Initial commit for venue-templates
This commit is contained in:
dfty
483
references/cell_press_style.md
Normal file
483
references/cell_press_style.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,483 @@
|
||||
# Cell Press Writing Style Guide
|
||||
|
||||
Comprehensive writing guide for Cell, Neuron, Immunity, Molecular Cell, Developmental Cell, Cell Reports, and other Cell Press journals.
|
||||
|
||||
**Last Updated**: 2024
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
Cell Press journals emphasize **mechanistic depth**, **rigorous experimentation**, and **biological insight**. Unlike Nature/Science, which prioritize broad accessibility, Cell papers are written for biologists who appreciate technical detail and comprehensive data.
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Philosophy
|
||||
|
||||
> "Cell papers tell a complete mechanistic story with exhaustive experimental support."
|
||||
|
||||
**Primary Goal**: Provide deep biological insight with extensive experimental validation that advances understanding of fundamental mechanisms.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Unique Cell Press Features
|
||||
|
||||
Cell Press has several distinctive elements not found in other journals:
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Summary (Not Abstract)
|
||||
|
||||
Cell uses "Summary" instead of "Abstract" - functionally similar but emphasizes synthesis.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Graphical Abstract (REQUIRED)
|
||||
|
||||
A visual summary appearing on the table of contents. **This is mandatory for all Cell Press journals.**
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. eTOC Blurb
|
||||
|
||||
A 30-50 word "elevator pitch" for the electronic table of contents.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Highlights
|
||||
|
||||
3-4 bullet points (≤85 characters each) capturing key findings.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. In Brief
|
||||
|
||||
A one-sentence summary of the paper.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Audience and Tone
|
||||
|
||||
### Target Reader
|
||||
|
||||
- Expert biologist in the relevant field
|
||||
- Familiar with techniques and terminology
|
||||
- Expects comprehensive data and mechanistic depth
|
||||
- Values rigor and reproducibility
|
||||
|
||||
### Tone Characteristics
|
||||
|
||||
| Characteristic | Description |
|
||||
|---------------|-------------|
|
||||
| **Technical** | Appropriate jargon for the field |
|
||||
| **Mechanistic** | Focus on how and why, not just what |
|
||||
| **Comprehensive** | Thorough exploration of the question |
|
||||
| **Data-rich** | Extensive experimental support |
|
||||
| **Precise** | Exact terminology and quantification |
|
||||
|
||||
### Voice
|
||||
|
||||
- **First person ("we") acceptable**: "We demonstrate that..."
|
||||
- **Active voice encouraged**: "We identified..."
|
||||
- **Confident but measured**: Strong claims require strong evidence
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary (Abstract)
|
||||
|
||||
### Style Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- **150 words maximum** for Cell; varies for other Cell Press journals
|
||||
- **Flowing paragraph** (not structured sections)
|
||||
- **Dense with information**: Every sentence should convey key points
|
||||
- **Mechanistic focus**: What was discovered and how it works
|
||||
|
||||
### Summary Structure
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Context** (1 sentence): The biological question/problem
|
||||
2. **Approach** (1 sentence): What you did
|
||||
3. **Key findings** (2-4 sentences): Main results with mechanism
|
||||
4. **Significance** (1 sentence): What this reveals about biology
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Summary (Cell Style)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Cellular senescence is a stress response that arrests proliferation and
|
||||
promotes tissue remodeling, but the mechanisms controlling senescent cell
|
||||
fate remain unclear. Here, we identify the transcription factor FOXO4 as a
|
||||
critical regulator of senescent cell viability. FOXO4 is highly expressed
|
||||
in senescent cells and sequesters p53 away from mitochondria, preventing
|
||||
apoptosis. Using a cell-penetrating peptide that disrupts FOXO4-p53
|
||||
interaction, we selectively induce senescent cell apoptosis in vitro and
|
||||
in vivo. Administration of this peptide to aged mice restores fitness, fur
|
||||
density, and renal function. These findings reveal FOXO4-p53 as a senescence
|
||||
vulnerability and establish proof-of-concept for targeted senolytic
|
||||
interventions in aging.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Graphical Abstract
|
||||
|
||||
### Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
A single-panel visual summary for the table of contents that captures the entire paper's message.
|
||||
|
||||
### Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- **Size**: Square format, typically 1200 × 1200 pixels
|
||||
- **Layout**: Clean, uncluttered
|
||||
- **Content**: Show workflow, key finding, and mechanism
|
||||
- **Text**: Minimal labels, large readable fonts
|
||||
- **Color**: Vibrant but professional
|
||||
|
||||
### Design Elements
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Typical Graphical Abstract Components:
|
||||
1. Starting point (cell, organism, condition)
|
||||
2. Intervention/treatment (arrows, symbols)
|
||||
3. Key measurement or observation
|
||||
4. Outcome/conclusion (visual representation)
|
||||
5. Minimal text labels connecting elements
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Description (for schematic generation)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
"Graphical abstract showing: Left panel - normal cells with FOXO4 (blue)
|
||||
and p53 (green) separate. Center panel - senescent cells with FOXO4
|
||||
binding p53, preventing apoptosis. Right panel - FOXO4 peptide disrupts
|
||||
interaction, allowing p53 to reach mitochondria, triggering apoptosis.
|
||||
Arrow at bottom showing aged mouse → treatment → rejuvenated mouse."
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Highlights
|
||||
|
||||
### Format
|
||||
|
||||
3-4 bullet points, each ≤85 characters (including spaces)
|
||||
|
||||
### Content Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
- Start with an action verb or key noun
|
||||
- Include specific findings
|
||||
- Make each highlight standalone
|
||||
- Cover different aspects of the paper
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Highlights
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
• FOXO4 is selectively expressed in senescent cells
|
||||
|
||||
• FOXO4 sequesters p53, preventing senescent cell apoptosis
|
||||
|
||||
• A FOXO4-targeting peptide induces selective senescent cell death
|
||||
|
||||
• Senolytic peptide treatment restores function in aged mice
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## eTOC Blurb
|
||||
|
||||
### Format
|
||||
|
||||
30-50 words for the electronic table of contents
|
||||
|
||||
### Writing Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
- Written by authors (editors may modify)
|
||||
- Start with author names or key finding
|
||||
- Make it a complete, engaging sentence
|
||||
- Highlight the most exciting aspect
|
||||
|
||||
### Example eTOC Blurb
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Baar et al. identify FOXO4 as a vulnerability of senescent cells and
|
||||
develop a peptide that induces targeted apoptosis of senescent cells.
|
||||
Treatment of aged mice with this senolytic peptide restores fitness
|
||||
and organ function.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Introduction
|
||||
|
||||
### Length and Structure
|
||||
|
||||
- **4-6 paragraphs** (800-1200 words)
|
||||
- More comprehensive than Nature/Science
|
||||
- Can include more technical detail and literature
|
||||
|
||||
### Paragraph-by-Paragraph Guide
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraph 1: Biological Context**
|
||||
- Establish the biological process or system
|
||||
- Why is this important to understand?
|
||||
- Set up the key players and mechanisms
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraphs 2-3: State of the Field**
|
||||
- Detailed review of relevant prior work
|
||||
- Establish what is known mechanistically
|
||||
- More comprehensive than Nature/Science
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraph 4: The Gap**
|
||||
- What remains unknown or controversial?
|
||||
- Why is this a critical question?
|
||||
- What has prevented progress?
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraph 5: Your Approach**
|
||||
- How did you tackle this question?
|
||||
- What techniques/systems did you use?
|
||||
- Why was your approach appropriate?
|
||||
|
||||
**Final Paragraph: Key Findings Preview**
|
||||
- Brief statement of what you discovered
|
||||
- How does this advance the field?
|
||||
- Set up the structure of results
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Introduction Paragraph
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Cellular senescence is characterized by stable cell-cycle arrest, profound
|
||||
chromatin alterations, and a complex secretory phenotype known as the
|
||||
senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) (Coppé et al., 2008;
|
||||
Rodier and Campisi, 2011). Senescent cells accumulate with age and at
|
||||
sites of pathology, where they can drive tissue dysfunction through
|
||||
SASP-mediated inflammation and disruption of tissue architecture (van
|
||||
Deursen, 2014). The targeted elimination of senescent cells—senolysis—has
|
||||
emerged as a promising therapeutic strategy, with genetic and pharmacological
|
||||
approaches demonstrating benefits in mouse models of aging and age-related
|
||||
disease (Baker et al., 2011, 2016; Chang et al., 2016).
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Results
|
||||
|
||||
### Organization
|
||||
|
||||
Cell papers typically have **5-8 results sections**, each with a descriptive subheading:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Results
|
||||
├── Section 1: Discovery of the phenomenon
|
||||
├── Section 2: Characterization of the mechanism
|
||||
├── Section 3: Identification of molecular players
|
||||
├── Section 4: Functional validation
|
||||
├── Section 5: In vivo confirmation
|
||||
├── Section 6: Therapeutic proof-of-concept
|
||||
└── Section 7: Broader implications
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Subheading Style
|
||||
|
||||
Cell uses **declarative subheadings** stating the finding:
|
||||
|
||||
❌ "Analysis of FOXO4 expression" (descriptive - avoid)
|
||||
✅ "FOXO4 Is Selectively Upregulated in Senescent Cells" (declarative)
|
||||
|
||||
### Results Writing Style
|
||||
|
||||
- **Comprehensive detail**: Cell expects more methodological context in Results than Nature
|
||||
- **Figure-by-figure narrative**: Each major figure often corresponds to a results section
|
||||
- **Statistical rigor**: All quantifications with statistics
|
||||
- **Biological interpretation**: More interpretation woven in than pure Results sections
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Results Paragraph
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
To identify transcription factors regulating senescent cell viability, we
|
||||
performed RNA sequencing on proliferating and senescent human fibroblasts
|
||||
(IMR90 cells induced to senesce by replicative exhaustion, ionizing
|
||||
radiation, or oncogene-induced senescence). Differential expression
|
||||
analysis revealed 47 transcription factors significantly upregulated
|
||||
across all senescence modalities (FDR < 0.05, fold change > 2; Figure 1A
|
||||
and Table S1). Among these, FOXO4 showed the highest and most consistent
|
||||
upregulation (12.3 ± 2.1-fold; Figure 1B), a finding we confirmed by
|
||||
quantitative RT-PCR (Figure 1C) and immunoblot analysis (Figure 1D).
|
||||
Immunofluorescence microscopy revealed nuclear FOXO4 accumulation in
|
||||
senescent but not proliferating cells (Figure 1E,F).
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Discussion
|
||||
|
||||
### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
Cell discussions are **thorough and mechanistic**:
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraph 1: Summary**
|
||||
- Restate key findings
|
||||
- Synthesize the main message
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraphs 2-4: Mechanistic Interpretation**
|
||||
- Deep dive into how your findings fit with known biology
|
||||
- Propose models
|
||||
- Discuss molecular mechanisms in detail
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraph 5: Comparison with Literature**
|
||||
- How do your findings relate to prior work?
|
||||
- Resolve apparent contradictions
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraph 6: Implications and Applications**
|
||||
- Therapeutic implications
|
||||
- Broader significance
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraph 7: Limitations**
|
||||
- Honest assessment
|
||||
- Open questions remaining
|
||||
|
||||
**Final Paragraph: Conclusions**
|
||||
- Big-picture take-home message
|
||||
- Future directions
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Experimental Procedures / STAR Methods
|
||||
|
||||
### STAR Methods Format
|
||||
|
||||
Cell uses a structured **STAR Methods** section:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
RESOURCE AVAILABILITY
|
||||
Lead Contact
|
||||
Materials Availability
|
||||
Data and Code Availability
|
||||
|
||||
EXPERIMENTAL MODEL AND SUBJECT DETAILS
|
||||
Cell Lines
|
||||
Animals
|
||||
Human Subjects
|
||||
|
||||
METHOD DETAILS
|
||||
[Detailed protocols for each technique]
|
||||
|
||||
QUANTIFICATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Reagent Table (KEY RESOURCES TABLE)
|
||||
|
||||
Cell requires a comprehensive table of all key resources:
|
||||
|
||||
| REAGENT or RESOURCE | SOURCE | IDENTIFIER |
|
||||
|---------------------|--------|------------|
|
||||
| Antibodies | | |
|
||||
| Rabbit anti-FOXO4 | Abcam | Cat#ab12345 |
|
||||
| Chemicals | | |
|
||||
| Doxorubicin | Sigma-Aldrich | Cat#D1515 |
|
||||
| Cell Lines | | |
|
||||
| IMR90 | ATCC | CCL-186 |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Figures
|
||||
|
||||
### Figure Philosophy
|
||||
|
||||
Cell papers are **figure-heavy** with extensive multi-panel figures:
|
||||
|
||||
- **6-8 main figures** typical
|
||||
- **Multi-panel format**: 6-12 panels per figure common
|
||||
- **Data-dense**: Comprehensive experimental support
|
||||
- **Extended Data**: Supplementary figures for additional validation
|
||||
|
||||
### Panel Labeling
|
||||
|
||||
Panels labeled with lowercase letters: **(A)**, **(B)**, **(C)**
|
||||
|
||||
### Figure Legend Format
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Figure 3. FOXO4 Sequesters p53 in the Nucleus of Senescent Cells
|
||||
|
||||
(A) Immunofluorescence microscopy of p53 (green) and FOXO4 (red) in
|
||||
proliferating (left) and senescent (right) IMR90 cells. DAPI (blue)
|
||||
marks nuclei. Scale bar, 10 μm.
|
||||
|
||||
(B) Quantification of nuclear p53 intensity in proliferating versus
|
||||
senescent cells. Data represent mean ± SEM; n = 3 biological replicates,
|
||||
>100 cells per condition. ***p < 0.001, two-tailed Student's t test.
|
||||
|
||||
(C and D) Co-immunoprecipitation of FOXO4 and p53 in proliferating (C)
|
||||
and senescent (D) cell lysates. IgG, immunoglobulin G control.
|
||||
|
||||
(E) Proximity ligation assay for FOXO4-p53 interaction. Red dots indicate
|
||||
interaction events. Scale bar, 10 μm.
|
||||
|
||||
(F) Model of FOXO4-mediated p53 sequestration in senescent cells.
|
||||
|
||||
See also Figure S3 and Table S2.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## References
|
||||
|
||||
### Citation Style
|
||||
|
||||
- **Author-year format**: (Smith et al., 2023) or Smith et al. (2023)
|
||||
- **Multiple citations**: (Smith et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2021)
|
||||
- **Two authors**: (Smith and Jones, 2023)
|
||||
- **Three or more**: (Smith et al., 2023)
|
||||
|
||||
### Reference Format
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Baker, D.J., Wijshake, T., Tchkonia, T., LeBrasseur, N.K., Childs, B.G.,
|
||||
van de Sluis, B., Kirkland, J.L., and van Deursen, J.M. (2011). Clearance
|
||||
of p16Ink4a-positive senescent cells delays ageing-associated disorders.
|
||||
Nature 479, 232–236.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Cell Press Journal Comparison
|
||||
|
||||
| Journal | Focus | Article Length | Figures |
|
||||
|---------|-------|---------------|---------|
|
||||
| **Cell** | Breakthrough biology | Long | 7-8 main + ED |
|
||||
| **Neuron** | Neuroscience | Long | 6-8 main |
|
||||
| **Immunity** | Immunology | Medium-Long | 6-7 main |
|
||||
| **Molecular Cell** | Molecular mechanisms | Medium | 5-7 main |
|
||||
| **Developmental Cell** | Development | Medium | 5-7 main |
|
||||
| **Cell Reports** | Solid science | Medium | 4-6 main |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Mistakes
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Insufficient mechanism**: Describing what happens without how
|
||||
2. **Under-controlled experiments**: Missing key controls
|
||||
3. **Weak phenotype validation**: Single approach instead of multiple
|
||||
4. **Missing in vivo work**: Cell papers often expect animal studies
|
||||
5. **Incomplete figure panels**: Not showing all relevant conditions
|
||||
6. **Forgetting graphical abstract**: Required element
|
||||
7. **Exceeding highlight character limits**: ≤85 characters per bullet
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-Submission Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
### Required Elements
|
||||
- [ ] Graphical abstract (square format)
|
||||
- [ ] Highlights (3-4 bullets, ≤85 characters each)
|
||||
- [ ] eTOC blurb (30-50 words)
|
||||
- [ ] Summary (≤150 words)
|
||||
- [ ] Key Resources Table
|
||||
|
||||
### Content
|
||||
- [ ] Mechanistic depth throughout
|
||||
- [ ] Multiple complementary approaches
|
||||
- [ ] In vivo validation (if applicable)
|
||||
- [ ] Declarative subheadings
|
||||
- [ ] Comprehensive figure panels
|
||||
|
||||
### Style
|
||||
- [ ] Technical precision in terminology
|
||||
- [ ] Author-year citations
|
||||
- [ ] Figure legends complete and standalone
|
||||
- [ ] STAR Methods properly formatted
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## See Also
|
||||
|
||||
- `venue_writing_styles.md` - Master style overview
|
||||
- `journals_formatting.md` - Technical formatting requirements
|
||||
- `nature_science_style.md` - Comparison with Nature/Science style
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user