How to know you’re ready to submit

As we all know, expectations and assessment are field-dependent. How do you know when to pull the publication trigger? A handy guide.

Cognitive Neuroscience: a voxel has p super-duper approaching 0.05

Systems Neuroscience: literally anything in a mouse’s brain correlates with literally anything the mouse is doing

Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience: antibody works

Developmental Biology: in situ has stripe-y pattern

Systems Biology: instead of making 100 careful, well-controlled measurements, you have made 10,000 really shitty measurements. But you’re happy to share them.

Connectomics: You will never publish. Maybe now you regret not just calling it neuroanatomy?

Computational Biology: You just finished a 37 hour, Red Bull-fuelled coding binge. It does the same thing as an ImageJ plugin, except it’s your code.

Neuroethology: you’ve been been painstakingly collecting behavioral and physiological data in the field and the lab for 10 years or more.

Yeast Genetics: It’s Tuesday.

Add your own in the comments!

About these ads

9 Comments on “How to know you’re ready to submit”

  1. rxnm says:

    Proteomics: Received PG13 picture of a lady from Italian colleague.

  2. Theoretical Neuroscience: You’ve just recapitulated basic insights from Hubel & Wiesel circa 1970. But it’s all typeset in LaTeX, so you’re good.

  3. Dr Becca says:

    Psychology: You ran a meta-analysis.

  4. namnezia says:

    Cellular neuroscience: you’ve got some random cells expressing channel rhodopsin, just because.

  5. Structural Biology: you finally purified monodisperse protein, but can’t crystallize the shitte: send it to Journal of Protein Chemistry.

  6. DJMH says:

    Primate physiology: you did your second monkey.

  7. DJMH says:

    Any manuscript for Nature Neurosci: you finished one behavioral analysis, one slice physiology analysis, one protein phosphorylation analysis, and one anything with channelrhodopsin. The results do not have anything in common with each other, nor with the literature. Submit now!

  8. Dave says:

    Population genetics: you found the same SNP in a “new” population in a GWAS. Nature Genetics is on the phone.

  9. Bashir says:

    meta-analysis?

    Psych (esp PyschScience): You ran 30 correlations, got a p = .049 for one very counter-intuitive result and made a remarkable just-so story involving being an innate Republican. :(


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s