Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published
Open accessAbstract
Biology asked me to present my thoughts on getting published in the field of computational biology at the Intelligent Systems in Molecular Biology conference held in Detroit in late June of 2005.Close to 200 bright young souls (and a few not so young) crammed into a small room for what proved to be a wonderful interchange among a group of whom approximately one-half had yet to publish their first paper.The advice I gave that day I have modified and present as ten rules for getting published.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Posters offer a different medium from oral presentations and published papers.
“Posters, while delivering the same high-quality science, offer a different medium from either oral presentations [1] or published papers [2], and should be treated accordingly.”
From Ten simple rules for a good poster presentation. (2007) · cites this paper as [2]
Rule 6 discusses how to report science in a paper, and Rule 9 discusses choosing a journal. Neither section compares published papers with posters or says posters require a different approach. Searches for posters and for differences between presentation and publication found no passage addressing that comparison. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Ten Simple Rules for Getting Grants
Bourne, P. E., & Chalupa, L. M. (2006) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020012 · Cited by 48 · cited 10× · see citing works
“Continuing our ‘‘Ten Simple Rules’’ series [1–5], we consider here what it takes to make a good oral presentation.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ten simple rules for dynamic causal modeling
Stephan, K. E., Penny, W. D., Moran, R. J., den Ouden, H. E. M., Daunizeau, J., & Friston, K. J. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.015 · Cited by 803 · see citing works
Ten simple rules for a good poster presentation.
Erren, T. C., & Bourne, P. E. (2007) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030102 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Self-citationTen simple rules for making good oral presentations
Bourne, P. E. (2007) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030077 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Self-citationTen Simple Rules for Getting Grants
Bourne, P. E., & Chalupa, L. M. (2006) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020012 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
“his piece follows an earlier Editorial, ‘‘Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published’’ [ 1 ], which has generated significant interest, is well read, and continues to generate a variety of positive comments.”
BackgroundSelf-citation
- Authors
- Bourne, P. E.
- Corresponding author
- Bourne, Philip E.
- ORCID
- Bourne, Philip E.
- Venue
- PLoS Computational Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e57
- ISSN
- 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7358
- PMC
- PMC1274296
- OpenAlex
- W2019698558
- Cited by
- 73
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Keywords
- scholarly publishing, computational biology, research career advice, manuscript preparation, academic writing, early-career researchers
- MeSH terms
- Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Research, Writing, Peer Review, Research, Editorial Policies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
