Liz just published a paper in Neuroscience. We interviewed her and she
is willing to share with us some tips and opinions ...
What is the main topic of this paper?
We compared the behavioral, neuroimaging (e.g. MRI, fMRI, DTI) and (some) molecular similarities across four neurodevelopmental disorders: fragile X syndrome, Turner syndrome, Williams syndrome and velocardiofacial syndrome. Even though all four disorders are caused by genetic alterations at different chromosomal locations, individuals with all four disorders typically have difficulty processing visuospatial information. So we thought that was interesting. We went digging a bit and came up with a (tentative) hypothesis about how three of these disorders (fragile X, Williams and velocardiofacial syndromes) might be linked at at molecular level, in a way that fits with the disrupted visuospatial behavior. However, we'll have leave it to a wet-lab to figure out if our hypothesis is correct.
For a regular research paper, we usually write the paper first, then choose a journal and submit there. What about review papers?
This was an invited review for a special issue of Neuroscience. So, in this case, the general topic (imaging in neurodevelopmental disorders) was suggested by the editors, and we fine tuned it based on our own research interests.
Can you compare your experience with writing a research paper to that with a review paper? Which one is more difficult? Can you share some tips in writing a review paper?
Research and review papers are both difficult, but in different ways. With research papers, the mental effort is in designing an interesting study, collecting solid data and analyzing properly (and hoping your results are significant and meaningful!). The write up of a research study is then a reflection on work that you know intimately -- after all, you collected the data and analyzed it, etc.
On the other hand, the difficult part about writing a review paper is keeping a few hundred different methods, results, conclusions in your head long enough to sort through and find something novel in the debris. Finding and illuminating connections (or disagreements) across articles is the most useful part of a review. Good reviews have an extremely important place in science as they help overworked researchers make sense of a vast body of (often conflicting and confusing!) empirical work in order to discern connections between papers, or overarching themes.
To write a review papers like yours, how many papers do you have to cover and how many of them do you have to read thoroughly?
Oh boy. Well, there are 155 references cited in our paper, so we at least read that many in depth. :) We probably skimmed another 50-100 or so (though it's difficult to remember at this point). In order to make sense out of conflicting papers, you really have to drill down to the nitty-gritty methods in order to figure out why two papers come to different conclusions.
Was this paper peer reviewed? What was the review process and how is it different from a research paper?
Yes, it was peer-reviewed. We revised our paper based on reviewer's comments before the manuscript was accepted. However, I suppose we might have had an easier time of it, as it was an invited review. (ie: my impression is editors won't likely completely reject a paper they asked for in the first place.)
How did you handle reviewers' criticism (if the paper was reviewed)?
The criticisms were not such that they sunk the paper. So, we clarified areas that the reviewers were confused about, and added more "tentative" language around our more "speculative" connections.
What do you do after work?
Right now it's winter, so I'm hoping to be downhill skiing on the weekends! Otherwise, I try to get out and bike or run or swim a bit.
