- Reproducibility: publish raw datasets and raw results, code for analysis and figures. Git control. I rather have a good repository and a low impact publication than little reproducible high impact research.
- Involve people: it is a good practice to offer people that have contributed somehow to the research and are close to being coauthors something useful to do for being coauthors.
- Transparency: title, abstract and discussion should be honest. They should not mislead readers and they should not go beyond what results offer.
- Clarity: I assume most readers will, in this order, read title, abstract, and have a look at figures. I try to make the message gradually clearer in those parts as a respectful way of being efficient with readers time.
- Reviewing: I recommend major revision of manuscripts not sharing data. I do my best to help editors and authors. My implication with a review is commensurate with the authors' good will to submit a useful work in a good format.
- Service: science serves society in the same manner as other fields do. The priority each society gives to science or to other services is subjective. For that reason, I do not complain about budget cuts in science.
- Knowledge: scientific knowledge is as valid as other forms of knowledge.
- Ego: metrics, author order, and the competitive environment in science feed the ego. Practicing gratitude to team members, reviewers and coauthors, acknowleging others' works, being open to criticism and body/emotional activites out of science can help to re-balance the ego.
- Fun: science can be a lot of fun. There is satisfaction in fractionning complex problems into solveable analytical units. Develop the methods necessary to iteratively get results can be an immersive experience of flow.