title
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
title [2019/10/05 03:41] floyd created |
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. | ||
| - | * Rundle, H. D., & Schluter, D. (1998). Reinforcement of stickleback mate preferences: | + | * [[Needham et al 2019|Needham, D. M., Yoshizawa, S., Hosaka, T., Poirier, C., Choi, C. J., Hehenberger, |
| - | * Needham, D. M., Yoshizawa, S., Hosaka, T., Poirier, C., Choi, C. J., Hehenberger, | + | * [[Rundle and Schluter 1998|Rundle, |
| - | * 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. | + | * [[Coates and Ruta 2000|Coates, |
| - | * 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. | + | * [[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.]] |
| - | * Coates, M., & Ruta, M. (2000). Nice snake, shame about the legs. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 15(12), 503-507. | + | * [[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. | + | * [[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 next two " | ||
| + | |||
| + | " | ||
| + | |||
| + | "The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property" may seem like an odd title to include here. It is not a stellar title. However, the author spends the first part of the introduction talking about the title and concludes "An obscure title can also have a latent function: to keep one from assuming that the title truly speaks for itself, and thus to make it necessary to elucidate one’s intent." | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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" | ||
title.1570246906.txt.gz · Last modified: 2019/10/05 03:41 by floyd
Page Tools
