Module 2: Title, Authors, Acknowledgements and the Introduction

Compiler: Dr Hester Oosthuizen

1. Writing the title of your article 

Gone are the days of scientists sitting for hours in libraries paging through journals! Nowadays they choose to skim through lists of titles on a computer screen. The consequence: Many people read the title of an article but only a few will read the whole article. Use the title to arouse interest in your article.

A good title is a concise but informative summary of the document.

Activity

Take time to look at the titles of articles in journals relevant to your research.

· How many of the given keywords or concepts appear in the title?

· Are the titles concise?

· Are the terms used in the title specific or general?

Example

The following titles appeared in the Journal of Chemical Education:

1. Teaching high school chemistry in the context of pharmacology helps both teachers and students learn (J. Chem. Educ., 88(6), 744–750 (2011))

[http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed100097y]

2. Female faculty members in university chemistry departments: Observation and conclusion based on site visits (J. Chem. Educ., 88(6), 716–720 (2011))

[http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed100098q]

Although both titles are comparatively concise, 15 words (85 characters) versus 14 words (94 characters), Title 1 would immediately draw the attention of high school chemistry teachers and chemistry educators. Title 2, on the other hand is vague, and just by reading the title it is difficult to know what has been observed, why they observed it and how I, the reader, will benefit from these observations.

The abstract for the latter paper reads as follows:

Oral interviews in focus groups and written surveys were conducted with 877 men and women, including administrators, faculty members, postdoctoral associates, and graduate students, during one-day visits to chemistry and chemical engineering departments at 28 Ph.D.-granting institutions. This report is a preliminary review of the perceptions of the situation for female tenured and tenure-track academic chemists based on the data collected during these visits. Some interesting differences are seen in responses at departments with more female faculty members as compared with departments with fewer female faculty members. Although many women are thriving, some feel isolated and marginalized. Gender barriers to success persist on both individual and institutional levels; changing this presents a serious and continuing challenge.

I haven’t done the research so I am not really in a position to choose a good title but wouldn’t the following titles arouse more interest in the article?

· Gender based barriers to success still persist for females in chemistry departments

(12 words; 83 characters)

or

· Perceptions of isolation and marginalisation amongst female chemists in universities

(10 words; 84 characters)

Maybe you can think of an even better title.

Tips

· Titles normally do not include numbers, acronyms, abbreviations, or punctuation.

· Good titles do not contain “waste words” like “a study of”, “observations on”, “research on”, and “report on”.

· Choose specific rather than general terms.

· Rewrite the title after you have finished your report so that it is a concise summary of the work reported.

· Titles are also used for indexing and abstracting services. Keep that in mind when you write your title.

Journal requirements

Consult the Guidelines for Authors of the journal in which you would like to publish but the following are typical guidelines from a few journals.

· Titles should clearly and concisely reflect the emphasis and content of the manuscript and be accessible to a broad audience. A well-crafted title aids in successful information retrieval.

[http://pubs.acs.org/paragonplus/submission/jceda8/jceda8_authguide.pdf]

· Titles do not exceed two lines in print. This equates to 90 characters (including spaces) for Letters, or 75 characters (including spaces) for Articles. Titles do not normally include numbers, acronyms, abbreviations, or punctuation. They should include sufficient detail for indexing purposes but be general enough for readers outside the field to appreciate what the paper is about.

[http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/index.html#a5.1]

· Titles must be as brief as possible, but clearly explain the content of the article, and should ideally not exceed 10 words in length.

[Journal of Fluorine Chemistry]

As I get infinitely busy, I am infinitely interested in SKIMMABILITY. Topic words, leading topic sentences, leading topic paragraphs, of well labelled sections, down a predictable logical path that the title telegraphed. No suspense.

– Prof. Brian Mapes, University of Miami

http://eloquentscience.com/2009/08/quotes-from-experts-on-effective-scientific-writing/

2. Authors 

2.1 Author’s names and affiliations 

Different journals have different styles, but the following example (from Journal of Hazardous Materials, B135, 218-225 (2006)) represents a typical author list with its accompanying footnote:

Le Zenga,*, James W. Mckinleyb

aAlberta Research Council, P.O.Bag 4000, Vegreville, AB, Canada T9C IT4

bBC Research Inc., 3650 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6S 2L2

With a footnote

*Corresponding author. Tel: +1 780 632 8463; fax: +1 780 632 8620

e-mail address:lzeng@arc.ab.za (L. Zeng)

Elements of the author list:

1. Author’s names: The latest tendency is to identify each author by one forename, initials of other forenames, and then surname (e.g. James W. McKinley or J. Robert Smith).

Tip

To facilitate easy indexing and retrieval and for unique identification of an author, be consistent with the name you use. Don’t use Hester E. Oosthuizen for one publication, H. Elizabeth Oosthuizen for another, and H.E. Oosthuizen for a third.

2. Author’s affiliations: Give the name(s) and full postal address(es) of the institution(s) with which the authors were affiliated when the actual work was done. For more than one institution, superscripts are used to indicate the affiliation of each author (e.g. Le Zenga, James W. Mckinleyb). If all the authors are at the same institute, no superscripts are required.

3. Corresponding author: This is the author who will handle correspondence at all stages of refereeing and publication, including post-publication. Usually identified in the author list by an asterisk (Le Zeng*).

4. Telephone and fax numbers: Telephone and fax numbers with country code and area code are required.

5. e-mail address: Some journals require the e-mail address of only the corresponding author while other journals want the e-mail addresses of all the authors, even though only the e-mail address of the corresponding author will be published.

6. Present/permanent address: If an author has moved since the work described in the article was done, or was visiting the institution at the time, a “Present address” (or “Permanent address”) may be indicated. The address at which the author actually did the work must remain as the main affiliation address.

For example (Radiochim. Acta, 99, 225-230 (2011)):

J. Steeb#, R. West and J. Janata*

School of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology, 901 Atlantic Drive NW, Atlanta, GA 30332-0400, USA

Footnote:

*Author for correspondence (e-mail: jiri.janata@chemistry.gatech.edu).

#Present address: Argonne National Laboratory, Chemical Science and engineering division, 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439, USA

NB. Remember to comply with the journal’s instructions to authors.

2.2 Authorship 

Authorship encompasses two fundamental principles:

· contribution and

· responsibility.

Authors and co-authors1-5

An author/co-author is a person who:

1. has made a substantial scientific contribution to the

· concept and design,

and/or

· acquisition of data,

and/or

· analysis and interpretation

of the study;

and

2. has drafted the publication or revised it critically,

and

3. has approved the final version of the manuscript,

and

4. has public responsibility for the content of the publication.

Co-authors not only get credited for the work done, they also share responsibility for the correctness of the work. This implies that they should be familiar with all essential aspects of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements1,2

Other people who have contributed toward facilitation of the study but are not eligible as co-authors, should still be acknowledged appropriately. This is usually done in an “Acknowledgement” section. Examples of contributions of this nature include occasional or routine analysis, providing reagents, providing laboratory facilities, financial support, and internal peer revision.

An administrative contribution to the investigation does not, of itself, qualify a person for co-authorship but occasionally it may be appropriate to acknowledge major administrative assistance.2

Unacceptable practises with regards to authorship3,4

· Coercion authorship 

This is when an author is included because of his/her position. For example a departmental/section head or grant manager who has not contributed to the research in accordance with the above authorship criteria.

· Mutual authorship boosting or admiration authorship 

I add your name as an author on my paper and in exchange you will add my name on your paper, even though we are not involved, or minimally involved (e.g. “reviewing” only the final draft) in each other’s research.

· The ‘gift’ authorship 

This is when a colleague, who does not fulfil the criteria of authorship, is included in the list. This could be out of great respect for the colleague who had a significant influence on the career of the first author, or it is an attempt to make the paper appear more legitimate, or a favour for financial support of the work, etc.

· The ‘ghost-writer’ 

This is the opposite of the previous, unacceptable practises. Here, an author who has made a significant contribution to the research is intentionally not mentioned.

· Duplicate production authorship

To increase a researcher’s number of papers, the findings of the same study are published in more than one journal, book, or internet page without acknowledging the dual publications and without adding anything essentially new or additional.

Order of authorship1,3-5

Although there is no rule to determine the order in which authors are listed, the general agreement is that authors should be listed in order of the degree of intellectual contribution to the study, unless journal requirements are different (e.g. alphabetically). However, the order of authorship should be a joint decision of the co-authors.

Example

The following example is taken from Day and Gastel5 and might help to clarify the level of conceptual or technical involvement that should define authorship.

Suppose that Scientist A designs a series of experiments that might result in new knowledge, and then Scientist A tells Technician B exactly how to perform the experiments. If the experiments work out and a manuscript results, Scientist A should be the sole author, even though Technician B did all the physical work. (Of course, the assistance of Technician B should be recognised in the Acknowledgements.)

Now let us suppose that the above experiments do not work out. Technician B takes the negative results to Scientist A and says something like, “I think we might get this damned strain to grow if we change the incubation temperature from 24 °C to 37 °C and if we add serum albumin to the medium.” Scientist A agrees to a trial, the experiments this time yield the desired outcome, and a paper results. Technician B also provides some insights that contribute to the interpretation of the results. In this case, Scientist A and Technician B, in that order, should both be listed as authors.

Let us take this example one step further. Suppose that the experiments at 37 °C and with serum albumin work, but that Scientist A perceives that there is now an obvious loose end; that is, growth under these conditions suggests that the test organism is a pathogen, whereas the previously published literature has indicated that this organism was non-pathogenic. Scientist A now asks colleague Scientist C, an expert in pathogenic microbiology, to test this organism for pathogenicity. Scientist C runs a quick test by injecting the test substance into laboratory mice in a standard procedure that any medical microbiologist would use and confirms pathogenicity. A few important sentences are then added to the manuscript, and the paper is published. Scientist A and Technician B are listed as authors; the assistance of Scientist C is noted in the Acknowledgements.

Suppose, however, that Scientist C gets interested in this peculiar strain and proceeds to conduct a series of well-planned experiments that lead to the conclusion that this particular strain is not just mouse-pathogenic, but is the long-sought culprit in certain rare human infections. Thus, two new tables of data are added to the manuscript, and the Results and Discussion are rewritten. The paper is then published listing Scientist A, Technician B, and Scientists C as authors. (A case could be made for listing Scientist C as the second author.)

References

1. EASE. 2011. EASE guidelines for authors and translators of scientific articles to be published in English. European Association of Science Editors. http://www.ease.org.uk/pdfguidelines/AuthorGuidelinesHighRes.pdf [Accessed 25 May 2011].

2. ICMJE. 2009. Authorship and contributorship. http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html [Accessed 25 March 2011].

3. Albert, T. and Wager, E. 2003. How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers. The COPE report. http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/2003pdf12.pdf [Accessed 12 April 2011].

4. Claxton, L.D. 2005. Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practises, and guidelines. Mutation Research, 589:31-45

5. Day, R. A. and Gastel, B. 2008. How to write and publish a scientific paper. 6th ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

3. Writing the abstract 

First to be read – last to be written.

The abstract must be a concise summary of the argument of the whole article and must reflect the real contents of the article. Therefore you should write it only after you have finished compiling the entire article.

Activity

Read the abstracts of a few articles in which you are interested and answer the following questions:

· Why are you, the reader, interested in this article?

· What did they investigate?

· How did they investigate it?

· What were their results?

· How did they interpret their results?

· What value does their work add to the scientific community?

Could you find the answer to all these questions in the abstracts?

These six questions are related to the six key elements which should be covered in every article and therefore also in the abstract.

The key elements of abstracts

1. Contextualising background and defining the problem statement 

A summary of the background is required, more detail of which is given in the Introduction. The background prepares the reader to understand the context of the specific research and the problem statement. This part of the abstract is written in the present tense since you refer to established knowledge. Scientific ethics dictate that established work is reported in the present tense. Since the scientific community did not yet have access to your current work, it is not accepted as established knowledge and therefore must be reported in the past tense.

2. Objectives and scope

State the objectives and scope of the research clearly and concisely so that your readers know exactly what you have investigated and why it is unique (reported findings must be original (Section 1.2)).

3. Method 

Do not give the detail of the method but describe the concept or methodology that was applied in the collection of data. Both the objectives and the method are given in the past tense. The research reported in an article is not yet established knowledge and therefore it is reported in the past tense.

4. Results and discussion 

Give the most important results. Results are not only the data but more importantly, the relationships between sets of data that lead to the conclusions.

5. Conclusion 

How did you interpret your results? Have you answered your research question?

6. Consequence of the work 

Back to the big problem! How did the results of your study contribute to the knowledge and understanding of your discipline?

All this in just 80, or if the journal is generous, 250 words!

Tips

· An abstract must be able to stand alone and should never give any information or conclusion that is not stated in the article.

· State what is original in your research.

· Try to include keywords directly related to your research.

· No references, unless absolutely necessary, should be included in the abstract. If a reference is included, then the detailed information (author, title, year, etc) must be provided in the abstract.

· Do not refer to tables and figures.

· Do not use abbreviations or acronyms unless the original word is very long and repeated a few times. If this is the case then the abbreviation/acronym must be defined the first time that it is mentioned.

Example of an Abstract

Teachers’ feedback on students’ written work is an important aspect of pedagogy. However, theoretical views differ on what constitutes ‘good’ feedback, both among applied linguists and academics in other disciplines. In-depth research needs to be carried out into the contextual difficulties of evaluating and assessing academic assignments, and the awarding of grades, especially by those who are relatively inexperienced in this work. This article reports aspects of a case study which explored the beliefs and practices of a group of untrained and inexperienced part-time tutors in a New Zealand university. Data were collected from a preliminary survey, individual interviews, ‘think aloud’ and stimulated recall sessions, and focus group meetings. Extracts from the collected data are presented and discussed. The findings indicate that these tutors initially stated their belief that the purpose of providing feedback was to assist the students to improve their academic writing skills; however, it emerged that their primary concern was to justify the grades that they awarded. It is suggested that using a multi-method approach to data collection can bridge the gap between theoretical perspectives on what constitutes ‘good’ feedback and what tutors actually believe and do in their everyday work. (Assessing Writing, 16(2), 137-148, (2011))

Activity

Let us analyse this abstract to identify if the key elements that define a good abstract are present.

· The authors start with a general statement giving us the context of their research.

Teachers’ feedback on students’ written work is an important aspect of pedagogy.

Then they disrupt the harmony with a problem, by stating that there is a gap in our knowledge and understanding.

However, theoretical views differ on what constitutes ‘good’ feedback, both among applied linguists and academics in other disciplines. In-depth research needs to be carried out into the contextual difficulties of evaluating and assessing academic assignments, and the awarding of grades, especially by those who are relatively inexperienced in this work.

These three sentences constitute a summary of the background and the problem statement.

(Key element 1: Contextualising background and problem statement)

· The problem and need described by the previous sentences lead to the specific objective and scope of their research.

This article reports aspects of a case study which explored the beliefs and practices of a group of untrained and inexperienced part-time tutors in a New Zealand university.

(Key element 2: Objectives)

· The methods used to collect the data are then described.

Data were collected from a preliminary survey, individual interviews, ‘think aloud’ and stimulated recall sessions, and focus group meetings. Extracts from the collected data are presented and discussed.

(Key element 3: Method)

· The most important results are given and discussed.

The findings indicate that these tutors initially stated their belief that the purpose of providing feedback was to assist the students to improve their academic writing skills; however, it emerged that their primary concern was to justify the grades that they awarded.

(Key elements 4: Results and discussion)

· The last sentence of this abstract gives the answer, or suggested answer, to the originally defined research problem and is appropriately written in the present tense.

It is suggested that using a multi-method approach to data collection can bridge the gap between theoretical perspectives on what constitutes ‘good’ feedback and what tutors actually believe and do in their everyday work.

(Key element 5: Consequence of the work)

Make sure the abstract, introduction, and conclusions touch all the same points. There should be a one-to-one correspondence between the points made in each. One useful idea is to use a highlighter to mark the points made in the abstract, intro, and conclusions to make sure there is closure.

– Prof. Robert Houze, University of Washington

http://eloquentscience.com/2009/08/quotes-from-experts-on-effective-scientific-writing/

4. The “Introduction” section 

Don’t underestimate your reader’s intelligence, but don’t overestimate their knowledge of a particular field.

– Julie Ann Miller, Editor of Science News

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/resources/quotes/science.cfm

Articles are accepted for publication in a journal if the content of the article contributes new knowledge to the existing body of scientific knowledge. Although you are very familiar, often too familiar, with the uniqueness and impact of your work, your readers are not. The introduction is your opportunity to place your research into the context of existing knowledge, clearly stating the importance and uniqueness of your work.

Journal specifications

Specifications for the introduction vary from journal to journal but the following examples should give you an idea of what is typically required.

· State the objectives of the work and provide an adequate background, avoiding a detailed literature survey or a summary of the results. (Analytica Chimica Acta)

· The introduction should supply sufficient background information to allow the reader to understand and evaluate the results of the present study without referring to previous publications on the topic. The introduction should also provide the hypothesis that was addressed or the rationale for the present study. Choose references carefully to provide the most salient background rather than an exhaustive review of the topic. (Journal of Virology) 

Remember to consult the Guidelines for Authors of the specific journal in which you would like to publish.

Activity

We usually read introductions to articles to determine the main content of the article. However, reading introductions for their structure rather than their contents might help you to write well-structured, informative introductions to your articles. Two examples are given below and although the contents might not be related to your field of expertise, let us study their structures.

In both introductions the authors started from more general issues and gradually focused on the uniqueness of their research. This is the so-called funnel introduction, where the first sentence is a general statement about the subject that should relate to the readers’ experience or knowledge. Sentence-by-sentence the topic is then narrowed towards the research topic. Although the funnel introduction is not the only way to write an introduction, it is used fairly regularly and might help novel writers to get started.

Introduction 1

For decades, chemistry educators have striven to incorporate writing into the chemistry curriculum by targeting, for example, laboratory courses (1-4), lecture courses (5-9), and undergraduate research and capstone experiences (10,11). Efforts have also been made to incorporate writing across the chemistry curriculum (3, 12-14) and, in few instances, to develop writing-dedicated chemistry courses (10, 15-17). A proliferation of activities, assignments, and writing guides has resulted from these efforts. Some of these initiatives promote writing as a tool for learning chemistry or developing critical thinking skills (18, 19). Others target skills per se and offer guidance to students preparing professional publications, such as journal articles or research proposals (20-22). In this paper, we offer an additional tool for promoting chemistry-specific writing skills. We present a novel, easy-to-use, and easy-to-grade task, designed to increase students’ knowledge of common writing practices in chemistry and improve students’ ability to write for a chemistry audience.

The task specifically targets a subset of skills needed by advanced chemistry students (upper-division level and beyond) before they write their first journal article or journal-quality paper. These skills, summarized in Table 1, focus on three essential components of writing: audience and purpose, writing conventions, and grammar and mechanics. Skills that correspond to these components were selected based on results from a writing test taken by more than 300 chemistry majors at 16 colleges and universities nationwide between 2004 and 2006 (23, 24). Students taking this test generally performed well in skills related to grammar and mechanics (average score = 80%) yet struggled with skills related to audience and purpose (40%) and writing conventions (45%). To address students’ needs, we created a writing exercise that targeted these weaknesses. We present the activity below, explain our suggested answers, and conclude with a few recommendations for ways to use the activity in chemistry classrooms.

(Robinson, M. S., Stoller, F. L., Horn, B. & Grabe, W. Teaching and applying chemistry-specific writing skills using a simple, adaptable exercise. J. Chem. Educ., 86(1), 45-49, (2009).)

Introduction 2

Graphene is one of the thinnest materials ever synthesized, yet it is one of the strongest ever measured (1, 2), and it exhibits exceptional electronic, thermal, and optical properties (1, 3); however, growing large-area, single-layer graphene sheets remains a major challenge. Recently, a chemical vapour deposition (CVD) technique has been devised that exploits the low solubility of carbon in metals such as nickel (4, 5) and copper (6, 7) in order to grow graphene on metal foils. A consequence of this technique is that the large-area graphene sheets contain grain boundaries, because each grain in the metallic foil serves as a nucleation site for individual grains of graphene (6).

Tilt grain boundaries in graphite had first been observed in scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) experiments by Albrect et al. (8) and since then several groups have performed similar microscopy studies (9-14). More recently, Hashimoto et al. (15) have observed individual dislocations in graphene using transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and the structure, as well as the electronic, magnetic, and dynamical properties of grain boundaries in graphene have been investigated by a number of other research teams (16-18). With all this previous work established, a natural question to ask is how these grain boundaries influence the mechanical properties of graphene. Given the fact that graphene is one of the stiffest (modulus ~ 1 TPa) and strongest (strength ~ 100 GPa) materials, in order to use CVD-synthesized graphene sheets in nano-electromechanical systems (NEMS), in sensors, and as pressure barriers, it is important to know how the grain boundaries influence these fundamental mechanical properties.

Although a number of studies have been carried out on the mechanics of dislocations and defects in carbon nanotubes (19-21) and graphene (22), the mechanical properties of hydrogen-functionalized graphene (23), and the fracture and failure of graphene and carbon nanotubes with multiple vacancies (24) and Stone-Wales defects (24-26), the effect of grain boundaries on the mechanical properties of graphene has largely been neglected. To address this outstanding problem, we have performed molecular dynamics (MD) and density functional theory (DFT) calculations using the packages Large-Scale Atomic/Molecular Massively Parallel Simulator (LAMMPS) and Vienna Ab-Initio Simulation Package (VASP), respectively. 

(Grantab, R., Shenoy, V. B. & Ruoff, R. S. Anomalous strength characteristics of tilt grain boundaries in graphene. Science, 330, 946-948 (2010).)

In Introduction 1 the precise subject of the article is given in the first sentence, whereas in Introduction 2 it appears only at the end of the first paragraph, after a basic introduction on graphene. The difference can be attributed to the difference in the background knowledge between the target audiences of the two journals. Science, the journal in which Introduction 2 appeared, is aimed at a broader readership (e.g. chemists, physicists, geologists) and therefore more background information is needed in the introduction than for an article in Journal of Chemical Education (Introduction 1) which most likely would only be read by chemical educators. Identify the audience for every article that you write so that you can pitch your writing at the appropriate level. It is the responsibility of you, the writer, to bridge the gap between your readers’ knowledge and what they need to know to understand your research.

A common mistake by novel writers is to introduce the existing knowledge in terms of author contributions and general terms. For example:

Buchholz and Vandergrift (1995) developed a processing method based on work done previously by Vandergrift and co-workers. Chen et al. (1996) also described a method to dissolve ….

Compare this with the way the authors of the two example introductions use the existing literature to create the background for their research. When you analyse introductions pay attention to the way in which the authors use classification of the existing literature, comparisons, advantages and disadvantages, and definitions to create a flowing argument towards establishing the significance of their current work.

Good scientific writing is accurate, concise, clear, and logical, written in an objective, impersonal style (See the Module: ‘Use of English in writing scholarly/scientific papers’). This is well illustrated in the two examples.

Tips

· Who will read your article? Determine the common level of expertise of your typical reader.

· Clearly indicate the precise subject of the paper early in the introduction.

· State the research question addressed by the study.

· State the importance of the research question to the field.

· Note relationships to other studies.

· Indicate the scope and limitations of the study.

· Write clearly and concisely. Avoid excessive wordiness.

· Avoid opening with a vague generality (e.g. Throughout human history …).

· Avoid introducing your research topic at the beginning of the introduction (e.g. The first sentence of the introduction is as follows: The purpose of this research is..).

· Simplify the writing so that readers can appreciate the science.

5. Writing the “Acknowledgement” section 

The “Acknowledgement” section is usually placed between the Conclusion section and the References section in a publication, and should contain the following information:

· The details of all of the people who have contributed substantially to the study but cannot be regarded as co-authors (see Section 5.2.2). For example, statistical analysts, data collectors, editorial supporters, analytical technicians, etc.

· All sources of funding.

The following examples serve as illustration:

· This work was supported by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The authors are grateful to Mr. Z. Bíró and Mr. I. László for their technical assistance. (Appl. Radiat. Isot., 68, 1680 (2010))

· The author is grateful for the support from the Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences (ICES), a research institute of the Agency for Science, Technology and Research(A*STAR). This contribution was made possible through the collaboration BTEM GUI software was developed under the projects ICES/04-131001 and ICES/07-131007. (J. Raman Spectrosc., 42, 46 (2011))

· We thank members of the R.A. and S.R.D laboratories for comments and advice, B.Shykind for mice with GFP labelled olfactory receptor neurons, S.X. Luo for image alignment advice, D.M. Bear for cross-correlation analysis advice, D. Padfield for Matlab code, R. Wilson for comments on the manuscript and P. Kisloff for manuscript preparation assistance. Financial support was provided by a Helen Hay Whitney Foundation Fellowship, a Career award in the Medical Sciences grant from the Burroughs Wellcome fund and funding from the National Institutes of Health through the NIH Director’s New Innovator Award Program (DP2-OD-007109) (S.R.D.), a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service award predoctoral fellowship from the National Institutes of Health (D.L.S.), and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and a grant from the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health through the Grand Challenges in Global Health initiative (R.A.). (Nature, 472, 216 (2011))

· The authors thank Prof. B. J. Meyer for suggesting this study before his untimely death and dedicate this paper to his memory. Thanks to Dr Knoesen for the initial exploratory work. The authors thank Necsa for permission to publish this work. (J. Labelled Compd. Radiopharm., 54(1),58 (2011))

6. Concluding remarks for this module  In this unit we looked at the front matter of your paper and the Acknowledgement section. Although this might not be seen as the most important parts of the paper, it actually is. Following the specific journal guidelines shows that you are a professional scientist with respect for the editor and the reviewers. Therefore, before you submit your paper to a journal, do not only read the Instruction to Authors again to ensure that your paper is in the correct format as prescribed by the journal but also compare it to recently published articles in that specific journal. This would also allow you to determine the level and style of the journal.

Citation practice in scholarly / scientific writing

General logic and ‘rulebook’; considerations of priority, utility and relevance; different citation conventions and their advantages/ disadvantages; self-citation; citation indexing: history, simple article citation rates and journal impact factors, higher order data analysis, and proper place in general impact analysis.
Compiler: Prof Wieland Gevers
Other common referencing styles are:

While it is a good idea to familiarise yourself with the conventions of these common styles, you should always consult the instructions to authors for the specific referencing style of the journal you wish to submit your paper to before submission.

Some journals allow the specific journal style to be downloaded into reference management software packages such as Reference Manager and EndNote. These packages are commercially available but some universities have an institutional licence.