I was recently browsing the table of contents for the latest Applied and Environmental Microbiology, a journal that covers a very wide swath of microbiological subfields. I love reading the abstracts for interesting-sounding titles that don't necessarily pertain to my work. But I don't like it when a title lets me down. Such as:
"Interactions between Coexisting Intracellular Genomes: Mitochondrial Density and Wolbachia Infection"
Very cool idea -- both mitochondria and Wolbachia are maternally-inherited... it would make a lot of sense that they might influence one another. However, the abstract's conclusion is that they do not interact with one another. Technically, being independent of one another, not interacting, is an interaction... but it would be nice if scientists would tolerate more accurate titles reflecting negative results. But then again, I wouldn't have clicked on "Coexisting Intracellular Genomes: Mitochondria and Wolbachia do not influence each others density"... so maybe I'm part of the problem causing scientists to spin their titles in the most intriguing ways possible.
It is much more disappointing to come across a perfect-sounding title while doing a literature search, only to find out that the title, even abstract, bear little to no resemblance to what was actually done in the paper. At least we don't have to wait weeks for ILLed paper copies to get that disappointment anymore.
Happy 2026 - Welcome back preventable diseases
4 months ago
1 comment:
I agree, it's a sneaky trap.
However, it's also an acquired skill, and I'm still trying to acquire it.
My advisor is great at coming up with totally ridiculous titles, which I hate.
But it's hard not to notice that it helps get my work reviewed & gets me invited to give talks at meetings, instead of posters.
Those things aside, title quality & how much it GRABS you is definitely a critical issue when it comes to applying for funding.
Post a Comment