Elsevier’s Future. The quality of papers is much strained

Revised 01 August 2009 at 0625 hours 

MANILA – I have seen the future, and it is US in science; I like it, and I don't like it. My subject this time is Elsevier's project it calls 'Article of the Future' as seen in Article Prototypes #1 and #2. I believe we can all learn from this project. I’m referring to technical papers being published anywhere in the world, but especially those appearing in the list of ISI journals of Thomson Reuters (scientific.thomsonreuters.com), as well as those in Elsevier’s own portfolio of 2000 journals available on ScienceDirect (sciencedirect.com). Worldwide, the ISI journals number today 16,218 in the Master Journal List (science.thomsonreuters.com). The competition between Thomson Reuters and Elsevier lies in building the larger / largest database of worthy, high-quality scientific journals in the world. It’s called the art of marketing science (knowledge).

While I write on many a popular subject, I'm no stranger to technical writing (as well as publishing). I’ve been many times an editor of technical journals and papers, since 1975. In my last engagement, I was the Editor in Chief who made the Philippine Journal of Crop Science, PJCS an ISI journal within 1 year after I made it up-to-date from being perennially late for 2 years in the last 10 years (see ‘PJCS: Making history in science publishing,’ cropsciencephilippines.blogspot.com). A major part of the secret is that I took direct charge not only of the editing but also the publishing process, up to camera-ready pages. Another part of the secret is that I read each manuscript word for word at least 5 times, sometimes more. The style and substance of many a technical paper became so ingrained in my head that today, give me 5 minutes and I can tell you what’s wrong with your paper. Starting with issues for the year 2001, from 2003 to 2008, I worked on the PJCS most of the months, you can say technical papers have been literally my bread and butter. (For my own complete little guide for technical writing, see 'Technical Writing 2009' in this same blog.)

I’ve also been a product pusher (more popularly called a copywriter, Pacifica Publicity Bureau, Makati, Philippines). So I understand where the British ScienceDirect is coming from as Elsevier announces that it has released ‘Article of the Future’ prototypes (22 July 2009, iwr.co.uk). The fact is that the quality journals of Thomson Reuters outnumber the quality journals of Elsevier by more than 8 to 1. Not only that; in the scientific world, when you say ‘ISI journal,’ you mean world-class, that is up-to-date, correct grammar, well-written, peer-reviewed, relevant and contributory to new knowledge. So, the Article of the Future project is Elsevier sailing in uncharted waters, on a blue ocean, where the competition is US – not only that you want to differentiate yourself; you want to eliminate competition altogether. (You may want to read my ‘Blue Ocean, Brown Rice. If you can’t beat them, junk them!’ americanchronicle.com).

So, Elsevier has come up with prototypes of the Article of the Future. These are described as follows (iwr.co.uk, with my editing):

The prototypes, with non-linear structure, enhance graphical navigation, real time reference analyses, and integrate multimedia, aimed at revealing a new approach to presenting scientific research online.

They introduce a hierarchical presentation of texts and figures that enable readers to elect for drilling down through the layers based on their current task in the scientific workflow and their level of expertise and interest. This organizational structure is a significant departure from the linear-based organization of a traditional print-based article in incorporating the core text and supplemental material within a single unified structure.

The prototype also feature bulleted article highlights and a graphical abstract, facilitating quick understanding of the paper’s key message and serving as a navigation mechanism to directly access specific subsections of the results and figures.

So, the Article of the Future is no longer just a paper but has been transformed into a multi-media presentation, complete with bulleted article highlights and a graphical abstract with links to the appropriate sections of the paper. Having noted that, I say to Elsevier and ScienceDirect: Good luck!

Let’s see. Article Prototype #2 is titled ‘Identification of positionally distinct astrocyte subtypes whose identities are specified by a homeodomain code’ by Christian Hochstim et al. The layouts are good-looking, as you can see in the image. But looks deceive, so we must examine this prototype paper more closely, even as it is on a subject I have never met before:

Article Highlights
(1) Like neurons, astrocytes can have positional identity dictated by a homeodomain transcription factor code. 
(2) Combinatorial Reelin and Slit1 expression mark three positionally distinct spinal cord white-matter astrocyte subtypes.
(3) Pax6 and Nkx6.1 homeodomain transcription factors control astrocyte subtype positional identity.

I’m sorry but ‘Article Highlights’ does not belong in a technical paper. This is not a feature story; this is not a journalistic piece. More to the point, what exactly are those 3: findings, conclusions, insights or implications? Now, if I were interested in the experimental procedures, these are not the ‘highlights’ of the paper for me.

Abstract
Astrocytes constitute the most abundant cell type in the central nervous system (CNS) and play diverse functional roles, but the ontogenetic origins of this phenotypic diversity are poorly understood. We have investigated whether positional identity, a fundamental organizing principle governing the generation of neuronal subtype diversity, is also relevant to astrocyte diversification. We identified three positionally distinct subtypes of white-matter astrocytes (WMA) in the spinal cord, which can be distinguished by the combinatorial expression of Reelin and Slit1. These astrocyte subtypes derive from progenitor domains expressing the homeodomain transcription factors Pax6 and Nkx6.1, respectively. Loss- and gain-of-function experiments indicate that the positional identity of these astrocyte subtypes is controlled by Pax6 and Nkx6.1 in a combinatorial manner. Thus, positional identity is an organizing principle underlying astrocyte, as well as neuronal, subtype diversification and is controlled by a homeodomain transcriptional code whose elements are reutilized following the specification of neuronal identity earlier in development.

Based on the 4 Cs of communication, I see that the abstract is concise and coherent – but not clear and comprehensive. (Truth to tell, in my 34 years of technical editing, I have yet to see an abstract that is both clear and comprehensive.) The rationale is missing. Why did you conduct the study? You cannot assume that the knowledge seeker knows or is able to discern. Why is it so important to understand the ontogenetic origins of this phenotypic diversity? Positional diversity was studied in contradistinction with what other factors relevant to astrocyte diversification? When you state, ‘Thus, positional identity is an organizing principle underlying astrocyte, as well as neuronal, subtype diversification’ – are you declaring that your study is definitive and your finding / conclusion / insight settles the matter once and for all? You can't leave all that hanging. Which reminds me: Technical journals usually limit the number of words in an abstract to 250 - this is an arbitrary rule and does not encourage authors to be clear and comprehensive.

Ijsbrand Jan Allbersberg, Vice President of content innovation for Elsevier science & technology journal publishing, has been quoted as saying, referring to the Article of the Future project (IWR as cited):

These (multimedia) tools will enhance the presentation of scientific results and improve the interpretation and speed of results analysis. They are central to driving innovation in scientific publishing and represent our investment in the future of research, enabling scientists all over the world to access, interpret, and create better science more efficiently.

I agree with Allbersberg. Prototypes #1 and #2 indeed enhance the presentation of scientific results – I’m referring to the design of the webpage and access to the different parts of the paper:

/Abstract//Introduction//Results//Discussion//ExperimentalProcedures/

A scientist’s access to knowledge is the ultimate aim of journal publishing; again I agree with Allbersberg and say that, ultimately, the understanding of papers published is not the author’s but the knowledge seeker’s personal duty. A paper is published for his understanding, not his entertainment.

Max creativity. The X Card Shuffle vs Mind Maps vs Artist's Way

Revised 29 June at 0744 hours Sunday Manila time

WRITER'S BLOCK. Jerry Mundis promises, 'I'll break Writer's Block for you immediately and forever' (unblock.org). For only $87, you can order his 3-hour seminar in MP3 format via PayPal and never have to worry about Writer's Block again – that's his promise. If not satisfied, money-back guaranteed, period. I checked out his website and the whole package looks good, very good. You can't max creativity if you can't eliminate Writer's Block.

Think of Jerry Mundis' promise to chop to pieces your Writer's Block forever within 3 hours, and think of the University of Iowa Writer's Workshop where you have to spend 2 years that seems forever.

Am I selling Jerry Mundis? No, he can do that himself very well, thank you, but his topic is something very important to me, and his straight talk gets my attention. I'm surprised that the famous Iowa Writer's Workshop talks of a lively art scene within the University premises but never of removing Writer's Block. Neither does The Writer's Center (writer.org). Nicholas O'Connell has his own Writer's Workshop (thewritersworkshop.net), but he assumes that you have gotten over your Writer's Block in the first place. Nicholas, it won't go away if you simply ignore it.

I think Writer's Block is the single most important problem of (would-be) writers. So, if your writing class or workshop is not designed to remove Writer's Block forever, it's not good enough. The problem with Writer's Workshops, even the more famous ones, is that they are not designed to remove Writer's Block. As Critters Workshop (critters.org) makes it plain how it does it, many a Writer's Workshop is in a fact a session with a critic, or a phalanx of critics, and whose interest do you think those critics represent? Writer's Block. Oh, I know critics are good for the books, but not for the writers.

I've published a handful of books myself, and for that I'm glad I've neither been to a Writer's Workshop anywhere in the Philippines, nor submitted my book to a critic's scrutiny. I've been writing and editing in earnest for at least 34 years, public and private, and so I know that Writer's Block is the common enemy of the creative writer as well as the technical writer. In fact, Julia Cameron's creative technique that she calls 'The Artist's Way' is itself a device to work around Writer's Block, although she doesn't say so (artistsway.com). You find your creative time of day and stick to it. (I'll do it my way.)

In similar manner, Tony Buzan's Mind Mapping technique is designed to do away with Writer's Block, although he may not claim it. You explore the territory of your brain and connect the dots. What Buzan does claim are these (buzanworld.com):

Tony Buzan is the inventor of Mind Maps – the most powerful 'thinking tool' of our times.

A Mind Map is a powerful graphic technique which provides a universal key to unlock the potential of the brain. It harnesses the full range of cortical skills - word, image, number, logic, rhythm, color and spatial awareness - in a single, uniquely powerful manner. In so doing, it gives you the freedom to roam the infinite expanses of your brain. The Mind Map can be applied to every aspect of life where improved learning and clearer thinking will enhance human performance.

I have no quarrel with all that. Notwithstanding, what Tony Buzan calls a 'mind map' – implying ideas mapped out – is more accurately called 'a roadmap of ideas' – that is, ideas are connected as roads are in a highway system, and it is impossible to connect the unconnected dots, as it is impossible to construct additional links connecting others to others (see example in mindtools.com). These are all first-class roads, but they are all that we can afford, folks! The human brain works a great deal much more wonderfully than a mind map suggests.

Another metaphor I can give for the Mind Map is that of a huge, fallen, uprooted tree (see image). What you see is what you get! And I want much more creativity than that.

What is clear to me is this: Mind Mapping is a critical thinking tool, and it may well be the most powerful in that category. But critical thinking, which in some other circles is called scientific thinking, is not enough; we need creative thinking too. They are two sides of the same coin; a one-sided coin is a non-negotiable instrument. We need the sciences as well as the arts.

What I'm trying to say is that the most powerful thinking tool of all would have to be both critical and creative. A mind map is of course and always a logical progression, linear, hierarchical, sequential – a mind map is 90% critical and 10% creative thinking. To max creativity, what we need to do is the reverse: 90% creative and 10% critical thinking. We need critical thinking to make sure that ultimately we are making sense with what we have created, but creative thinking comes first and foremost. To be extremely creative, we need a more powerful device than just mind mapping.

I'm speaking from experience. I've been writing since high school more than 50 years ago, and I don't remember ever having Writer's Block. I believe I owe that to the Reader's Digest's inspiring stories, Rudolf Flesch's helpful pieces of advice on how a writer can max his interestingness (to borrow from Flickr) via his Readability Formula, and Edward De Bono's discovery and advocacy of lateral thinking.

Given all that, I have also been an admirer of Henry David Thoreau and his plain advice: 'Simplify, simplify!' The Mind Map is a great attempt at simplifying the act of creativity for everyone, but it's not great enough for me.

It seems I came to know about mind mapping in 2004; my hard disk has an electronic file of an unpublished little flyer selling my expertise in creative writing. Since then, I have been trying to reinvent Rudolf Flesch, Edward De Bono and Tony Buzan all rolled into one. I know creativity has always been a risky preoccupation, but I'm a stubborn man. In this business, you don't have to be crazy, but it works! Sometimes.

This is one of those times. Today I am glad to offer the world The X Card, my brainchild. In fact, I came up with the whole idea of it only today, Saturday, 27 June 2009 Manila time; that's why I have this new blog of mine. And I'm sharing it free, no strings attached. In a little while, I will show you that The X Card is 90% creative and 10% critical thinking. It's simple; there's no software to buy, or book to purchase, no CD to order. Creativity is a gift and, when it comes to gifts, the more you give, the more you receive.

Why do I call them X Cards? Because they are the factor for the unknown, the inviter of serendipity; because you never know what to write on them until the last minute. To show you how Frank Hilario's X Card works, I will compare it with its remote cousin, Tony Buzan's Mind Map. Since I'm in the Philippines, let us assume that the writer, you are interested in writing about Charter Change, Cha-Cha, and as to the main ideas to deal with, you are limited to 12.

Before you do your Mind Map and X Card shuffle on the Cha-Cha of the Philippines, do some background or literature research first; at least, ask some questions. Then you retire to your room, look for little blank index cards, each one to become your X Card – if you can't find index cards, pages from your memo pad should be perfect. On each X Card, write a topic that you want to discuss related to Cha-Cha. So far, so good. Simple, isn't it?

I'll simplify and just give you the 12 ideas with which to use the X Cards and Mind Maps (note that they are listed at random); remember, the focus is on Charter Change:

(10) extension of GMA's presidency
(02) constitutional convention
(06) national referendum
(03) parliamentary system
(11) amendment
(04) constituent assembly
(08) empowerment of local government
(05) people's initiative
(12) revision
(07) economic liberalization
(01) social mobilization
(09) federalism

So, for your Cha-Cha article, you need to fill up 12 of those X Cards. Now, shuffle the cards and look for connections.

Now, at this point, I will show you how The X Card technique is quite the opposite of the Mind Map technique:

With Mind Maps, you begin by drawing a balloon and writing Charter Change on it; then linking it to another balloon and writing the (01) idea on it, then connecting it to another balloon and writing, say the (02) idea on it, and so on and so forth.

So, with Mind Maps, which comes first? The connections. Critical thinking first. So you can connect for a series of 3 links these: (01) with (02) with (03); (04) with (05) with (06); (07) with (08) with (09); (10) with (11) with (12). That makes 4 series. If you connect for a series of 4 links, you make only 3 series.

With X Cards, you begin by writing down one idea on each of the 12 cards. Then you shuffle as many times as you want.

So, with X Cards, which comes first? The ideas. Creative thinking first. You can connect each of the 12 ideas with any number of others, for example:
connect (01) with (02) and (03) - series of 3 links;
connect (01) with (02) and (03) and (11) - series of 4 links;
connect (01) with (02) and (03) and (11) and (06) - series of 5 links;
connect (01) with (02) and (03) and (11) and (06) and (04) - series of 6 links
and so on and so forth.

Note that with each card shuffle has come the winning combination of connections, each combination suggesting another article. From 12 cards, I can make about 57 series of connections, suggesting 57 different articles. Unbelievable? I'll call that The X Card Shuffle; with the shuffle comes magic. Literally, literary. As simple as that. And as beautiful!

Think of all those X Card series you can make. That's what I call limitless possibilities. And it's possible only with The X Card technique of generating new ideas. Using Mind Maps, you get only a max of 4 possibilities for an article.

So, in your article using the X Card approach, you can write about any combination of topics such as:

Argue for Cha-Cha for a shift to a parliamentary system of government through a constitutional convention.

Argue for Cha-Cha for a shift to a parliamentary system of government, insisting on only an amendment to the Constitution and rejecting a complete Charter Change, and thereby rejecting the constitutional convention as a mode of Cha-Cha.

Argue for Cha-Cha with or without a national referendum for a shift to a parliamentary system of government, insisting on only an amendment to the Constitution and rejecting a complete Charter Change, and thereby rejecting the 2 other modes of change: constitutional convention and constituent assembly.

Note that each group of connected ideas suggests one complete article - how can you lose? And in those 3 paragraphs above, we have not tackled the topics of economic liberalization, federalism, people's initiative and so on.

That wasn't hard work, was it? In other words, revising the genius Thomas Alva Edison, if this genius may say so himself, The X Card technique equals genius equals 90% inspiration and 10% perspiration. That is to say, 90% creative and 10% critical thinking. That's max creativity, I dare say. No, it can't get any better than that!

Technical Writing 2009. A Brief, Comprehensive Guide

PUBLIC SCIENCE IS FOR THE PUBLIC. In at least one top-ranked university in the Philippines, some people are loudly complaining why if you get technical papers published in ISI journals, you are entitled to a permanent position, or elevated to the rank of Scientist, not to mention to receive a cash award for each paper. In other words, the noisy complainers don't appreciate the fact that if you conduct research studies using public funds, you must publish the results – you must share the knowledge you gain with the public, award or no award.

You have to publish. The problem is that they don't teach you in college how to write technical papers; or they teach poorly; or they just assume that you know, or that you can cope. Result? Papers submitted for publications that leave much to be desired. And how do I know this? I have been editing technical papers since 1975. Having edited hundreds, if I see one now, I've seen them all. Been there, seen that.

I want to help. What follows is the guide to contributors I prepared completely by myself almost on the very first day that I became the Editor in Chief of the Philippine Journal of Crop Science (PJCS), which is published by the Crop Science Society of the Philippines 3 times a year; I was Editor from the January 2001 issue to the April 2008 issue. The contributor's guide is entirely original; you can't see anything like it anywhere in the world.

I'm offering it to the world, free. But, you may ask, it any good? What I can tell you is that under me, the PJCS became ISI, meaning it is now listed in the Master Journal List in the ISI-Web of Knowledge of Thompson Reuters, USA (science.thomsonreuters.com). It's world class. Becoming an 'ISI journal' is like being listed by Good Housekeeping as quality product or service. At the University of the Philippines System, they award $1000 for every paper published by an ISI journal whether published locally or abroad. That's not peanuts. The PJCS began publishing in 1976; it was only when I became Editor that it became ISI. I must have done something good.

And why did I think of putting the contributor's guide out now when I'm not editing any technical journal anymore? It's my way of encouraging those who wish to improve their writing of technical papers to be submitted for publication in any ISI journal. Here presented as it was in the December 2007 issue of the PJCS, while not everything applies in your case, I'm sure you can pick up many ideas you can use in preparing your technical paper whether you are targeting to publish in a technical journal in the Philippines or in Nigeria, in Asia or in America.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

TECHNICAL WRITING 2009, A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE
Prepared by Frank A Hilario, Editor

(1) PERSPECTIVE

More than grain and chaff, your paper we see as evidently an expression of both substance and style. We distinguish:

Substance. Substance comes first. It has to do with materials, methods, meanings. Substance is in your hands; that is why the contents of your paper are your sole responsibility and reflect the knowledge or opinions of neither the Editor nor the Publisher. To help you, we have Section Editors and Reviewers, and this guide.

Style. Style is design, format and layout, the way the message (text and non-text) is put on paper and how it all looks. Each journal is entitled to its own style, which bespeaks of its approach to the language of scientists communicating via print. Style includes grammar; beyond the fundamentals of grammar, the way you write is your style, and we try to preserve it. To help you with style, you have us: the Editor In Chief along with the editorial workforce.

(2) SUBSTANCE

Between two equals, substance ranks higher than style. We expect your paper to be clear, concise, comprehensive, complete. So, think of these:

Title. Be brief; 15 words is too long. You can’t tell the whole story in a title, so don’t try. In the title or text, unless taxonomic identity is crucial, please do not include botanical names of common crops like rice, corn, mango, soybeans and sweet potato. Avoid phrases like ‘effects of,’ ‘relationship of’ and ‘role of. ’

Explanatory Lines. Include, if appropriate, entries like ‘Portion of MS thesis of senior author’ or ‘Part of the project Sweet Potato Production & Marketing in Central Luzon, CS Gonzales, Project Leader. ’

Authors. In a multiple authorship, state the complete address after each name – please, no footnotes.

Abstract. Summarize rationale, materials & methods, conceptual framework (we recommend it), major findings, main conclusions, implications discerned, and major recommendations offered. 350 words maximum.

Keywords. Present major & minor subjects, as well as concepts & ideas expressed or implied in your paper that are important or contributory to new, additional, revised or related knowledge. Entries can be single words, compounds or phrases. The abstract and keywords will go into an Internet-ready database of PJCS papers as a service to our authors and readers.

Introduction. Include rationale and hypothesis. The rationale is the reason for the paper, and how it relates to a bigger whole. The hypothesis is an explicit/implicit statement of what the study or review is trying to prove or probe.

Literature Review. Preferably, cite at least one paper to support each assumption, declaration, finding or conclusion. This can be incorporated into the Introduction or treated as a separate section.

Materials & Methods. List materials & equipment and describe them especially if new, unusual, or modified. In any case, give enough details so that someone can replicate the study if need be.

Data. Please triple-check your data. We encourage you: Instead of the mean, use the mode to interpret data, as it reflects central tendency.

Illustrations. Make sure drawings or photo­graphs print well in black & white, and check captions: not too much text, please.

Results. What are your findings? Do results meet objectives? Not too many figures, please; not too many tables either. And yes, please explain each table properly and adequately, not dismiss it with a single sentence like ‘Mortality is shown in Table 13.’

Discussion. We strongly urge you to separate Results from Discussion, where you may want to identify your major findings and try to integrate them. Try to relate one thing with another, and come up with a bigger whole, as it were.

Conclusions, Implications & Recommendations. Conclusions are logical extensions of findings. Implications are insights or inferences from conclusions, reached via critical or creative thinking. Recommendations are concrete steps proposed to be taken based on implications conjectured. Thus: Finding – ‘Monoculture had the lowest, intercropping the middle and multi-storey highest XYZ diversity index, the differences being significant.’ Conclusion – ‘XYZ species diversity is directly related to the cropping system.’ Implication (critical thinking) – ‘High crop diversity maintains high natural XYZ predator-prey relation­ships.’ Implication (creative thinking) – ‘Trap crops can maintain predator-prey relationships under mono­culture.’ Recommendation – ‘Require trap crops under mono­culture for natural pest management.’

Acknowledgment. Include, if you may, sources of funds and materials, and names of offices, institutions or individuals who helped in the study or manuscript.

Literature Cited/References. Lit Cited: For authors & papers mentioned in text. References: For sources not specifically cited in text but where data were taken extensively from. In either case, don’t forget year and page numbers.

(3) STYLE

What follows are aspects of style of the PJCS; note that many of the guidelines aim to simplify the way you prepare your manuscript.

Abbreviations & Acronyms. Put no period in any abbreviation or initial; thus, JB Carcallas. Abbreviate liter to L, gram to g, meter to m, milliliter to mL, megabyte to MB, million to M etc. Make no plurals of abbreviations, but of the making of acronyms, there is no end. Thus: DOST, PCARRD, ERDB, HYV, NGO etc. If you use any acronym, spell out the name first, eg, deoxy­ribo­nucleic acid (DNA) or Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), then use the acronym throughout.

Active Voice & Personal Pronouns. The two go together. We urge you to choose the active voice over the passive, as the latter is the source of much vagueness, wordiness, and a great many grammatical errors. Passive & bad: ‘The coded data from these activities can be fed to the program and perform XYZ Analysis’ means that the data can do xyz Analysis, which is incorrect. Active & better: ‘Once you feed the coded data into the program, you can run XYZ Analysis.’ More: Here’s an active voice from the silent past, 1974 (CSSP Proceedings of the 5th Scientific Meeting in Naga, p 26):

In spite of its importance, no studies to our knowledge have been reported on it. We have wondered about its application to modern agriculture. Does a corn-rice intercrop combination respond to high levels of management? To answer this question, an experiment was conducted during the 1973 wet season in Los Baños, Laguna.

Excellent! But they are not consistent; the last sentence should read: ‘To answer this question, we conducted an experiment ...’

Botanical/Zoological Names. For scientific names of plants, bacteria, fungi, enzymes, compounds etc, consult an authoritative source. Don’t repeat scientific names, as they need extra attention – instead, use abbreviations or acronyms, eg, Jc for Jathropa curcas and JcB for Jathropa curcas cv ‘Batac’ (or simply ‘Batac’), after citing the full name with authority. Similarly, for a code name like RP2058-78-1-3-2-3, refer to it subsequently as, say, RP78.

Capitalization. Capitalize the first letter of every word in heads and subheads – it’s easier to format with software. Not capitalizing ‘of’ and ‘the’ and ‘about’ and such words adds to formatting time, rules to memorize, but not to the quality of the paper itself.

Italics. You may italicize common names or terms. Spare yourself the trouble of italicizing et al, in situ, ex situ, ad libitum etc.

Literature Cited/References. Sort entries by last names of senior or lone authors. Don’t all-caps names of authors. For accuracy, give full names of journals, not abbreviations. Examples of entries follow; for more, see any of the papers in this issue:

Del Rosario DA, ETM Ocampo, AC Sumague & MCM Paje. 1992. Adaptation of vegetable legumes to drought stress. In Adaptation Of Food Crops To Temperature And Water Stress: Proceedings Of An International Symposium, CG Kuo (ed), Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center Publication 93-410. 360-371 (article in book/volume)

Divinagracia Nena S & DA Ramirez. 1976. Morphology and cytology of Saccharum officinarum L. indigenous to the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Crop Science 1(1): 1-25. (article in a journal)

Yuniaty A. 1998. Screening For Drought Resistance With The Use Of Some Morpho-Physiological Characters In Soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.) MS thesis, University of the Philippines Los Baños, College, Laguna. 57-59 (thesis)

When citing in the text, use the family name & year: Carpio 1997, Reyes & Lopez 2000, Protacio et al 2001 (3 or more authors), and no comma before year. Indonesians have no family names, so always cite complete name. Chinese names start with that of the family.

Measures. Use the Système Internationale (SI). SI units have to do with meter, gram, second. Indicate dollar equivalents for money. Use P (P with a doublestrike) for the Philippine peso.

Numbers. A preposition is great to end a sentence with. But not a numeral to begin. Spell out one to nine, except with units of measure: 1 L, 9 lb. Incorrect: ‘from 7-13 flowers.’ Correct: ‘7-13 flowers.’ Please round off digits as much as possible.

Tables & Figures. Use the series 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and not 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, which is difficult to number, renumber and check – by you and us. Format tables so that they read and print upright – portrait is easier and more inviting to read than landscape. If you can’t portrait, split data into 2-3 smaller tables.

Whatelse. Don’t hyphenate any word. Never mind having only the first line of a paragraph at the bottom of a page or column (called orphan; see below, column 1), or the last line at the top (called widow; see previous page, column 2): we don’t mind either. ‘Respectively’ – Avoid it like the plague when comparing; your sentence will be shorter and clearer if you do. Correct: results in not results to, based on not based from, cope with not cope up with, aim at not aim to, in support of not in support to.

(4) MANUSCRIPTS

Major Papers: We accept papers of these categories: (1) research done, (2) thesis conducted, (3) review made or state of the art arrived at, (4) paper presented, (5) lecture delivered, (6) theoretical paper brain-stormed, (6) policy proposed or pronounced, (7) reaction paper reasoned out.

Special Papers: We publish brief reports on any interesting develop­ment, or a small part of a bigger effort.

Views: We do not espouse any ism; all things being equal, our view may be the opposite of yours, but we will publish yours. Letters welcome.

(5) COPIES

The electronic copy you submit to us should be in Microsoft Word. Type tables in Word too – one item, one cell, please. Tables in Word are a must for data & text – learn to align by software, not by the spacebar, tab key or Enter. If possible, put into one electronic file everything: text, table, graph, drawing, photo­graph etc – that way it’s easy to check for missing items. Don’t layout pages; after the text, put everything else at the end of the file. If you want your photograph to print beautifully, make sure your scanning is excellent; else, send us an original with good contrast.

Submit 2 hard copies plus 1 electronic copy of your manuscript. Copy into a CD disk, or send via email as attachment.

We will be sending back to you your paper edited with Word’s Track Changes, to make it easy for you to look for modifications or revisions if any. Make your corrections, comments on the same file, still under Track Changes, and send it back to us.

(6) SOFTWARE

From the April 2002 issue onward, we have been using Word 2003 as desktopper, as we find it most author-friendly, most editor-friendly, and most publisher-friendly. We are going after maximum use of software (Windows & Word) for optimum sustainable yield of printed pages. We had a dream: Working together as one – author, reviewer, editor and publisher – from being late by 6 issues, we brought the PJCS up-to-date. And then ISI. Thus, the PJCS stands as the only journal in the world that has achieved world-class status using Word 2003 solely as desktop publishing software. The Editor who was responsible for such a feat is the same one who is bringing you this guide. He has proven that excellence is in the details.