Brian just published a paper in J. Neuroscience. We interviewed him and he
is willing to share with us some tips and opinions ...
In layman's language, what did you discover?
In this study, we have discovered the first evidence that the genetic
condition known as Williams syndrome is associated with an increase in
neural reactivity to positive emotional stimuli. Previous behavioral
research has demonstrated that those with Williams syndrome tend to be
extremely social (ie hyper-social). We used brain-imaging and
event-related potential recording techniques to compare neural reactivity
to happy, fearful and neutral facial expressions in a sample of Williams
syndrome to a typically developing control group. Compared to the
typically developing controls, the Williams syndrome participants
exhibited greater amygdala and ERP response to happy facial expressions,
and less amygdala and ERP response to fearful facial expressions. The
difference in neural reactivity to emotional and social stimuli in
Williams syndrome may underlie their tendency to be extremely social.
This paper draws a lot of media attention (Science Daily and e!
Science News, for instances). What do you think of the reasons?
I believe that this article received a substantial amount of media
attention because humans in general are social beings and we are
interested in the mechanisms underlying our social tendencies and also how
we differ in our sociability. Many genetic and/or psychiatric conditions
are associated with deficits in social functioning. This is not the case
with Williams syndrome. Those with Williams syndrome have preserved (and
in some cases heightened) ability to function socially. I think it is
extremely intriguing to understand the genetic basis of social functioning
not only in Williams but in all of us.
Why did you choose J. Neuroscience? Prior to J Neuroscience, did
you send the manuscript to somewhere else?
We anticipated that this would be a high-profile paper because of our
results. We therefore were interested in finding a journal that had a
relatively high impact factor and would be interested in publishing a
relatively lengthy methods and results section. We did not submit the
manuscript anywhere else.
How long did it take to publish this paper (since sending out the
first version of the manuscript)? How do you think of reviewers' feedback?
Do you have any tips of addressing reviewers' criticisms?
The manuscript was submitted in July 2008 and following a series of two
revisions, was accepted in December 2008 (approximately 5.5 months). I
believe that our reviewers performed an adequate job and that the quality
of this article improved following the revisions. My only advice is to be
thorough in the response letter. You can explain things in much greater
detail in the response letter than in the actual manuscript especially
when there is a word count limit.
The authors of this paper are from different places (Stanford, Salk
Institute, and Bangor University in UK). How do you like collaborating
with them? What are the pros and pons of having many collaborators, in
your opinion?
It is a learning process. The pros of multiple perspective definitely out
weigh any cons.
What practical tips do you have for students and postdocs to
publish in a good journal like J. Neuroscience?
Capture attention in the introduction and acknowledge your limitations
(preemptively) in the discussion.
