In the articles he is regularly required to assess as the editor of two scientific journals, Professor of Building Physics Bert Blocken continually comes across the same errors and omissions. This prompted him to compile a list of ten things guaranteed to ensure that a scientist writes with a very poor journal article.

By turning the guidelines that normally apply to writing a scientific article on their head, he hope to draw the attention of young scientists at the start of their careers. “This is the group I particularly want to reach,” says the Professor of Building Physics. “The turnabout creates a comical effect, which hopefully adds to the appeal, but makes the issue at hand no less important.”

Blocken, who is himself responsible for 32 PhD candidates at the Department of the Built Environment, sees the drive to publish only increasing among scientists. And with it the failings this involves. “This comes as no surprise at a time when as a scientist you are assessed ever more stringently on the basis of your scientific output. But this does cause quality to suffer. The familiar saying is publish or perish. Once you start doing things wrong, that becomes publish and perish."

Inexperienced researchers would do well to follow Blocken's list in reverse order if they want their scientific reputations to remain unscathed. Blocken: “By the way, I too had to learn these skills. When I submitted my first draft article to my supervisor in 1999, I got it back full of vivid red crossings out and dozens of comments.”

Wednesday afternoon March 1st, Blocken will be giving a webinar from 15:00 to 16:00 hours. With reference to real-life examples, he will explain his list in greater detail. Registration is still open via the site of the Elsevier Publishing Campus. At present, 7,000 interested people have signed up.