Difference between revisions of "Publication: Recommendations"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Provide detailed information for writing the “materials & methods” section of a publication (or thesis) so that experiments can be replicated. Do not write the method was “as previously described” if you made small changes. You can upload your step-by-step protocol in a repository (for example https://www.protocols.io). | Provide detailed information for writing the “materials & methods” section of a publication (or thesis) so that experiments can be replicated. Do not write the method was “as previously described” if you made small changes. You can upload your step-by-step protocol in a repository (for example https://www.protocols.io). | ||
| − | + | Instruct the users that they should '''inform''' the CF before submitting a manuscript containing data acquired at the CF. The CF should be given the possibility to check the relevant sections and validate the corresponding figures before publication. This is the last opportunity for the CF to '''check''' data quality. Over 90% of CFs believe that the quality of published data would improve if they were involved: | |
* “ensures correct understanding and an accurate account of what happened.” | * “ensures correct understanding and an accurate account of what happened.” | ||
* “[CF] can view the data unbiased”. | * “[CF] can view the data unbiased”. | ||
Revision as of 11:10, 16 March 2021
Provide detailed information for writing the “materials & methods” section of a publication (or thesis) so that experiments can be replicated. Do not write the method was “as previously described” if you made small changes. You can upload your step-by-step protocol in a repository (for example https://www.protocols.io).
Instruct the users that they should inform the CF before submitting a manuscript containing data acquired at the CF. The CF should be given the possibility to check the relevant sections and validate the corresponding figures before publication. This is the last opportunity for the CF to check data quality. Over 90% of CFs believe that the quality of published data would improve if they were involved:
- “ensures correct understanding and an accurate account of what happened.”
- “[CF] can view the data unbiased”.
- “It is the policy of our institute that all data generated through platforms is checked by the platform staff/head before publication”.
Other recommendations
https://www.rms.org.uk/resources-downloads/core-facilities-publication-policy.html [1]
