This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
title [2019/10/05 03:54] floyd |
title [2019/10/06 16:07] (current) floyd |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Here are some publications with various titles. | Here are some publications with various titles. | ||
- | * Needham, D. M., Yoshizawa, S., Hosaka, T., Poirier, C., Choi, C. J., Hehenberger, | + | * [[Needham et al 2019|Needham, D. M., Yoshizawa, S., Hosaka, T., Poirier, C., Choi, C. J., Hehenberger, |
- | * Rundle, H. D., & Schluter, D. (1998). Reinforcement of stickleback mate preferences: | + | * [[Rundle and Schluter 1998|Rundle, H. D., & Schluter, D. (1998). Reinforcement of stickleback mate preferences: |
- | * Coates, M., & Ruta, M. (2000). Nice snake, shame about the legs. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 15(12), 503-507. | + | * [[Coates and Ruta 2000|Coates, M., & Ruta, M. (2000). Nice snake, shame about the legs. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 15(12), 503-507.]] |
- | * Graur, D., & Martin, W. (2004). Reading the entrails of chickens: molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of precision. TRENDS in Genetics, 20(2), 80-86. | + | * [[Graur and Martin 2004|Graur, D., & Martin, W. (2004). Reading the entrails of chickens: molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of precision. TRENDS in Genetics, 20(2), 80-86.]] |
- | * Glazko, G. V., Koonin, E. V., & Rogozin, I. B. (2005). Molecular dating: ape bones agree with chicken entrails. Trends in Genetics, 21(2), 89-92. | + | * [[Glazko et al 2005|Glazko, G. V., Koonin, E. V., & Rogozin, I. B. (2005). Molecular dating: ape bones agree with chicken entrails. Trends in Genetics, 21(2), 89-92.]] |
- | * Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79(4), 606-623. | + | * [[Merton 1988|Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79(4), 606-623.]] |
- | The first one "A distinct lineage of giant viruses brings a rhodopsin photosystem to unicellular marine predators" | + | The first one "A distinct lineage of giant viruses brings a rhodopsin photosystem to unicellular marine predators" |
The next two " | The next two " | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
" | " | ||
- | "The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property" | + | "The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property" |
+ | |||
+ | Avoid a title that is overly specific as well. Including the scientific name of the organism, the geographic location of study, or method details in the title makes it sound overly specific and not relevant to the reader. "RFLP variation and null alleles in //Acipenser baerii// sturgeons of the Yenisei River basin" will not get as much readership or interest as "Gene flow between fragmented populations along a disrupted freshwater corridor" |