Survival Guide for Scientists: Writing - Presentation - Email

This book was recommended and given to me by a colleague of my PhD supervisor. When I opened it to look for helpful tips, I was frankly appalled both by the tone of the book as by the advice the author imparts, particularly when it comes to collaboration with others. In my opinion following the author's advice would quickly lead to you being the least popular scientist on campus, in your organisation and beyond. And in an age when our profiles and reputations are increasingly public and discoverable, that is not a desirable outcome.This book was written in 2008 and yet makes no reference to social media or social networking as a dissemination or communication tool for scientists. The only advice the author shares on creating content suitable for the web is one paragraph long and consists of producing your content in Word and then using the Save As function to prepare it for the web. Significant portions of the book are dedicated to dictating settings to use in various software tools such as Word and PowerPoint, however these instructions are written in abrupt sentences and have no helpful diagrams or screenshots. The book makes use of an abundance of headings and subheadings, that are superfluous and highly disruptive when reading.I could go on and on about how outdated this book is when it comes to computer & software use for scientists. There is no mention of blogs, Google Docs or even cloud storage for backups. I'll share two real humdingers:- the author's tip to install "as much clip art as possible" on your laptop- and the author's tip to use images found with Google Search for bullets as pictures in your PowerPoint. Not only is this poor use of PowerPoint, it is also copyright breach.However, as I said at the top, it was really the advice on collaboration with others, and the tone used for that, that really shocked me. I won't describe it but rather will share a few examples here, so you can judge for yourself.On page 101 on talking about being a reviewer, the author has previously conceded that one must review, as part of the reciprocal publication process, however he also warns that this is unpaid. So under Reviewing Load he shares: "Try to minimise your load. One golden rule is: submit your review report (way) over time."On page 242 when describing the ICT Group: "a bunch of professionals with autistic character properties by definition. That is why they are so good at working with computers and so bad at communicating with you."On page 208 as part of the Email Guide there is advice on actions to take on any email interaction: "The Golden Rule is: "Always stall your actions."" Also this: "Remember, being a nice guy will result in an ever increasing work load."On page 198 under Educate Secretaries: "When I see how often emails sent by my managers or their secretaries are violating my basic rules, I get depressed. It could be done much more efficiently. You must be very careful when telling secretaries how to do their work. They see scientists as Sunday's children, always traveling to exotic destinations, arriving late at the lab and always making much more money than they do."On the same page under Educate Managers: "When you receive amateurish emails from managers, you should be ruthless." "In your eternal fight with bureaucracy it is pertinent to point out to your managers what they do wrong..."I think the above examples say more about the author and his attitudes, than about his much maligned colleagues.As I read more and more of this work, I began to doubt myself. Maybe it had been written as a spoof, and I was missing the joke. But no, it comes recommended by its publisher here on Amazon as a book every scientist should have on their shelf, with "collegial advice".As stated before, in my opinion following the author's advice would quickly lead to you being the least popular scientist on campus, in your organisation and beyond.