al.l, an abbreviation of Latin meaning 'and others'. In general you should not use the abbreviation in the full reference at the end of the article, although some journals permit this. If two more more articles written by the same author in the same year are cited, most journals ask you to add suffixes 'a', 'b' etc in both the text and the reference list.

If you include in your report phrases, sentences or paragraphs repeated verbatim from the literature, it is not sufficient to simply cite the source. You must include the material in quotes and you must give the number of the page from which the quote was lifted. For example: "Day (l979: 3l) reports a result where '33.3% of the mice used in this experiment were cured by the test drug; 33.3% of the test population were unaffected by the drug and remained in a moribund condition; the third mouse got away'".

A list of references ordered alphabetically by author's surname, or by number, depending on the publication, must be provided at the end of your paper. The reference list should contain all references cited in the text but no more. Include with each reference details of the author, year of publication, title of article, name of journal or book and place of publication of books, volume and page numbers.

Formats vary from journal to journal, so when you are preparing a scientific paper for an assignment, choose a journal in your field of interest and follow its format for the reference list. Be consistent in the use of journal abbreviations.

Appendices

Appendices contain information in greater detail than can be presented in the main body of the paper, but which may be of interest to a few people working specifically in your field. . Only appendices referred to in the text should be included.

Formatting conventions

Most publications have guidelines about submission and manuscript preparation, for online or mailed submissions. Most journals require the manuscript to be typed with double spacing throughout and reasonable margins. Make sure you read the guide to authors before submitting your paper so that you can present your paper in the right format for that publication (refer to submission of paper article in this series).

Finally — and perhaps most importantly — ALWAYS read the journal's guide to authors before submitting a paper, and ALWAYS provide an informative cover letter to your submission.

Constructing tables

• DO include a caption and column headings that contain enough information for the reader to understand the table without reference to the text. The caption should be at the head of the table.

• DO organize the table so that like elements read down, not across.

• DO present the data in a table or in the text, but never present the same data in both forms.

• DO choose units of measurement so as to avoid the use of an excessive number of digits.

• DON'T include tables that are not referred to in the text.

• DON'T be tempted to 'dress up' your report by presenting data in the form of tables or figures that could easily be replaced by a sentence or two of text. Whenever a table or columns within a table can be readily put into words, do it.

• DON'T include columns of data that contain the same value throughout. If the value is important to the table include it in the caption or as a footnote to the table.

• DON'T use vertical lines to separate columns unless absolutely necessary.

When constructing figures

• DO include a legend describing the figure. It should be succinct yet provide sufficient information for the reader to interpret the figure without reference to the text. The legend should be below the figure.

• DO provide each axis with a brief but informative title (including units of measurement).

• DON'T include figures that are not referred to in the text, usually in the text of the results section.

• DON'T be tempted to 'dress up' your report by presenting data in the form of figures that could easily be replaced by a sentence or two of text.

• DON'T fill the entire A4 page with the graph leaving little room for axis numeration, axis titles and the caption. The entire figure should lie within reasonable margins (say 3 cm margin on the left side, 2 cm margins on the top, bottom and right side of the page).

• DON'T extend the axes very far beyond the range of the data. For example, if the data range between 0 and 78, the axis should extend no further than a value of 80.

• DON'T use colour, unless absolutely necessary. It is very expensive, and the costs are usually passed on to the author. Colour in figures may look good in an assignment or thesis, but it means redrawing in preparation for publication.

--SciDev.net

About Research

I tried finding writings about "How to become a good researcher" and Google drove me to "You and Your Research" of of Richard Hamming. What an inspiring talk!

"Luck favors the prepared mind."--Pasteur

"One of the characteristics of successful scientists is having courage. Once you get your courage up and believe that you can do important problems, then you can. If you think you can't, almost surely you are not going to."--Hamming

"When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems." --Hamming

"The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren't good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards." --Hamming

"What Bode was saying was this: "Knowledge and productivity are like compound interest.'' Given two people of approximately the same ability and one person who works ten percent more than the other, the latter will more than twice outproduce the former. The more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you can do; the more you can do, the more the opportunity - it is very much like compound interest. I don't want to give you a rate, but it is a very high rate. Given two people with exactly the same ability, the one person who manages day in and day out to get in one more hour of thinking will be tremendously more productive over a lifetime. I took Bode's remark to heart; I spent a good deal more of my time for some years trying to work a bit harder and I found, in fact, I could get more work done. I don't like to say it in front of my wife, but I did sort of neglect her sometimes; I needed to study. You have to neglect things if you intend to get what you want done. There's no question about this.
"--Hamming

"Most great scientists are completely committed to their problem. Those who don't become committed seldom produce outstanding, first-class work."--Hamming

"Over on the other side of the dining hall was a chemistry table. I had worked with one of the fellows, Dave McCall; furthermore he was courting our secretary at the time. I went over and said, "Do you mind if I join you?'' They can't say no, so I started eating with them for a while. And I started asking, "What are the important problems of your field?'' And after a week or so, "What important problems are you working on?'' And after some more time I came in one day and said, "If what you are doing is not important, and if you don't think it is going to lead to something important, why are you at Bell Labs working on it?'' I wasn't welcomed after that; I had to find somebody else to eat with! That was in the spring.

In the fall, Dave McCall stopped me in the hall and said, "Hamming, that remark of yours got underneath my skin. I thought about it all summer, i.e. what were the important problems in my field. I haven't changed my research,'' he says, "but I think it was well worthwhile.'' And I said, "Thank you Dave,'' and went on. I noticed a couple of months later he was made the head of the department. I noticed the other day he was a Member of the National Academy of Engineering. I noticed he has succeeded. I have never heard the names of any of the other fellows at that table mentioned in science and scientific circles. They were unable to ask themselves, "What are the important problems in my field?''

If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely you'll do important work. It's perfectly obvious. Great scientists have thought through, in a careful way, a number of important problems in their field, and they keep an eye on wondering how to attack them. Let me warn you, `important problem' must be phrased carefully. The three outstanding problems in physics, in a certain sense, were never worked on while I was at Bell Labs. By important I mean guaranteed a Nobel Prize and any sum of money you want to mention. We didn't work on (1) time travel, (2) teleportation, and (3) antigravity. They are not important problems because we do not have an attack. It's not the consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable attack. That is what makes a problem important. When I say that most scientists don't work on important problems, I mean it in that sense. The average scientist, so far as I can make out, spends almost all his time working on problems which he believes will not be important and he also doesn't believe that they will lead to important problems."--Hamming

"But the average scientist does routine safe work almost all the time and so he (or she) doesn't produce much. It's that simple. If you want to do great work, you clearly must work on important problems, and you should have an idea." --Hamming

"Another trait, it took me a while to notice. I noticed the following facts about people who work with the door open or the door closed. I notice that if you have the door to your office closed, you get more work done today and tomorrow, and you are more productive than most. But 10 years later somehow you don't know quite know what problems are worth working on; all the hard work you do is sort of tangential in importance. He who works with the door open gets all kinds of interruptions, but he also occasionally gets clues as to what the world is and what might be important. Now I cannot prove the cause and effect sequence because you might say, "The closed door is symbolic of a closed mind.'' I don't know. But I can say there is a pretty good correlation between those who work with the doors open and those who ultimately do important things, although people who work with doors closed often work harder. Somehow they seem to work on slightly the wrong thing - not much, but enough that they miss fame."--Hamming

"To end this part, I'll remind you, "It is a poor workman who blames his tools - the good man gets on with the job, given what he's got, and gets the best answer he can.'' And I suggest that by altering the problem, by looking at the thing differently, you can make a great deal of difference in your final productivity because you can either do it in such a fashion that people can indeed build on what you've done, or you can do it in such a fashion that the next person has to essentially duplicate again what you've done. It isn't just a matter of the job, it's the way you write the report, the way you write the paper, the whole attitude. It's just as easy to do a broad, general job as one very special case. And it's much more satisfying and rewarding!"--Hamming

"I have now come down to a topic which is very distasteful; it is not sufficient to do a job, you have to sell it. 'Selling' to a scientist is an awkward thing to do. It's very ugly; you shouldn't have to do it. The world is supposed to be waiting, and when you do something great, they should rush out and welcome it. But the fact is everyone is busy with their own work. You must present it so well that they will set aside what they are doing, look at what you've done, read it, and come back and say, "Yes, that was good.'' I suggest that when you open a journal, as you turn the pages, you ask why you read some articles and not others. You had better write your report so when it is published in the Physical Review, or wherever else you want it, as the readers are turning the pages they won't just turn your pages but they will stop and read yours. If they don't stop and read it, you won't get credit."--Hamming

"There are three things you have to do in selling. You have to learn to write clearly and well so that people will read it, you must learn to give reasonably formal talks, and you also must learn to give informal talks. "--Hamming

"While going to meetings I had already been studying why some papers are remembered and most are not. The technical person wants to give a highly limited technical talk. Most of the time the audience wants a broad general talk and wants much more survey and background than the speaker is willing to give. As a result, many talks are ineffective. The speaker names a topic and suddenly plunges into the details he's solved. Few people in the audience may follow. You should paint a general picture to say why it's important, and then slowly give a sketch of what was done. Then a larger number of people will say, "Yes, Joe has done that,'' or "Mary has done that; I really see where it is; yes, Mary really gave a good talk; I understand what Mary has done.'' The tendency is to give a highly restricted, safe talk; this is usually ineffective. Furthermore, many talks are filled with far too much information. So I say this idea of selling is obvious."--Hamming

"I think it is very definitely worth the struggle to try and do first-class work because the truth is, the value is in the struggle more than it is in the result. The struggle to make something of yourself seems to be worthwhile in itself. The success and fame are sort of dividends, in my opinion."--Hamming

"Well, one of the reasons is drive and commitment. The people who do great work with less ability but who are committed to it, get more done that those who have great skill and dabble in it, who work during the day and go home and do other things and come back and work the next day. They don't have the deep commitment that is apparently necessary for really first-class work. They turn out lots of good work, but we were talking, remember, about first-class work. There is a difference. Good people, very talented people, almost always turn out good work. We're talking about the outstanding work, the type of work that gets the Nobel Prize and gets recognition."--Hamming

"After all, if you want a decision `No', you just go to your boss and get a `No' easy. If you want to do something, don't ask, do it. Present him with an accomplished fact. Don't give him a chance to tell you `No'. But if you want a `No', it's easy to get a 'No'"--Hamming

"You should follow and cooperate rather than struggle against the system all the time."--Hamming

"I have found that it paid to say, "Oh yes, I'll get the answer for you Tuesday,'' not having any idea how to do it. By Sunday night I was really hard thinking on how I was going to deliver by Tuesday. I often put my pride on the line and sometimes I failed, but as I said, like a cornered rat I'm surprised how often I did a good job. I think you need to learn to use yourself. I think you need to know how to convert a situation from one view to another which would increase the chance of success."--Hamming

"If you really want to be a first-class scientist you need to know yourself, your weaknesses, your strengths, and your bad faults, like my egotism. How can you convert a fault to an asset? How can you convert a situation where you haven't got enough manpower to move into a direction when that's exactly what you need to do? I say again that I have seen, as I studied the history, the successful scientist changed the viewpoint and what was a defect became an asset.

In summary, I claim that some of the reasons why so many people who have greatness within their grasp don't succeed are: they don't work on important problems, they don't become emotionally involved, they don't try and change what is difficult to some other situation which is easily done but is still important, and they keep giving themselves alibis why they don't. They keep saying that it is a matter of luck. I've told you how easy it is; furthermore I've told you how to reform. Therefore, go forth and become great scientists!" --Hamming

Question: How much effort should go into library work?

Hamming: It depends upon the field. I will say this about it. There was a fellow at Bell Labs, a very, very, smart guy. He was always in the library; he read everything. If you wanted references, you went to him and he gave you all kinds of references. But in the middle of forming these theories, I formed a proposition: there would be no effect named after him in the long run. He is now retired from Bell Labs and is an Adjunct Professor. He was very valuable; I'm not questioning that. He wrote some very good Physical Review articles; but there's no effect named after him because he read too much. If you read all the time what other people have done you will think the way they thought. If you want to think new thoughts that are different, then do what a lot of creative people do - get the problem reasonably clear and then refuse to look at any answers until you've thought the problem through carefully how you would do it, how you could slightly change the problem to be the correct one. So yes, you need to keep up. You need to keep up more to find out what the problems are than to read to find the solutions. The reading is necessary to know what is going on and what is possible. But reading to get the solutions does not seem to be the way to do great research. So I'll give you two answers. You read; but it is not the amount, it is the way you read that counts.

Question: Dick, would you care to comment on the relative effectiveness between giving talks, writing papers, and writing books?

Hamming: In the short-haul, papers are very important if you want to stimulate someone tomorrow. If you want to get recognition long-haul, it seems to me writing books is more contribution because most of us need orientation. In this day of practically infinite knowledge, we need orientation to find our way. Let me tell you what infinite knowledge is. Since from the time of Newton to now, we have come close to doubling knowledge every 17 years, more or less. And we cope with that, essentially, by specialization. In the next 340 years at that rate, there will be 20 doublings, i.e. a million, and there will be a million fields of specialty for every one field now. It isn't going to happen. The present growth of knowledge will choke itself off until we get different tools. I believe that books which try to digest, coordinate, get rid of the duplication, get rid of the less fruitful methods and present the underlying ideas clearly of what we know now, will be the things the future generations will value. Public talks are necessary; private talks are necessary; written papers are necessary. But I am inclined to believe that, in the long-haul, books which leave out what's not essential are more important than books which tell you everything because you don't want to know everything. I don't want to know that much about penguins is the usual reply. You just want to know the essence.

Question: Would you compare research and management?

Hamming: If you want to be a great researcher, you won't make it being president of the company. If you want to be president of the company, that's another thing. I'm not against being president of the company. I just don't want to be. I think Ian Ross does a good job as President of Bell Labs. I'm not against it; but you have to be clear on what you want. Furthermore, when you're young, you may have picked wanting to be a great scientist, but as you live longer, you may change your mind. For instance, I went to my boss, Bode, one day and said, ``Why did you ever become department head? Why didn't you just be a good scientist?'' He said, ``Hamming, I had a vision of what mathematics should be in Bell Laboratories. And I saw if that vision was going to be realized, I had to make it happen; I had to be department head.'' When your vision of what you want to do is what you can do single-handedly, then you should pursue it. The day your vision, what you think needs to be done, is bigger than what you can do single-handedly, then you have to move toward management. And the bigger the vision is, the farther in management you have to go. If you have a vision of what the whole laboratory should be, or the whole Bell System, you have to get there to make it happen. You can't make it happen from the bottom very easily. It depends upon what goals and what desires you have. And as they change in life, you have to be prepared to change. I chose to avoid management because I preferred to do what I could do single-handedly. But that's the choice that I made, and it is biased. Each person is entitled to their choice. Keep an open mind. But when you do choose a path, for heaven's sake be aware of what you have done and the choice you have made. Don't try to do both sides.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF RICHARD HAMMING

Richard W. Hamming was born February 11, 1915, in Chicago, Illinois. His formal education was marked by the following degrees (all in mathematics): B.S. 1937, University of Chicago; M.A. 1939, University of Nebraska; and Ph.D. 1942, University of Illinois. His early experience was obtained at Los Alamos 1945-1946, i.e. at the close of World War II, where he managed the computers used in building the first atomic bomb. From there he went directly to Bell Laboratories where he spent thirty years in various aspects of computing, numerical analysis, and management of computing, i.e. 1946-1976. On July 23, 1976 he `moved his office' to the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California where he taught, supervised research, and wrote books.

While at Bell Laboratories, he took time to teach in Universities, sometimes locally and sometimes on a full sabbatical leave; these activities included visiting professorships at New York University, Princeton University (Statistics), City College of New York, Stanford University, 1960-61, Stevens Institute of Technology (Mathematics), and the University of California, Irvine, 1970-71.

Richard Hamming has received a number of awards which include: Fellow, IEEE, 1968; the ACM Turing Prize, 1968; the IEEE Emanuel R. Piore Award, 1979; Member, National Academy of Engineering, 1980; and the Harold Pender Award, U. Penn., 1981. In 1987 a major IEEE award was named after him, namely the Richard W. Hamming Medal, ``For exceptional contributions to information sciences and systems''; fittingly, he was also the first recipient of this award, 1988. In 1996 in Munich he received the prestigious $130,000 Eduard Rhein Award for Achievement in Technology for his work on error correcting codes. He was both a Founder and Past President of ACM, and a Vice Pres. of the AAAS Mathematics Section.

He is probably best known for his pioneering work on error-correcting codes, his work on integrating differential equations, and the spectral window which bears his name. His extensive writing has included a number of important, pioneering, and highly regarded books. These are:

• Numerical Methods for Scientists and Engineers, McGraw-Hill, 1962; Second edition 1973; Reprinted by Dover 1985; Translated into Russian.
• Calculus and the Computer Revolution, Houghton-Mifflin, 1968.
• Introduction to Applied Numerical Analysis, McGraw-Hill, 1971.
• Computers and Society, McGraw-Hill, 1972.
• Digital Filters, Prentice-Hall, 1977; Second edition 1983; Third edition 1989; translated into several European languages.
• Coding and Information Theory, Prentice-Hall, 1980; Second edition 1986.
• Methods of Mathematics Applied to Calculus, Probability and Statistics, Prentice-Hall, 1985.
• The Art of Probability for Scientists and Engineers, Addison-Wesley, 1991.
• The Art of Doing Science and Engineering: Learning to Learn, Gordon and Breach, 1997.

He continued a very active life as Adjunct Professor, teaching and writing in the Mathematics and Computer Science Departments at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California for another twenty-one years before he retired to become Professor Emeritus in 1997. He was still teaching a course in the fall of 1997. He passed away unexpectedly on January 7, 1998.

--You and Your Research