In my book I classify scientific presentations according to the following scheme:

a)  speaker has no goal apparently
b)  speaker wants to prove he is smarter
     than anybody in the audience
c)  speaker wants to give listeners a flavor
     of new developments in his field
d)  speaker wants to teach some new
     science to the listeners.

In the book I discuss talks of type a), b) and d) to some length, but I say noting about talks of type c). The basic reason being that talks of this type are very difficult to deliver.

Scientists’s desk
What general office software is useful for scientists? I come to the following enumeration: an email client, a calendar manager, a browser, a document formatter (for non-scientific papers), a spreadsheet and presentation software. Microsoft sells software providing all these functionalities, and indeed many scientists use the Microsoft products Outlook, Internet Explorer, MS-Word, MS-Excel and MS-PowerPoint. However, with free - technically speaking - superior products Google is now challenging the leading position of Microsoft in this traditionally Microsoft territory

A scientific manuscript will carry in the majority of cases more than one author. In this post I want to describe some of the technical problems associated with multiple authors.  So nothing here about the sociological and psychological aspects of dealing with co-authors. The book, by the way, discusses these aspects in some detail.

Writing after the facts
If everything that had to be done, has been done, all research has been carried out,  all calculations have been performed and all results are available, writing up is a simple process. The first author - and only he - works on the manuscript (Latex-type, or in case of real emergency MS-Word) and after he has finished, the correction process can start. I have explained in my book in detail how to deal with this correction process. But here I want treat a new situation.

Having been a member of so many committees in which the quality of various applicant-scientists were compared, I think, I know how to read a curriculum vitae and a publication list.

Please, do not try to magnify your publication list with trash as unrefereed papers and conference abstracts. It is pollution that will irritate the committee.

A serious applicant will lists the following items separately, when applying for a job or applying for promotion:

Progress of science is greatly enhanced when scientists collaborate intensively. The public at large believes so. To them the scientific community is one great society of people that are nice to each other, that are willing to help each other and are willing to share their insights. Collaborations will speed up the time it takes for the world to get at the Truth.

Forcing scientific collaborations upon scientists is one way for politicians, science policy makers and science managers to manipulate scientists. In their eyes the self-serving of prima-donna scientists leads to a waste of tax-payers money. It is the big ego of scientists that sits in the way of scientific progress. 

A scientist should behave as a good citizen in the scientific community. You cannot  expect that other colleagues perform all the unpleasant jobs and that you can spent all your time on science.  I am referring to low-reward activities like reviewing papers, reviewing grant proposals, sitting on review panels, being an editor of a scientific journal, sitting on program committees and - which is the subject of my present post - really organizing a conference.

A scientific paper has a dull structure: Title, List of Authors, Abstract, Introduction, Results, Conclusions, References are the headings of sections to be found in many papers. However exciting and new the results of your paper are, do not experiment by inventing a new, original structure that will surprise and confuse your readers.

But given this rigid structure where do you announce your results first: in the title? In the abstract? In the introduction? Or, in the results paragraph? If you wait to long your paper will become a whodunit and readers will get bored and stop reading your paper. If the clue of your paper is already in the title you might fear that many of your readers will only read your title and will then go on to read the next paper.

I still remember those days that my thesis supervisor didn’t have to justify why he wanted to buy a particular, expensive, piece of equipment. When I became a group leader those golden days were already gone forever.

Nowadays scientists fight for research money in fierce competitions. I certainly agree that some competition is healthy. Although, I would like a situation where the science policy makers themselves and the board members of science-supporting agencies, for the sake of improving their quality, would have to write and defend as many proposals as we scientists have to do; given the funding rate that these science managers find socially acceptable for us, I would suggest for them also a funding rate of about 5%.

I am happy that my book Survival Guide for Scientists, published about a month ago, is selling very well. Today I went through the final proofs of the second edition. Corrections were only minor (some inconsistencies in italic versus roman fonts will be corrected). Up to now the marketing has only been done in the Netherlands. Shortly, our US-publisher will take care of that part of the market.

From the reactions I conclude that my expectation that the book would also be useful for non-scientists, turns out to be more than correct: lawyers, consultants and managers buy the book. And parents buy it for their university-going children. Tell me your opinion about the book.

After many years of experience I come to the following conclusion: Giving a good talk for a lay audience is extremely difficult and not very rewarding. Reading this statement will upset a number of people. So I have to do some explaining.