Marine biologist Carl J. Sindermann, author of several books about careers in science, has revised his classic Winning the Games Scientists Play. The revision, like the original, is not about engaging in frivolous or duplicitous behavior, as the title might suggest, but about the rules that govern how science is done in the real world, and how to make those rules work for you.

This practical guide to the professional scientist's working life covers matters like publishing papers, participating in committee meetings, moving up on the fast track, and obtaining and using power. It also addresses issues like behaving ethically, understanding the special challenges for women in science, dealing with bureaucrats, interacting with the public, and working in industry. In addition, the book provides suggestions for getting the most out of scientific meetings by making presentations or by helping organize or chair sessions. You have only to read the introduction to appreciate the author's erudition, insight, and authenticity.

In a chapter on publishing, the topic is presented from three viewpoints: those of the author, the editor, and the publisher. Sindermann explores a common problem: Who should be listed as the first author when many people have contributed? And how does a young scientist handle the pressure exerted by more senior colleagues with large egos, large ambition, and a desire for authorship status even when it's unearned?

To get around these problems, Sindermann offers a neat mathematical formula. It incorporates conceptual input, planning input, data acquisition, data analysis, time invested, preparation of the first draft, and final editing to arrive at a number that can be used to assign positions in the order of authors. This may seem simplistic at first, but it is firmly grounded in common sense. Accepting the formula would certainly prompt researchers to settle authorship issues prior to engaging in a collaborative effort.

Sindermann also offers sound advice on acknowledgments, publishing in "hot" areas, dealing with the "publish or perish" dictum, responding to rejections, and writing literature reviews. His discussion of how to review papers for journals will make life easier both for editors and for those receiving the reviews. A section on the red flags journal reviewers look for in submitted papers is very amusing, identifying such offending types as "data stretchers," "hasty generalizers," "discussion milkers," and "recycling kings."

The author treats behavior at scientific meetings with humor too. For example, a list entitled "How Not to Present a Scientific Paper" includes the following guidance: "If you insist on preparing slides in advance, make sure that they are undecipherable. Tables should have tiny printing and at least thirty lines of numbers to ensure maximum invisibility of data - freeing you from the likelihood of challenge." If you frequent scientific meetings, you have seen each annoying behavior on his list many times.

A lot of the advice in this chapter is practical, including tactics to use when battling with a projector. And much of it deals with attitude. One example: "Regardless of audience size, however, the speaker must take the situation lightly, and must enjoy himself or herself, especially since no one else is taking him or her, or the information, that seriously anyway."

What to do when you are not giving a talk at a meeting? The book contains detailed advice about how time should be spent (talking with colleagues, attending cocktail parties) and not spent (sitting through an entire session of presentations, most of which will probably be irrelevant to you.)

Sindermann outlines the rules governing different stages in the life cycle of the scientist. This includes moving up and moving out, and recognizing the pitfalls associated with such moves. He writes frankly about getting, using, and misusing power. The author suggests that power should be viewed as a tool to define and accomplish worthwhile goals.

This leads to a consideration of ethical standards and the ploys used by those who operate at and over the edge of the ethical line. This interesting discussion outlines the various misuses of data, including massaging, extrapolating, smoothing, slanting, fudging, and manufacturing, as well as premature disclosure.

A discussion of women in science enumerates the impediments to advancement they face. These include a typically higher publication rate by males, differences in mentoring of female students in graduate school, raising children and family issues, possible undervauation by some male colleagues, and possible reduced intellectual risk-taking.

No book on scientific careers would be complete without a full discussion of bureaucrats and how one should interact with them. Sindermann divides bureaucrats into subtypes: novice, journeyman, mid-level, emergent, and senior. The scientific game player must recognize these types in order to optimize her chances of getting what she needs. Further, Sindermann differentiates between "career" and "time-server" bureaucrats and then goes on to outline the different types of bureaucracies. As might be expected, he gives much attention to funding agencies.

Sindermann stresses that in interacting with reporters, lawyers, politicians, and the public, the successful scientist must be particularly skilled. He recommends choosing carefully the reporters with whom one speaks. While there are many excellent science reporters, there are also many who don't enjoy the beat, and it is the latter who are likely to distort what you say.

In the last chapter, "The Scientist in Industry," Sindermann provides a list of "industrial game rules" to guide the scientist to rapid career advancement. These include establishing oneself as a team player, giving credit to others, and acquiring management training.

This book is well organized, clear, detailed, and accurate. Although it is germane to scientists at any career stage, Winning the Games Scientists Play should be especially useful to those just starting out. It is noteworthy that the author is never cynical or jaded; he simply (and wittily) lays out the rules by which scientists may achieve their worthwhile goals.