LAUSR

Text is ubiquitous in everyday scientific work—when was the last time you spent 5 minutes working without writing, reading, or interacting with any kind of equipment that had text (scales, labels, brand name, etc.) on it? Most forms of communicating ideas and findings in science are based on text, e.g., BSc/MSc/PhD theses, manuscript drafts, grant proposals, reports, or job applications. In addition, text appears in figures, (electronic) slides for presentations, and posters, i.e., in formats focused more strongly on a graphical presentation. All these documents are usually written to convince the audience of the quality of your ideas or results, ultimately with the goal of a positive evaluation (grading, decision on funding/ hiring, etc.). A good visual appearance of the text and graphical elements is key for making a good first impression on the audience. When sustaining this impression by clearly structured and well-written text, professional layout is again important because less-than-optimally typeset texts distract the audience from fully appreciating the high-quality content [1]. Even though single visual inconsistencies cost the readers only a fraction of a second, these interruptions to the flow of reading add up and subconsciously frustrate the readers, possibly undermining your credibility. Poor visual appearance and language can be spotted at first glance in Fig 1, and incorrect content (or a confusing structure, not shown in Fig 1) take much longer to notice. Properly formatting text is particularly challenging in interdisciplinary fields like Computational Biology, where authors are faced with a variety of text elements, e.g., Greek characters, mathematical formulas, chemical formulas, and source code listings. Similar to inconsistent writing style, inconsistent formatting may indicate plagiarism, e.g., stray dashes resulting from copying and pasting hyphenated text, garbled characters, and fonts/formatting copied from the source. Scientists frequently need to produce final document layout themselves, either from scratch or based on a template—where some templates are well designed and others are, well, “designed.” If a template is given, fewer decisions need to be made, but some typographical knowledge is still helpful to understand the template and to deal with issues unforeseen therein. Ideally, the actual typesetting is subsequently done by trained professionals, e.g., working with publishers, who know what they are doing [2]. Submissions should, in this case, follow the publishers’ guidelines and templates, but still be prepared carefully, as “reviewers’ opinion about a manuscript can be skewed by careless formatting” [3]. Typography is thus one of the tools of the trade for scientists. This article is meant as a practical guide for typesetting scientific texts, including motivation for the recommendations. While focusing on the intended layout, the rules also provide hints on how these results can be obtained in common text processing/typesetting tools (such as Microsoft Word/LibreOffice Writer, Google Docs, and LaTeX). These rules are meant to complement PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY