Ten years of Methods

Our tenth anniversary is an occasion to celebrate methods development!

In our Anniversary Issue, we highlight ten areas of methods development, among many candidates, that have had a lot of impact on biological research over the last decade. We also take the opportunity to look back at the papers we have published in some of these areas. We hope to add similar descriptions for all our ‘top-ten methods’ in coming months.

You can look back at the last ten years of Nature Methods in the following areas here:

Microbial sequencing

Super-resolution microscopy

Optogenetics in neuroscience

Light-sheet imaging

Mass-spectrometry based proteomics

High-throughput sequencing data analysis

Anniversary Issue Cover

Over the summer we asked for contributions from our readers for the cover of our tenth anniversary issue. We asked for images of the number “10” made using biological research tools and techniques. We were delighted to have many excellent submissions and to be able to use them all on the cover. Here is a bit more detail about these images.

Ke image

{credit}Yonggang Ke{/credit}

Yonggang Ke at Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University sent us an image of DNA nanostructures. Ke and colleagues used DNA origami to generate two self-assembled 3D nanostructures, imaged them with transmission electron microscopy, and then assembled the images to form the number 10. The height of the final image is 120 nm.

 

 

 

 

Hogberg cover

{credit}Alan Shaw and Björn Högberg{/credit}

Alan Shaw and Björn Högberg at Karolinska Institutet also applied nanotechnology to the challenge. Building on their recently published Nanocalipers technique (Shaw et al, 2014) they displayed a ferritin protein as the “0” (instead of ephrin as in their published paper) and use DNA origami to generate a nanostructure in the form of a “1”.

 

 

 

DSCN0678-adjusted

{credit}Sandra Duffy{/credit}

Sandra Duffy at Griffith University based her image on indicators of cell viability. Cytotoxic compounds were added to mammalian cells in a 384-well microtiter plate, either in the shape of a 10 in one half of the plate, or to all wells outside the shape of a 10 in the other half of the plate. After incubation, a cell viability marker (resazurin) was added to the wells. Viable cells convert the blue reagent to red, and the image was taken with a simple point-and-shoot camera.

 

 

Nano-lantern-2

{credit}Akira Takai, Yasushi Okada, Masahiro Nakano and Takeharu Nagai{/credit}

Nano-lantern-1

{credit}Akira Takai, Yasushi Okada, Masahiro Nakano and Takeharu Nagai{/credit}

Nano-lantern-3

{credit}Akira Takai, Yasushi Okada, Masahiro Nakano and Takeharu Nagai{/credit}

Akira Takai, Yasushi Okada, Masahiro Nakano and Takeharu Nagai, at Osaka University, used multicolour luminescent reporters to write the number 10, either by expressing them in bacterial cells streaked on an agar plate, or by aliquoting them in purified form in a 96-well plate.

 

 

 

 

 

10.2-Merge-v2-cropped2

{credit}Lauren Polstein and Charles Gersbach{/credit}

Lauren Polstein and Charles Gersbach at Duke University used light-sensitive transcriptional activators to photoactivate a GFP reporter in mammalian cells in the shape of the number 10.

 

 

 

 

 

Navneet Dogra and T. Kyle Vanderlick at Yale University examined bacteria stained with fluorescein (green) interacting with small unilamellar vesicles labeled in red. They used a laser to photobleach all fluorescence except that in the desired shape of the number 10. Image to come.

Finally, Kristina Woodruff and Sebastian Maerkl at EPFL used a standard microarrayer to spot live mammalian cells onto a 675-well array in the shape of a 10 (Woodruff et al, 2013).  Image to come.

We are very grateful to all contributors – thank you for helping us design a cover that salutes the creativity and ingenuity of methods developers!

 

Know your methods

In the September 2014 issue of Nature Methods, authors at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology argue in a Commentary that a productive way to frame the discussion about the reproducibility of biological results is to focus on how best to make good measurements. In other words, increasing the confidence in measurements is likely to also increase the reproducibility of the results of those measurements. Notably, in complex biological systems, making good measurements is not trivial. Read this month’s editorial introducing this topic here and link to the Commentary here.

Help create Nature Methods’ 10 year anniversary cover

Our October 2014 issue will be a celebration of our 10 year anniversary and we want you to help us celebrate by contributing to the creation of the anniversary issue cover.

We are looking for striking original images of the number 10 created by techniques or tools used for basic laboratory research in the biological sciences. This could be fluorescent cells patterned in the shape of a 10, a 10 written using two photon lithography, a DNA Origami-based 10, or 10 written using any number of other methods. The more imaginative the better!

The best image, or images, will be used to create the 10 year anniversary cover for our October issue. We will also post the best submissions, or all of them if there aren’t too many, here on methagora with a short description of how the image was created and by whom. If you use a method you published with us we’ll also highlight that article.

Please no drawn, computer generated, or heavily edited images. Images that work well on a black background may be preferable if the final cover ends up being a composite of several submissions, but we encourage submissions regardless of the background color.

We must receive your submission by August 25, 2014 for us to consider it for the cover. Late submissions will, however, still be considered for posting here on methagora with a description and acknowledgment. Multiple submissions from a single individual are welcome and we’ll highlight as many as possible here on methagora.

Email each image candidate to methods@us.nature.com with your contact information and a short paragraph describing what it is and what research method or tool was used to generate it.

Please spread the word to your colleagues! We want the variety of submissions to be representative of the wide array of techniques that have appeared in our pages over these last ten years.

Sequencing: Ship-Seq sails the seas

To study a primordial nervous system, Leonid Moroz brings the tools of biology to the open sea. Nature Methods spoke with the neurobiologist turned sea adventurer.

Leonid Moroz diving in Palau, collecting Nautilus.

Leonid Moroz diving in Palau, collecting Nautilus.{credit}Aggressor Fleet / L.L. Moroz{/credit}

Meet neurobiologist Leonid Moroz of the University of Florida, the inventor of Ship-Seq. His hair is not always this wild, although his ideas tend to be.

Ship-Seq is a boat with a sequencing lab on board. On the high seas, Moroz and his crew of sailor-scientists do high-throughput sequencing of DNA and RNA from single cells, as well as neurobiology experiments. And they analyze results, too.

The ctenophore Beroe ovata.

The ctenophore Beroe ovata.{credit}J. Netherton/ L.L. Moroz{/credit}

He is especially intrigued by ctenophores, now believed to be the first multicellular organisms, which also have a nervous system but it is utterly unlike ours. It is likely, he says, that their ‘elementary brains,’ their neural and muscular systems, such as the ones found in molluscs and basal metazonas, have evolved independently from all other animal lineages.

In his Nature paper recently published, he and his colleagues present the genome of the ctenophore of the Pacific sea gooseberry (Pleurobrachia bachei)—the data are here—along with transcriptome analysis of other ctenophores. He and his colleagues also present metabolic and physiological data about these organisms. The authors describe how ctenophores have evolved neuronal organizations that show ‘molecular innovations.’ There is also an accompanying News and Views piece by Andreas Hejnol of the University of Bergen in Norway and a Nature news story by Ewen Callaway.

Labs can be outdoors and on-ship.

Labs can be outdoors and on-ship. {credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

Although organisms can be taken from the sea to the lab, they often need ocean depths or a certain temperature to survive. And when samples are prepared for travel, they need optimized conditions to not degrade. Three decades of dealing with dead organisms, degraded samples, delayed shipments and customs snafus have led Moroz to try something new: Ship-Seq. “We cannot bring the sea to the lab, but we can bring a whole lab to the sea,” he says.

After completing two proof-of-concept Ship-Seq voyages—one to the Bahamas and another near the Florida Keys and one to Palau to prepare those voyages—Moroz shares some of his findings here, offers a glimpse at his logistics and future plans. He hopes others can follow his example, because probing and analyzing nature while in and around nature is an adventure with biomedical value.

Leonid Moroz

Leonid Moroz wanted to bring the lab to the sea. {credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

Biologist and entrepreneur Craig Venter and his Global Ocean Sampling Expedition in some ways parted the seas for Moroz’s project. Moroz wanted to explore biodiversity through sequencing but also take an extra step to do on-site ‘integrative experimental biology,’ which is about using many types of tools to study whole organisms, their behavior and their cells and genomes.

Field biology tends to be an observational science, because in the field, biologists do not usually have an entire high-tech molecular biology lab in tow. And, says Moroz, field scientists may not be completely familiar with new genomics tools, which is too bad since nature has performed genetics experiments waiting to be evaluated. On the boat he studied regeneration, which is hard or even impossible to accomplish “in a dish,” he says, because the animals he studies are incredibly fragile.

King of Regeneration
Meet the comb jelly Bolinopsis, which Moroz calls ‘the king of regeneration.’

Bolinopsis can regenerate its brain in three to five days.

Bolinopsis can regenerate its brain in three to five days. {credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

These transparent organisms from the phylum Ctenophora propel themselves through the water with rows of iridescent combs of tiny hairs. Though they may be small and unassuming, they perform an amazing feat: they can regenerate their entire ‘elementary’ brain in three to five days.

Moroz calls their aboral organ with gravity sensors an ‘elementary’ brain; it is not homologous to the human brain. But it is a control center with many neuron types and it coordinates behaviors and motions. In that sense it is an “analog” of the human brain, he says. What astounded Moroz is that when it is dissected from the animal, it grows back.

Other marine organisms such as Hydra are known to regenerate organs, but examples are limited, particularly for organisms that can be maintained in the lab. Finding models for such biological phenomena are crucial in neurobiology, he says. And for regenerative medicine, too. Aplysia, the marine sea slug, has long been helping scientists study memory. And there are more such organisms to find and with which he wants to do ‘real-time’ experiments and analysis, for example look at the dialogue between pre- and post-synaptic neurons.

Bolinopsis has another intriguing trait that Moroz discovered by accident. He was making some small incisions and then briefly interrupted his work. “When I came back around 40 minutes or an hour later, I couldn’t find my cut,“ he says. He made another incision and watched the wound begin to close before his eyes. Overnight, the wound became invisible. “It’s very cool,” says Moroz.

Sequencing team on the first ShipSeq voyage, from feft to right: Tatiana Moroz, Andrea Kohn, Rachel Sanford

Sequencing team on the first ShipSeq voyage, from left to right: Tatiana Moroz, Andrea Kohn, Rachel Sanford{credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

He found this wound-healing ability in five or six ctenophore species. It is likely an adaptation to life close to the water surface, where there are predators and formidable waves that can inflict bodily harm on these organisms. A related ctenophore species that lives in deeper waters appears to have lost this wound-healing ability. In this sense, he says, “nature already performed knock-out experiments for us,” inviting researchers to investigate which genes might play a role in these instances. Some species in the same lineage are slow regenerators, others fast, another aspect that invites genomic analysis.

Traditional ways of exploring the biochemical underpinnings of physiology and behavior can be slow. With new technologies such as high-throughput sequencing, it is possible to connect data types more quickly. For example, one can see an organism behave and use genomics to see molecular changes, for example in gene expression or epigenetic markers. Being on the boat lets scientists directly address observed biology; “you basically follow up with what nature suggests to you,” says Moroz.

One-way ticket

The Ship-Seq sequencing team for the second trip (from left to right Suzette,  Lauran, Rachel, Gabby, Andrea, Greg, Emily, Leonid, Gustav).

The Ship-Seq sequencing team for the second trip (from left to right Suzette,Lauran, Rachel, Gabby, Andrea, Greg, Emily, Leonid, Gustav).{credit}L.Moroz{/credit}

ShipSeq is also an environmental research project. Roughly every six hours a species is lost, he says. The disappearance of these organisms means ecological harm and the loss of important molecular blueprints, which is not unlike losing precious art and heritage sites, he says.

Comparative biologists face the criticism that their work does not have ‘translational value’ for biomedicine. But Moroz believes Ship-Seq shows that marine organisms have tremendous biomedical value. Bolinopsis is one example of many.

A small volcanic island in Antarctica. Moroz nicknamed it  Aplysia Island given that it looks like a model organism,  the sea slug, Aplysia.

A small volcanic island in Antarctica. Moroz nicknamed it Aplysia Island because it looks like the sea slug, Aplysia, a model organism. {credit}L.L. Moroz {/credit}

Too many human diseases are “a one way ticket,” he says, such as age-related memory loss. Spinal cord injury and stroke lead to irreparable damage. But genomic analysis, including genome-wide expression studies can help researchers explore how to lessen the impact of these diseases and injuries. Scientists need to “jump” from the genome to complex functions and brain circuits, which recruit many parts of the genome.

By delivering the basic alphabet of an organism, sequencing is a boon to many fields. What scientists also need is the grammar with which this alphabet creates the biological equivalent of language, which is behavior and physiology.

With his approach to ‘real-time genomics,’ he wants to help expose this grammar, says Moroz. For example, scientists might want to capture epigenetic changes over the course of learning or regeneration.

Ship-Seq logistics

Copasetic with the mobile sequencing lab aboard

Copasetic with the mobile sequencing lab aboard{credit}Ian van der Watt{/credit}

This is Leonid Moroz’s boat, the Copasetic, a 141-foot yacht. Actually it isn’t his boat. And the story about how he gained access to it, is a tale of Moroz’s brand of determination.

Logistics expenses for field expeditions are usually not covered by traditional grants, so Moroz built a collaboration between companies and non-profits to make Ship-Seq a reality.Over the years, he found opportunities, but the tide was against him. One time, everything was ready to go, but the boat’s owner decided to sell the boat, a mere week before the scientists wanted to set sail. Ship-Seq’s maiden voyage was cancelled.

Then Moroz came across the Florida-based International Seakeepers Society, through which yacht-owners loan out their boats for research purposes when they are not using them.

In late 2012, Moroz was invited to an International Seakeepers Society dinner. He had a semiconductor chip in his pocket that is used in semiconductor-based sequencers from Life Technologies, now a part of Thermo Fisher. The scheduled presentation was delayed due to a glitch with the projector. Until the projector was fixed, Moroz gave an impromptu talk about how the small chip could help save the oceans’ heritage and tell the world about the genomic blueprints of marine organisms. He had already been using the technology in his lab and saw how the instrument was accelerating his work.

Some of the listeners smiled politely and ignored him, he says, but a few were excited. Around nine months after that dinner, finally an opportunity presented itself that allowed Ship-Seq to leave the dock.

Boat, crew, captain

Steven Sablotsky designed the Copasetic

Steven Sablotsky designed the Copasetic{credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

Steven Sablotsky, a University of Florida alumnus, engineer, businessperson, yacht owner and member of the International Seakeepers Society approached Moroz. Sablotsky had designed his own boat, the 141-foot Copasetic, with marine research in mind. Sablonsky offered his boat for Moroz’s “proof-of concept” trips for free, including his crew.

The added crew was important. Private boat owners can be their own skippers, but large boats are legally obliged to have a competent crew. “It’s pretty complicated machinery,” says Moroz. “You really have to work around the clock.”

The Copasetic crew

The Copasetic crew{credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

At the time, Moroz was also speaking with sequencer manufacturers. He had set up a Life Technologies’ Personal Genome Machine (PGM), which is a bench-top, semiconductor-based sequencer. The instrument’s semiconductor chip uses millions of wells to capture DNA sequence information. DNA is fragmented and each fragment is attached to a bead, and copied such that each bead is covered with copies of the same fragment. One bead is deposited into each one of many wells on the chip, which is then flooded with one of the four DNA bases. When a base is incorporated into DNA, a hydrogen ion is released, leading to a chemical change in the well. The instrument detects the change, converts the signal to voltage, which registers that the base was incorporated and adds it to the growing sequence of the fragment. Another base floods the wells and the process repeats.

After testing the PGM, Moroz decided that it should be the sequencer for Ship-Seq. He was not sure where to install it along with the other necessary lab equipment. It was the Copasetic’s captain Ian van der Watt who suggested housing the lab in a shipping container. A construction manager at Florida Biodiversity Institute helped to organize one such container and design the mobile lab with Moroz. A few weeks later it was ready to be placed on the boat’s deck.

The mobile lab contained is transferred to the Copasetic’s deck.

The mobile lab is placed on the boat’s deck….{credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

The lab is mobile

…and is ready to travel anywhere. {credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

The advantage of a container, says Moroz, is that it offers a completely controlled environment. He and his lab collected the supplies and instruments they needed such as benches, anti-vibration tables, PCR machine, and enrichment systems to measure RNA and DNA and run quality controls.

They needed a high-quality water purification system for the sequencing. It is, he says “somewhat ironic” that the team needed to produce ‘clean pure water’ even though they were in the middle of the ocean. Thermo Fisher engineers got the sequencer ship-shape for a seafaring environment. “Basically we made a full-scale molecular lab” for genomics and imaging, says Moroz.

He still had concerns about variables such as temperature and vibration. They set up the lab and tested all the instruments. While at the dock, he asked the captain to power the motor forwards and backwards, simulating high waves. The lab aced the test.

ShipSeq set sail on its first voyage and the lab was humming from the moment they left, Moroz says. Sablotsky came along, too. Every day they did two sequencing runs and sent the data via a satellite link to HiPerGator, which is a high performance computer with 24,000 core processing units installed at the University of Florida.

mobile lab inside for web

Ship-Seq’s core lab. {credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

Moroz had set up an analysis pipeline with computational tools and scripts to assemble and annotate the incoming sequence information. After automated analysis, data was beamed back to the boat. The sailor-scientists had considered taking a Thermo Fisher engineer along but that did not pan out “so we were on our own,” says Moroz. The good news was “everything worked.”

The second trip, to the Gulf Stream and Florida Keys was windy and through rough seas. Seasickness immobilized half of the lab staff for part of the trip, says Moroz, including his wife. “People could not cope with the field conditions but the PGM machine could,” he says of the sequencer on board. Actually, he says, the Ship-Seq’s sequencing runs were higher quality than in the lab on land. He speculates that the waves enhanced the mixing of chemicals.

“The versatility of our bench top sequencers is only limited by the imagination of today’s scientists,” says Mark Stevenson, executive vice president of Thermo Fisher Scientific in an e-mail to Nature Methods. “Clearly, Dr. Moroz has taken an ingenious idea to a new level and demonstrated that great data can be attained and analyzed in real time – even on a ship that’s rocking on the high seas.”

Seasick but happy
On both trips and despite the seasickness on the second venture, the lab’s team was especially motivated, says Moroz. “It is easy to work a 16-18 hour day when you have the beautiful sea, beautiful creatures around.” People have been important for the overall success of the venture, he says.

Moroz wants to do more trips and expand Ship-Seq’s scientific scope. Using a prototype of the PII chip (which is not yet on the market), he performed single neuron RNA-sequencing in the lab. He projects it might cost around $3 per individual neuronal transcriptome, if one wanted to do a census of neuronal cell types in the brain of a marine organism such as Bolinopsis or others ctenophores, plankton and other, as he calls them, ‘aliens of the sea.’

setting sail for web

It took a while before Ship-Seq could set sail. {credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

Ship-Seq and its ‘lab-in-a-container’ offers many opportunities, he says. “The beauty is that it is mobile.” The container could be put on a ship in Florida or it could be sent to Palau or Antarctica and placed on a boat there for not much greater cost. “You can get anywhere,” he says, maybe even set up a “sequencing fleet.”

The planning for the next Ship-Seq trips is underway—but the geographic and scientific directions are not yet finalized. And the finances, too, need to be organized. The trip might focus on more complex marine organisms. For example, cephalopods have complex brains, lending them their nickname ‘primates of the sea.’ Moroz hopes to one day study their neurobiology, integrating field biology, behavior, and genomics. He also wants to be part of the ongoing ‘race to save species,’ to not only study but also “preserve our planet.”

Moroz has encountered plenty of detractors and skeptics. Whenever he is criticized and told he should stick to the traditional way of doing science, his path of taking the lab to the sea feels right. He says it reinforces his sense: “I must do it.” To him, doing science on Ship-Seq feels like “the investigation of a new planet.”

Ship-Seq Protocol
1 x 141-foot boat
1 x generous entrepreneur
1 x ship’s crew
1 x mobile molecular biology lab equipped with lab benches, a sequencer, reagents
1 x manufacturer of a high-throughput sequencer willing to donate an instrument
1 x satellite link to a supercomputer
1 x lab staff and scientist/wife willing to be scientist-sailors
1 x diving equipment
1 x funding National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
3 x support from non-profit organizations: Florida Biodiversity Institute, Florida Museum of Natural History, the International Seakeepers Society
1,000 international units of patience
Several remedies for seasickness

What we publish

The editors of a scientific journal have an editorial prerogative to publish articles that fall under the editorial scope of the journal as they see it. But defining this scope in a way that is clear to those outside the editorial team can be difficult and any definition can become dated as science and the journal evolve. Here we discuss the scope of Nature Methods.

As stated in our Guide to Authors, Nature Methods publishes “novel methods and significant improvements to tried-and-tested basic research techniques in the life sciences.” We broadly define “research techniques” as methodological procedures, biological or synthetic reagents, computational algorithms, software tools, instrumentation and other technologies.

The phrase “basic research” in the sentence above is key and, as explained in April’s Editorial, methods intended for later stage research applied to the clinic, drug discovery or industrial processes are generally considered outside our scope. These applications are often classified as biotechnology and thus are probably more appropriate for Nature Biotechnology or, if clinically oriented, a Technical Report in Nature Medicine.

But as April’s Editorial acknowledges, method and tool developments can be relevant for both basic research and more ‘downstream’ applications. This requires us to be continuously walking an editorial tightrope between them. As circumstances change and fields develop we may need to adjust how we apply our editorial scope.

As also stated in our Guide to Authors, Nature Methods is targeted at “academic and industry researchers actively involved in laboratory practice.” The phrase “laboratory practice” is intended to indicate that the journal generally only publishes methods for work that occurs in a research laboratory environment. On occasion, we may consider compelling work that doesn’t fall under the typical definition of laboratory research, particularly in areas like ecology where the basic research environment extends beyond the confines of a brick and mortar lab. An example was our publication of The Metatron: an experimental system to study dispersal and metaecosystems for terrestrial organisms.

We are constantly reassessing our editorial scope and can work with authors to adapt the presentation of work that might otherwise be considered out of scope if we feel it is sufficiently compelling, relevant to our readership and can be appropriately presented as important for basic research. We are happy to respond to presubmission inquiries submitted via our manuscript submission system asking about the appropriateness of the scope of a proposed manuscript. But if a manuscript is already written please submit the full manuscript as a regular submission and don’t worry about formatting it to fit Nature Methods’ article style. This will allow us to make a more informed decision and format can be dealt with later in the event we proceed towards publication. If a manuscript is clearly out of scope we will endeavor to provide a fast decision.

Finally, if there is an area of basic biological research that you feel is underrepresented in Nature Methods but should be of substantial interest to our readership, please let us know. For example, we published virtually no computational methods for the first several years of the journal but they now represent a substantial fraction of our articles. As we strive to serve our readers we want to avoid falling into a pattern of publishing research limited to a few areas, but our success in doing this depends heavily on receiving submissions from a broad range of research areas and we encourage the wider basic research community to consider Nature Methods even if we haven’t yet published much, or anything in a particular area.

Alberto Cairo on storytelling in science communication

Alberto Cairo responds to a Correspondence criticising the use of storytelling techniques in scientific research articles and journalism.

Nature Methods’ August Points of View article by Alberto Cairo and Martin Krzywinski described how to use techniques of storytelling to design better scientific figures. That article prompted a passionate response from Yarden Katz arguing that storytelling has no place in scientific articles. Cairo and Krzywinski respond that their article was overinterpreted. This exchange prompted us to argue in the November Editorial that storytelling serves an important role when used properly.

In this guest post, Alberto Cairo expands on their printed response.

Alberto CairoYarden Katz’s thoughtful response to our short column about visual storytelling techniques in science communication makes many cogent observations. We will use them as a starting point for a deeper discussion of the contents of the column itself.

First of all, Katz sees too much in our words. As explained in our published response to the Correspondence by Katz, we didn’t advocate for the use of storytelling to drive experiments. That is a very legitimate concern, but it was not our goal to promote this idea, so we won’t comment further on it.

Second, Katz presents an incomplete image of what storytelling and journalism are. He says that “great storytellers embellish and conceal information as necessary to evoke a response in their audience. Inconvenient truths are swept away while marginalities are amplified or spun to make a point more spectacular.” This is a rather bold claim that may be guilty of the same malady it denounces. It highlights the worst and obscures the best to be emotionally powerful.

It is true that many journalists begin with a preconceived idea—a narrative structure—and then choose the data which better fit it. They cherry-pick evidence to make a stronger and clearer point. They magnify outliers without mentioning the overwhelming prevalence of average values. This is the problem Christopher Chabris has identified in the work of famous journalist Malcolm Gladwell, in a recent long article (1).

This is not the approach we were trying to explain in our column. Proceeding this way, as Katz wrote, is wrong, and it is as wrong in science as it is in journalistic storytelling.

Moreover, we would like to remind Katz that there’s a long-rooted tradition in journalism that tries to stick to standards of truth which are close to those used in science. It was defined forty years ago by professor Philip Meyer, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as “precision journalism”. Precision journalism consists of the use of social science research techniques in news reporting: Surveys, statistics, data analysis, visualization, etc. In the best of the worlds, all journalism should be based on a careful evaluation of data and evidence, but precision journalism tried to elevate the standards of what proper evidence really is, even considering the pressures and tight deadlines journalists need to endure and meet.

That tradition has mutated into different branches of journalism that overlap greatly: Computer-assisted reporting (CAR), and data-driven journalism (2) among them. The most famous exponent of this tradition nowadays is Nate Silver, author of the blog FiveThirtyEight who, using mainly Bayesian techniques, correctly predicted the results of several elections (3).

What is the method of journalists—storytellers—in these areas? They don’t pitch an idea and then try to find the best data to support and embellish it. Ideally, they may begin with a fuzzy notion of what they want to focus on, and then they collect evidence systematically and let stories emerge from it. These stories may be completely opposite to the notion they had in mind at the beginning. Finally, they write those stories or, as we suggested in our column, they visualize them, in many cases with the close advice of experts in the areas they are covering (4). This is the storytelling tradition we were thinking about when writing our column.

Another point that we made is that the techniques described are helpful mainly when researchers need to communicate with non-specialized audiences. Journalists and storytellers are aware that people cannot absorb large amounts of information at once, and that in many cases they lack the background necessary to understand complex scientific research. As we wrote, “inviting readers to draw their own conclusions is risky because even simple messages can hide in simple data sets.”

However, and this is a critical point, nothing impedes researchers or journalists to present two or more competing interpretations when they are equally founded on evidence or there’s great uncertainty. Or to first present their main conclusions in the form of an evidence-based visual story, a narrative or, at least, a compelling composition—not all information can be framed as a story, after all—and then let those readers interested in exploring the multiple nuances or angles of an investigation access the data gathered and analyzed for it. This is something data journalists do today (5).

Any of those approaches would help avoid the challenge correctly pointed out by Katz: “complex experiments afford multiple interpretations and so such deviances from the singular narrative must be present somewhere.” Indeed. Just not at the first level of the presentation. To communicate effectively, information needs to be layered and sequenced in a way that can be processed correctly by audiences (6) while respecting all its nuances. For good examples of journalistic work that is both engaging and evidence-based, see the books by David Quammen, Carl Zimmer, or David Dobbs.

And it’s not just journalists who embrace this particular kind of storytelling technique. Many scientists do, too. As a recent example, take Michael E. Mann’s The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, a book that presents the evidence for global warming in the form of a narrative that is deep, rich, and captivating at the same time.

I’d like to conclude by quoting the words by the Yale University professor Robert P. Abelson that we included in our column. In his most popular book, Statistics as Principled Argument (1995), Abelson wrote that he used to ask his students “If your study were reported in the newspaper, what would the headline be?” That doesn’t mean that this headline is the only element that should be reported. Rather, it means that it should be the first element to be reported, followed by a discourse based on—to borrow Katz’s beautiful description—”evidence and arguments that are used—with varying degrees of certainty—to support models and theories.” This would be a discourse that is interesting to read and that thoroughly respects the integrity and the complexity of the underlying data. Therefore, we believe that storytelling, if carefully handled, can be compatible with the framing for presenting scientific results Katz outlines.

Footnotes
(1) See https://blog.chabris.com/2013/10/why-malcolm-gladwell-matters-and-why.html

(2) The academic literature in communication studies and journalism has not reached an agreement on how these categories should be defined. Basically CAR focuses on the use of data and databases to inform traditional reporting work (writing and speaking). Data-driven journalism expands the scope to include also the design of tools for readers to explore data, such as visualizations, mobile apps, etc.

(3) Silver’s blog used to be hosted by The New York Times. It has recently moved to ESPN.

(4) Journalists are, by tradition and training, jack-of-all-trades, even those who specialize in research, statistics, and computing.

(5) ProPublica and Texas Tribune, for instance, are two independent, non-profit investigative journalism organizations which frame their projects as stories, but then they usually let readers access the databases they put together and analyzed.

(6) Multiple recent books warn against the dangers of storytelling, cognitive biases, and patternicity, the tendency to see patterns where none exist. Arguably, the most popular ones are Kahneman (2011) and Shermer (2012). However, both authors also concede that we humans love stories, and we understand complicated information better if it can be presented as a story. So why not take advantage of that feature if we are conscious of its possible shortcomings?

REFERENCES
Abelson, Robert P. (1995) Statistics as Principled Argument. Psychology Press.

Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux

Mann, Michael E. (2012) The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia University Press.

Meyer, Philip (1973). Precision Journalism: A Reporter’s Introduction to Social Science Methods. Indiana University Press.

Shermer, Michael (2011). The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. Times Books.

Silver, Nate (2012). The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail — but Some Don’t. Penguin Press.

The dos and don’ts of communicating with editors and reviewers

Some thoughts and advice from the editors at Nature Methods on communicating with us and our reviewers, particularly on matters of disagreement.

In the over nine years that we at Nature Methods have been interacting with authors and reviewers we have experienced a great variety of communication strategies. Some work well…others don’t. In our October Editorial we discuss how neglecting to word criticism productively can undermine the value of the criticism and short-circuit this critical aspect of scientific discourse.

In the three posts that follow we provide practical advice for communicating with editors and reviewers during three critical steps of the publication process. These are: the cover letter, the rebuttal letter and the appeal letter. We hope you find these guides useful and encourage readers to comment on the points made and suggest dos and don’ts of their own.

How to write a cover letter
How to write a rebuttal letter
How to write an appeal letter

Update: It has been suggested that we write a dos and don’ts for reviewers. We agree this could be just as useful for improving the peer review process, possibly more so, and hope to be able to provide this soon.

How to write a cover letter

Part one of our 3-part series on the dos and don’ts of communicating with editors and reviewers.

A good cover letter is a crucial part of the manuscript submission package to Nature Methods. It is not simply an archaic form of communication that is becoming obsolete in a digital world; rather, it should be viewed as an opportunity to convey many important pieces of information about a paper to the editors.

Manuscripts submitted to Nature Methods must first pass an editorial evaluation stage, but as professional editors, we are not experts in every scientific field that the journal covers. Providing context for the paper in a cover letter not only can help the editors reach a quicker decision but also can sometimes tip the balance in favor of sending a borderline paper out for peer review.

Here are some practical tips for potential authors.

The DOs:

  • Do give a brief, largely non-technical summary of the method. Explain how it will have an impact and why the method and its applications will be interesting to a broad biological audience. This can include more forward-looking information about potential future applications that authors may be reticent to share with reviewers or readers of their manuscript. Such a summary is especially crucial for highly technical papers, where the chance that the advance may not be fully appreciated by the editors is often higher.
  • Do put the work in context. Briefly explain the novelty and the specific advances over previous work but be realistic about what the method can and cannot achieve. Many authors are hesitant to compare their work to previous methods for fear that it will appear to reviewers that they are putting down the contributions of other researchers. But editors may not be aware of the nuances of various approaches to address a methodological problem and are more likely to reject a paper without peer review when the advance over previous work is not clear. Authors should not hesitate to discuss freely in the cover letter why they believe method is an advance (most ideally, backed up with strong performance characteristics in the manuscript!).
  • Do suggest referees. If the editors decide to send the paper for peer review, providing a list of potential referees, their email addresses, and a very short description of their expertise, can help the editor assign referees more rapidly. Of course, whether the editor decides to use any of the suggested referees is up to him or her. This is also the place to list researchers that you believe should be excluded from reviewing the paper. (Please note that the names of excluded reviewers should also be included in the relevant field of the online submission form.) The editors will honor your exclusion list as long as you don’t exclude more than five people; if you exclude everyone relevant in a scientific field such that the review process will not be productive or fair, the editor may ask you to shorten the list.
  • Do tell us about any related work from your group under consideration or in press elsewhere. Explain how it relates, and include copies of the related manuscripts with your submission.
  • Do mention any unusual circumstances. For example, known competition with another group’s paper, co-submission to Nature Methods planned with another group, or co-submission of a related results paper to another NPG journal, etc.
  • Do mention if you have previously discussed the work with an editor. As editors, we meet a lot of researchers at conferences and lab visits and many papers are pitched to us. A brief mention of when and where such a conversation occurred can help jog the memory of why we invited the authors to submit it in the first place.

The DON’Ts:

  • Don’t simply reiterate that you have submitted a paper to us and/or copy and paste the title and abstract of the paper. The cover letter should be viewed as an opportunity to present useful meta-information about the paper, and not tossed off simply as a submission requirement.
  • Don’t go on for pages about what the paper is about and summarize all of your results. The editor will always read the paper itself so long cover letters are usually redundant. A one-page cover letter in almost all cases is sufficient.
  • Don’t use highly technical jargon and acronyms. Explaining the advance in a general manner can go a long way in helping the editors reach a quicker decision; cover letters that are largely unreadable are of no help to the editors.
  • Don’t overhype or over-interpret. While a description of why the method will advance the field is definitely appreciated, obvious overstatements about the impact or reach of the work do not help and can even reflect poorly on the authors’ judgment of the needs of a field.
  • Don’t assume that going on about your scientific reputation or endorsements from others in the field will sway us. This is not pertinent to our editorial decision. Our decisions are based on whether we think the paper will be a good editorial fit for the journal, not on the laurels of the authors or because someone important in the field suggested that they submit the work to Nature Methods

And finally, a minor editorial pet peeve:

  • Don’t address your cover letter to “Dear Sir.” This is antiquated language, not to mention often incorrect, given that two-thirds of Nature Methods’ editors are women. Stick to the gender-neutral “Dear Editor” in cases where you are not addressing a specific editor.

Don’t miss parts 2 and 3 of this series of posts covering rebuttal letters and appeal letters. We encourage questions, comments and feedback below. The editors will do their best to answer any questions you have.

How to write a rebuttal letter

A well written rebuttal letter is critical in any resubmission. 

Once the initial reaction, be that joy, anger or frustration,  to receiving feedback from editors and reviewers about one’s work has subsided, it’s time for our authors to make one of two decisions:  continue to go after a Nature Method paper  or take their work to another journal.

A realistic look at how the reviewers’ requests can be met will go a long way in helping to determine whether a revision is likely successful and to avoid a futile resubmission.

If authors want to resubmit in cases where the editorial decision was negative, and referees were critical and asked for a lot of additional information, the first step, before embarking on any revision, should be an appeal (see the post on “How to write an appeal letter” for more details) and rebuttal letter to the editor to discuss whether a proposed list of additional information is likely to address the referees concerns.

Authors who receive a positive editorial decision and who are confident that they can address the reviewers’ points nevertheless have to submit a rebuttal letter with their revision.

The rebuttal letter is an author’s chance to directly reply to the reviewers, announce plans to improve the work, clear up misunderstandings or defend aspects of the work. How it is written can make a big difference in whether or not an appeal is granted and how the reviewers judge the revision.

The DOs:

  • Do acknowledge that the reviewers spent a substantial amount of time looking over the paper – rebuttal letters that thank the referees for their time and comments set a positive tone and ensure that the exchange takes place on a productive footing.
  • Do acknowledge that a misunderstanding may be due to poor presentation on your part, not lack of expertise on the reviewers’,  and phrase your reply accordingly,  taking the opportunity to clarify.
  • Do copy the full text of each reviewer’s comments in your rebuttal and reply to every concern raised by each reviewer immediately after each point in a concise manner that clearly states how you plan to address it (experimentally or editorially) or point to data that already addresses it which the reviewer appears to have missed.
  • If you cannot address a point at all, explain why not.
  • Do number the comments or at least break them into paragraphs, and use different fonts or text colors to distinguish the reviewer comments and your reply, rather than write a single reply to an entire review in summary form.
  • Do include relevant citations with full references or dois so they can be easily looked up, rather than just cite by First Author et al.
  • Do include pertinent new data as embedded figures, tables, or attachments,   indicate where in the manuscript you added the information; give page numbers, figure panels, Supplementary material etc., so editors and reviewers don’t have to go on a search for the new data. If any of this information will not be included in the revised paper explain why not.
  • Do be succinct and to the point and avoid epic discourses.  In the case where more than one referee has raised the same concern, it’s best to cite “see response to point 2 from Reviewer #1”, for example.
  • Do remember that each reviewer sees all comments and your replies so be equally respectful to all.

The DON’Ts:

  • Don’t vent or accuse the reviewers of bias or incompetence. We have read countless times that “ ref 2 is lacking expertise and completely misses the point” etc. and one wonders what the goal of such blanket statements is. They serve no productive purpose and instead potentially bias all referees, even the positive ones, against the work.
  • Don’t plead that for personal or monetary reasons critically important experiments can’t be performed. While we hear the plight of underfunded labs we don’t make exceptions for these reasons.
  • Don’t ignore specific requests by referees without comment and selectively only answer a few queries.
  • Don’t rephrase a referees’ point to give it a slightly different meaning that you can more easily address.

Don’t miss parts 1 and 3 of this series of posts covering cover letters and appeal letters. We encourage questions, comments and feedback below. The editors will do their best to answer any questions you have.