Initial commit for venue-templates
This commit is contained in:
dfty
405
references/nature_science_style.md
Normal file
405
references/nature_science_style.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,405 @@
|
||||
# Nature and Science Writing Style Guide
|
||||
|
||||
Comprehensive writing guide for Nature, Science, and related high-impact multidisciplinary journals (Nature Communications, Science Advances, PNAS).
|
||||
|
||||
**Last Updated**: 2024
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
Nature and Science are the world's premier multidisciplinary scientific journals. Papers published here must appeal to scientists across all disciplines, not just specialists. This fundamentally shapes the writing style.
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Philosophy
|
||||
|
||||
> "If a structural biologist can't understand why your particle physics paper matters, it won't be published in Nature."
|
||||
|
||||
**Primary Goal**: Communicate groundbreaking science to an educated but non-specialist audience.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Audience and Tone
|
||||
|
||||
### Target Reader
|
||||
|
||||
- PhD-level scientist in **any** field
|
||||
- Familiar with scientific methodology
|
||||
- **Not** an expert in your specific subfield
|
||||
- Reading broadly to stay current across science
|
||||
|
||||
### Tone Characteristics
|
||||
|
||||
| Characteristic | Description |
|
||||
|---------------|-------------|
|
||||
| **Accessible** | Avoid jargon; explain technical concepts |
|
||||
| **Engaging** | Hook the reader; tell a story |
|
||||
| **Significant** | Emphasize why this matters broadly |
|
||||
| **Confident** | State findings clearly (with appropriate hedging) |
|
||||
| **Active** | Use active voice; first person acceptable |
|
||||
|
||||
### Voice
|
||||
|
||||
- **First person plural ("we") is encouraged**: "We discovered that..." not "It was discovered that..."
|
||||
- **Active voice preferred**: "We measured..." not "Measurements were taken..."
|
||||
- **Direct statements**: "Protein X controls Y" not "Protein X appears to potentially control Y"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Abstract
|
||||
|
||||
### Style Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- **Flowing paragraphs** (NOT structured with labeled sections)
|
||||
- **150-200 words** for Nature; up to 250 for Nature Communications
|
||||
- **No citations** in abstract
|
||||
- **No abbreviations** (or define at first use if essential)
|
||||
- **Self-contained**: Understandable without reading the paper
|
||||
|
||||
### Abstract Structure (Implicit)
|
||||
|
||||
Write as flowing prose covering:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Context** (1-2 sentences): Why this area matters
|
||||
2. **Gap/Problem** (1 sentence): What was unknown or problematic
|
||||
3. **Approach** (1 sentence): What you did (briefly)
|
||||
4. **Key findings** (2-3 sentences): Main results with key numbers
|
||||
5. **Significance** (1-2 sentences): Why this matters, implications
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Abstract (Nature Style)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
The origins of multicellular life remain one of biology's greatest mysteries.
|
||||
How individual cells first cooperated to form complex organisms has been
|
||||
difficult to study because the transition occurred over 600 million years ago.
|
||||
Here we show that the unicellular alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii can evolve
|
||||
simple multicellular structures within 750 generations when exposed to
|
||||
predation pressure. Using experimental evolution with the predator Paramecium,
|
||||
we observed the emergence of stable multicellular clusters in 5 of 10
|
||||
replicate populations. Genomic analysis revealed that mutations in just two
|
||||
genes—encoding cell adhesion proteins—were sufficient to trigger this
|
||||
transition. These results demonstrate that the evolution of multicellularity
|
||||
may require fewer genetic changes than previously thought, providing insight
|
||||
into one of life's major transitions.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### What NOT to Write
|
||||
|
||||
❌ **Too technical**:
|
||||
> "Using CRISPR-Cas9-mediated knockout of the CAD1 gene (encoding cadherin-1) in C. reinhardtii strain CC-125, we demonstrated that loss of CAD1 function combined with overexpression of FLA10 under control of the HSP70A/RBCS2 tandem promoter..."
|
||||
|
||||
❌ **Too vague**:
|
||||
> "We studied how cells can form groups. Our results are interesting and may have implications for understanding evolution."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Introduction
|
||||
|
||||
### Length and Structure
|
||||
|
||||
- **3-5 paragraphs** (roughly 500-800 words)
|
||||
- **Funnel structure**: Broad → Specific → Your contribution
|
||||
|
||||
### Paragraph-by-Paragraph Guide
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraph 1: The Big Picture**
|
||||
- Open with a broad, engaging statement about the field
|
||||
- Establish why this area matters to science/society
|
||||
- Accessible to any scientist
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Example:
|
||||
"The ability to predict protein structure from sequence alone has been a grand
|
||||
challenge of biology for over 50 years. Accurate predictions would transform
|
||||
drug discovery, enable understanding of disease mechanisms, and illuminate the
|
||||
fundamental rules governing molecular self-assembly."
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraph 2-3: What We Know**
|
||||
- Review key prior work (selectively, not exhaustively)
|
||||
- Build toward the gap you'll address
|
||||
- Keep citations focused on essential papers
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Example:
|
||||
"Significant progress has been made through template-based methods that
|
||||
leverage known structures of homologous proteins. However, for the estimated
|
||||
30% of proteins without detectable homologs, prediction accuracy has remained
|
||||
limited. Deep learning approaches have shown promise, achieving improved
|
||||
accuracy on benchmark datasets, yet still fall short of experimental accuracy
|
||||
for many protein families."
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraph 4: The Gap**
|
||||
- Clearly state what remains unknown or unresolved
|
||||
- Frame this as an important problem
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Example:
|
||||
"Despite these advances, the fundamental question remains: can we predict
|
||||
protein structure with experimental-level accuracy for proteins across all
|
||||
of sequence space? This capability would democratize structural biology and
|
||||
enable rapid characterization of newly discovered proteins."
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Final Paragraph: This Paper**
|
||||
- State what you did and preview key findings
|
||||
- Signal the significance of your contribution
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Example:
|
||||
"Here we present AlphaFold2, a neural network architecture that predicts
|
||||
protein structure with atomic-level accuracy. In the CASP14 blind assessment,
|
||||
AlphaFold2 achieved a median GDT score of 92.4, matching experimental
|
||||
accuracy for most targets. We show that this system can be applied to predict
|
||||
structures across entire proteomes, opening new avenues for understanding
|
||||
protein function at scale."
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Introduction Don'ts
|
||||
|
||||
- ❌ Don't start with "Since ancient times..." or overly grandiose claims
|
||||
- ❌ Don't provide an exhaustive literature review (save for specialist journals)
|
||||
- ❌ Don't include methods or results in the introduction
|
||||
- ❌ Don't use unexplained acronyms or jargon
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Results
|
||||
|
||||
### Organizational Philosophy
|
||||
|
||||
**Story-driven, not experiment-driven**
|
||||
|
||||
Organize by **finding**, not by the chronological order of experiments:
|
||||
|
||||
❌ **Experiment-driven** (avoid):
|
||||
> "We first performed experiment A. Next, we did experiment B. Then we conducted experiment C."
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Finding-driven** (preferred):
|
||||
> "We discovered that X. To understand the mechanism, we found that Y. This led us to test whether Z, confirming our hypothesis."
|
||||
|
||||
### Results Writing Style
|
||||
|
||||
- **Past tense** for describing what was done/found
|
||||
- **Present tense** for referring to figures ("Figure 2 shows...")
|
||||
- **Objective but interpretive**: State findings with minimal interpretation, but provide enough context for non-specialists
|
||||
- **Quantitative**: Include key numbers, statistics, effect sizes
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Results Paragraph
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
To test whether protein X is required for cell division, we generated
|
||||
knockout cell lines using CRISPR-Cas9 (Fig. 1a). Cells lacking protein X
|
||||
showed a 73% reduction in division rate compared to controls (P < 0.001,
|
||||
n = 6 biological replicates; Fig. 1b). Live-cell imaging revealed that
|
||||
knockout cells arrested in metaphase, with 84% showing abnormal spindle
|
||||
morphology (Fig. 1c,d). These results demonstrate that protein X is
|
||||
essential for proper spindle assembly and cell division.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Subheadings
|
||||
|
||||
Use descriptive subheadings that convey findings:
|
||||
|
||||
❌ **Vague**: "Protein expression analysis"
|
||||
✅ **Informative**: "Protein X is upregulated in response to stress"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Discussion
|
||||
|
||||
### Structure (4-6 paragraphs)
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraph 1: Summary of Key Findings**
|
||||
- Restate main findings (don't repeat Results verbatim)
|
||||
- State whether hypotheses were supported
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraphs 2-3: Interpretation and Context**
|
||||
- What do the findings mean?
|
||||
- How do they relate to prior work?
|
||||
- What mechanisms might explain the results?
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraph 4: Broader Implications**
|
||||
- Why does this matter beyond your specific system?
|
||||
- Connections to other fields
|
||||
- Potential applications
|
||||
|
||||
**Paragraph 5: Limitations**
|
||||
- Acknowledge limitations honestly
|
||||
- Be specific, not generic
|
||||
|
||||
**Final Paragraph: Conclusions and Future**
|
||||
- Big-picture take-home message
|
||||
- Brief mention of future directions
|
||||
|
||||
### Discussion Writing Tips
|
||||
|
||||
- **Lead with implications**, not caveats
|
||||
- **Compare to literature constructively**: "Our findings extend the work of Smith et al. by demonstrating..."
|
||||
- **Acknowledge alternative interpretations**: "An alternative explanation is that..."
|
||||
- **Be honest about limitations**: Specific > generic
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Limitation Statement
|
||||
|
||||
❌ **Generic**: "Our study has limitations that should be addressed in future work."
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Specific**: "Our analysis was limited to cultured cells, which may not fully recapitulate the tissue microenvironment. Additionally, the 48-hour observation window may miss slower-developing phenotypes."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Methods
|
||||
|
||||
### Nature Methods Placement
|
||||
|
||||
- **Brief Methods** in main text (often at the end)
|
||||
- **Extended Methods** in Supplementary Information
|
||||
- Must be detailed enough for reproduction
|
||||
|
||||
### Writing Style
|
||||
|
||||
- **Past tense, passive voice acceptable**: "Cells were cultured..." or "We cultured cells..."
|
||||
- **Precise and reproducible**: Include concentrations, times, temperatures
|
||||
- **Reference established protocols**: "Following the method of Smith et al.³..."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Figures
|
||||
|
||||
### Figure Philosophy
|
||||
|
||||
Nature values **conceptual figures** alongside data:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Figure 1**: Often a schematic/model showing the concept
|
||||
2. **Data figures**: Clear, not cluttered
|
||||
3. **Final figure**: Often a summary model
|
||||
|
||||
### Figure Design Principles
|
||||
|
||||
- **Single-column (89 mm) or double-column (183 mm)** width
|
||||
- **High resolution**: 300+ dpi for photos, 1000+ dpi for line art
|
||||
- **Colorblind-accessible**: Avoid red-green distinctions alone
|
||||
- **Minimal chartjunk**: No 3D effects, unnecessary gridlines
|
||||
- **Complete legends**: Self-explanatory without reading text
|
||||
|
||||
### Figure Legend Format
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Figure 1 | Protein X controls cell division through spindle assembly.
|
||||
a, Schematic of the experimental approach. b, Quantification of cell
|
||||
division rate in control (grey) and knockout (blue) cells. Data are
|
||||
mean ± s.e.m., n = 6 biological replicates. ***P < 0.001, two-tailed
|
||||
t-test. c,d, Representative images of spindle morphology in control (c)
|
||||
and knockout (d) cells. Scale bars, 10 μm.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## References
|
||||
|
||||
### Citation Style
|
||||
|
||||
- **Numbered superscripts**: ¹, ², ¹⁻³, ¹'⁵'⁷
|
||||
- **Nature format** for bibliography
|
||||
|
||||
### Reference Format
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. Watson, J. D. & Crick, F. H. C. Molecular structure of nucleic acids.
|
||||
Nature 171, 737–738 (1953).
|
||||
|
||||
2. Smith, A. B., Jones, C. D. & Williams, E. F. Discovery of protein X.
|
||||
Science 380, 123–130 (2023).
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Citation Best Practices
|
||||
|
||||
- **Recent literature**: Include papers from last 2-3 years
|
||||
- **Seminal papers**: Cite foundational work
|
||||
- **Diverse sources**: Don't over-cite your own work
|
||||
- **Primary sources**: Cite original discoveries, not reviews (when possible)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Language and Style Tips
|
||||
|
||||
### Word Choice
|
||||
|
||||
| Avoid | Prefer |
|
||||
|-------|--------|
|
||||
| utilize | use |
|
||||
| methodology | method |
|
||||
| in order to | to |
|
||||
| a large number of | many |
|
||||
| at this point in time | now |
|
||||
| has the ability to | can |
|
||||
| it is interesting to note that | [delete entirely] |
|
||||
|
||||
### Sentence Structure
|
||||
|
||||
- **Vary sentence length**: Mix short and longer sentences
|
||||
- **Lead with importance**: Put key information at the start
|
||||
- **One idea per sentence**: Complex ideas need multiple sentences
|
||||
|
||||
### Paragraph Structure
|
||||
|
||||
- **Topic sentence first**: State the main point
|
||||
- **Supporting evidence**: Data and citations
|
||||
- **Transition**: Connect to next paragraph
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Comparison: Nature vs. Science
|
||||
|
||||
| Feature | Nature | Science |
|
||||
|---------|--------|---------|
|
||||
| Abstract length | 150-200 words | ≤125 words |
|
||||
| Citation style | Numbered superscript | Numbered parentheses (1, 2) |
|
||||
| Article titles in refs | Yes | No (in main refs) |
|
||||
| Methods placement | End of paper or supplement | Supplement |
|
||||
| Significance statement | No | No |
|
||||
| Open access option | Yes | Yes |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Rejection Reasons
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Not of sufficient broad interest**: Too specialized for Nature/Science
|
||||
2. **Incremental advance**: Not transformative enough
|
||||
3. **Overselling**: Claims not supported by data
|
||||
4. **Poor accessibility**: Too technical for general audience
|
||||
5. **Weak significance statement**: "So what?" unclear
|
||||
6. **Insufficient novelty**: Similar findings published elsewhere
|
||||
7. **Methodological concerns**: Results not convincing
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-Submission Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
### Content
|
||||
- [ ] Significance to broad audience clear in first paragraph
|
||||
- [ ] Non-specialist can understand the abstract
|
||||
- [ ] Story-driven results (not experiment-by-experiment)
|
||||
- [ ] Implications emphasized in discussion
|
||||
- [ ] Limitations acknowledged specifically
|
||||
|
||||
### Style
|
||||
- [ ] Active voice predominates
|
||||
- [ ] Jargon minimized or explained
|
||||
- [ ] Sentences vary in length
|
||||
- [ ] Paragraphs have clear topic sentences
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical
|
||||
- [ ] Figures are high resolution
|
||||
- [ ] Citations in correct format
|
||||
- [ ] Word count within limits
|
||||
- [ ] Line numbers included
|
||||
- [ ] Double-spaced
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## See Also
|
||||
|
||||
- `venue_writing_styles.md` - Master style overview
|
||||
- `journals_formatting.md` - Technical formatting requirements
|
||||
- `reviewer_expectations.md` - What Nature/Science reviewers seek
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user