Originally a 2011 article in PLOS Comp Biol, http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002108 presented as a lecture to the Morgridge Institute for Research, Madison, WI on December 14, 2016

1. Ten Simple Rules for Building and
Maintaining a Scientific Reputation
Philip E. Bourne PhD, FACMI
Associate Director for Data Science
National Institutes of Health
philip.bourne@nih.gov
http://www.slideshare.net/pebourne

2. The history of the Ten Simple Rules
series…
http://collections.plos.org/ten-simple-
rules

3. A group of PLOS editors were sitting
around discussing publishing ethics
and the topic of reputation came up..
What is it exactly?
Ginny Barbour and I tried to write it
down
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journa
l.pcbi.1002108

4. Quantitative Measures

5. Quantitative Measures
But there is something less definable yet critical…
Fair play, integrity, honesty and caring
Something you don’t think about until you
don’t have it anymore

6. A scientific reputation is not
immediate, it is acquired over a
lifetime and is akin to compound
interest—the more you have the
more you can acquire. It is also very
easy to lose, and once gone, nearly
impossible to recover.

7. Rule 1 – Think Before You Act
Whatever you commit to a digital form
will be with you forever….

8. Rule 2: Do Not Ignore Criticism
Whether in your eyes, criticism is deserved
or not, do not ignore it, but respond with
the knowledge of Rule 1. Failure to respond
to criticism is perceived either as an
acknowledgement of that criticism or as a
lack of respect for the critic. Neither is
good.

9. Rule 3: Do Not Ignore People

10. Rule 4: Take Publishing Seriously
It is THE major reflection of your
accomplishments (unfortunately)
• Only author what you wrote
• Position yourself appropriately in the author
list
• It is the footprint of your academic
accomplishments

11. Rule 5: Always Declare Conflicts of
Interest (COI’s)
• How to define a COI?
– You have a sense of unease about what you are
about to do
– Ask your mentors whose reputation you
appreciate/respect
– Talk to your institutions ethics office
• Don’t be swayed even in the current hyper-
intensive research environment

12. Rule 6: Do Your Share for the
Community – It Shows Eventually
• Don’t turn down a review request and they
complain that your paper review is slow
• Don’t avidly consume public data and be slow
to make your available
• Don’t just attend meetings, organize them
• Put back more than you take

13. Rule 7: Do Not Commit to Tasks You
Cannot Complete
• Failing to complete tasks becomes known –
and is sometimes documented e.g. journal
management systems
• Used judiciously saying no can build your
reputation, not diminish it

14. Rule 8: Do Not Write Poor Reviews of
Grants and Papers
• Do not push your own work
• Be forthright and honest
• Sign your reviews
• Scientific reputation is pervasive among NIH staff
(I did not fully realize this since I went from PI to
fed)
• Again journal management systems allow editors
to rate reviewers

15. Rule 9: Do Not Write References for
People Who Do Not Deserve It
• What if you do?
– The requestor may get to learn of your negative
review
– The person requesting the review will learn that
you over stated the case soon enough which in
turn will reflect back on your reputation

16. Rule 10: Never Plagiarize or Doctor
Your Data
• Digital tools make this easy to do, but also
easier to detect – if found out the implications
are severe – follow journal guidelines
• Always openly document what you have done
to the data

17. Postscript
Rule 11: Even the Most Seemingly
Innocent Material Can Impact Your
Reputation ...
This article was a case in point..
Competing interest statement of an
author was missing and questioned
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/comment?id=10.1371/annotation/08a7
dca3-3ede-4491-8260-1c9e86806ed1