151117 Edanz UBD Day2
-
Upload
edanz-group -
Category
Education
-
view
661 -
download
2
Transcript of 151117 Edanz UBD Day2
Universiti Brunei Darussalam
17 November 2015
Trevor Lane, PhD Andrew Jackson, PhD
Ruth Tunn, PhD
Author Success Workshop: Effectively Communicating Your Research
S
Be an effective communicator
Your goal is not only to publish, but also to be widely read and cited
Publish ethically Promote your research to the journal
editor and reviewers Promote your research to others
Write effectively 3
Section 1
Customer Service Effective writing Correct verb tense
Present simple
Present perfect
Past simple
Stating an accepted fact Stating current implications
Referring to previous results that are still relevant
Referring to what you or others did/showed
Introduction Discussion
Introduction Discussion
Methods Results
“Graphene is one of the most promising materials for future electronic applications.”
“Group therapy has been shown to increase the success rates of...”
“Sorafenib prevented tumor growth in HCC patients...”
Customer Service Effective writing
“We have taken the powder XRD patterns of…”
Results
“We measured the powder XRD patterns of…”
“A red shift in the G and 2D peak positions is observed…”
“A red shift in the G and 2D peak positions was observed…”
“We observed a red shift in the G and 2D peak positions …”
Correct verb tense – Case study
Customer Service Effective writing
“This result suggested that these peaks are from…”
Discussion
“This result suggests that these peaks originated from…”
“These Raman spectroscopy results confirmed that…”
“These Raman spectroscopy results confirm that…”
Signal words: Suggest, demonstrate, confirm, support
Correct verb tense – Case study
Customer Service Effective writing
Clarify pronouns (e.g., this, that, these, those, they, it)
Avoid mistakes 1
“Titania (TiO2) has been extensively investigated because of its practical prosperities for a diverse range of applications including pigments, photocatalysts, solar cells... It has three primary polymorphs in nature…”
“Titania (TiO2) has been extensively investigated because of its practical prosperities for a diverse range of applications including pigments, photocatalysts, solar cells... TiO2 has three primary polymorphs in nature…”
?
Customer Service Effective writing
Respectively is used for corresponding list items
The two values were 143 and 21, respectively.
The values for groups A and B were 143 and 21, respectively.
The two values were 143 and 21.
Avoid mistakes 2
Customer Service Effective writing
Compared with is for saying how things are different
The accuracy of the new program was reduced
compared to the previous program.
The accuracy of the new program was reduced compared with that of the previous program.
The accuracy of the new program was lower than that of the previous program.
Avoid mistakes 3
Customer Service Effective writing
Due to means “caused by” or “attributable to”
Due to the overly difficult test, most participants failed.
Owing to the overly difficult test,… Because the test was too difficult,…
The high failure rate was due to the test’s difficulty.
Avoid mistakes 4
Customer Service Effective writing
Be simple and concise
Avoid mistakes 5
“Therefore, it is interesting and important to investigate a new approach, which is easily scalable, to synthesize brookite.”
“Therefore, a new scalable approach to synthesize brookite is required.”
“One of the candidates for such agents to extract alkali-metal ions from KTLO is PTFE. The reason why PTFE becomes a candidate is because it consists of C and F only.”
“One candidate for an agent to extract alkali-metal ions from KTLO is PTFE, because it contains only C and F.”
18
10
31
20
Customer Service Effective writing
Fix run-ons (comma splices) and fragments
Avoid mistakes 6
Inefficiency is related to energy flow, however not all losses are because of energy flow.
Inefficiency is related to energy flow; however, not all losses are because of energy flow. (Or…However,)
Our modified assay rapidly screened many cDNA libraries. Which is why it should be a useful high throughput method.
Our modified assay rapidly screened many cDNA libraries. Hence, it should be a useful high throughput method. (Or…Because our modified assay rapidly screened many cDNA libraries, it should be…)
Customer Service Effective writing
Check the logic of lists
Avoid mistakes 7
The variables included family size, personal and household incomes.
The variables included family size and personal and household incomes.
The recorded times were 3 minutes, 2 minutes and 40 seconds.
The recorded times were 3 minutes, 2 minutes, and 40 seconds.
The cities comprised Tokyo, Japan, London, UK, and Chicago, USA.
The cities comprised Tokyo, Japan; London, UK; and Chicago, USA.
Customer Service Effective writing
Don’t misuse time words
Avoid mistakes 8
While many people read e-books, some still prefer real books.
Although/Whereas many people read e-books, some still prefer real books.
The patient had no appetite since he had eaten breakfast.
The patient had no appetite because he had eaten breakfast.
The plants were harvested as they flowered.
The plants were harvested because they had / when they flowered.
Please see Activity 1 in your Workbook
Activity 1: Effective writing 3
Adhere to publication ethics
Section 2
Customer Service Publication ethics Four criteria for authorship
1. Significantly involved in study design, data collection/analysis
2. Writing and revising the manuscript
3. Approval of final version
4. Responsible for the content (accuracy and integrity)
http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
Customer Service Publication ethics Gift/ghost authorship
Making someone an author when they do not deserve it (friends, colleagues, etc.)
Gift authorship
• Try to make paper more prestigious by adding a “big name” • Adding the department head to every paper from their department • Thanking someone for a contributed material
Not making someone an author when they do deserve it
Ghost authorship • Hide conflict of interest by excluding an author (e.g., company
employee); hide contribution by junior members (e.g., students) [People who helped write the paper should be included in the Acknowledgements or else they are “ghost writers”]
Customer Service Publication ethics Acknowledgements
Nugraha et al. Biomaterials. 2011; 32: 6982–6994.
Thank those who have made positive contributions
Funding agencies (some journals have a
separate Funding section)
Customer Service Publication ethics
What are they?
Conflicts of interest (COIs)
Financial or personal relationships that may bias your research
Being objective is essential in scientific research
Customer Service Publication ethics Personal COIs
You are researching a new drug, and your spouse works for the drug company
Biased for personal reasons
You are writing a review on animal research, and you are an active member of PETA*
*People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Customer Service Publication ethics Financial COIs
You are researching a new material, and…
• an author works for the company making the material
• the company funded your study
• an author owns stock in the company
Biased for financial reasons
Customer Service Publication ethics
A company is funding your research
Avoiding conflicts of interest
What should you do?
• State the company’s role in the study design • State the company’s role in data analysis • State the company’s role in manuscript writing • Should be disclosed in the cover letter
Some journals will ask you to include a statement such as: “I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility
for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis”*
*http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/ author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html
Customer Service Publication ethics
An author works at the company
Avoiding conflicts of interest
What should you do?
• Ensure study design not unfairly manipulated • Ensure author is blinded during data analysis • Restrict role of the author in manuscript writing • Should be addressed BEFORE study begins! • Should be disclosed in the cover letter
Customer Service Publication ethics Does disclosing COIs lead to rejection?
No! It makes the journal editor aware of the COIs and confident that you were not biased in your study
Not declaring a COI during submission may lead to the rejection or retraction of your paper
Journal editors may or may not publish these COIs along with your article
Customer Service Publication ethics Sequential submissions
Author Editor Reviewer 1 wk
4 wks 2 wks
Total ~2 months
3 journals = over 6 months!
Customer Service Publication ethics Multiple submissions
Author Editor2 Reviewer2
3 journals = ~2 months!
Editor1 Reviewer1
Editor3 Reviewer3
You can submit your manuscript to only one journal at a time
Customer Service Publication ethics Why is it unethical?
Wastes editors’ time & resources
• After first acceptance, have to withdraw submission from the others
• Damages your reputation with publishers
Duplicate publication • It will be noticed in the field; copyright problems • One or both articles may be retracted • Wastes time and damages your reputation with both
the publisher and your peers
Customer Service Publication ethics
You can submit to another journal only if:
You have been rejected by the first journal You have formally withdrawn the submission
When can you submit to another journal?
Customer Service Publication ethics Can you publish a paper translated into English?
What do you need to do?
1. Obtain permission from the first publisher
2. Tell journal editor of English journal: – You already obtained permission to re-publish – Why necessary to publish in English
3. Cite the original publication
Note: many journal editors will not be interested in publishing non-original articles
Customer Service Publication ethics Salami publishing
Don’t slice your research to increase your
publication output!
One study
4 publications
Why unethical? Readers will not have access to all the relevant information to
critically evaluate the study
Customer Service Publication ethics Salami publishing
One study
4 publications
Same sample population Same controls Experiments concurrent Dependent results
Distinct populations Different controls Experiments sequential Independent results
One larger paper will have more impact in the field and more citations!
Customer Service Publication ethics
Makes readers think others’ words or ideas are your own
Copying published text (even with a citation)
Stating ideas of someone else without citing the source
Plagiarism
Customer Service Publication ethics
Copying text that you have written and published before into your manuscript
Self-plagiarism
May violate copyright
Makes readers think you are presenting something new
Customer Service Publication ethics
Expressing published ideas using different words
Paraphrasing
Tips on paraphrasing:
• Write the text first into another language, and then later translate back into English
• Verbally explain ideas to a colleague • Name a published method and cite it • Consider text location
– Introduction vs. Discussion
Customer Service Publication ethics Good paraphrasing
“The magnitude of the change in carbon storage depends on how physical, chemical, or biological processes are altered over time under different land uses.”
The size of the carbon storage change depends on how physical, chemical, or biological processes are changed over time under different land uses.24
24. Li et al. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8: e68372.
Customer Service Publication ethics Good paraphrasing
24. Li et al. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8: e68372.
“The magnitude of the change in carbon storage depends on how physical, chemical, or biological processes are altered over time under different land uses.”
The size of the carbon storage change depends on how physical, chemical, or biological processes are changed over time under different land uses.24
Temporal changes in biological, chemical, or physical processes under different land uses can influence the size of the carbon storage change.24
Please see Activity 2 in your Workbook
Activity 2: Paraphrasing
Understand peer review
Section 3
Customer Service Peer review The submission process
Accepted—publication!
Editor Author
Peer review
Reject
Results novel? Topic relevant? Clear English? Properly formatted?
Revision • New experiments • Improve readability • Add information
Customer Service Peer review Peer review process
Submission Peer
review Revision Publication
~1 week 4–6 weeks 0–8 weeks ?
How can I make the process quicker?
3–12 months
• Follow author guidelines • Prepare a cover letter • Recommend reviewers
• Fully revise manuscript • Respond to all comments • Adhere to deadlines; ask
for extensions in advance
• Evaluation • Finding
reviewers
Customer Service Peer review Peer review is a positive process
• Experts give their advice on how you can improve your study and your manuscript
• Peer review ensures that only papers that are relevant for the field and conducted well are published
• Not only helps you improve the quality of your paper, but also helps to advance the field
Customer Service Peer review Peer review models
Blinded/ masked?
• Single-blind: Reviewers’ names not revealed to authors
• Double-/Triple-blind: Anonymous • Open: All names revealed • Transparent: Reviews published
with paper • Fast Track: Expedited if public
emergency
Customer Service Peer review Peer review models
Other models
• Portable/Transferable/Cascading: Manuscript & reviews passed along
• Collaborative: Reviewers (& authors) engage with other
• Post-publication: Online public review
• Pre-submission: Reviews passed to editor
Make a good first impression
Section 4
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
Dear Dr Struman,
Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled “Evaluation of ICT in Glasgow prognostic scoring in patients undergoing curative
resection for liver metastases,” which we would like to submit for publication as an Original Article in the International Medical
ICT Journal.
The Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) is of value for a variety of tumours. Several studies have investigated the prognostic value of the GPS in patients with metastatic breast cancer, but few studies have performed such an investigation for patients undergoing liver resection for liver metastases. Furthermore, there are currently no studies that have examined the prognostic value of the modified GPS (mGPS) using an ICT platform in these patients. The present study evaluated the mGPS using ICT in terms of its prognostic value for postoperative death in patients undergoing liver resection for breast cancer liver metastases.
A total of 318 patients with breast cancer liver metastases who underwent hepatectomy over a 15-year period were included in this study. The mGPS was calculated using ICT based on the levels of C-reactive protein and albumin, and the disease-free survival and cancer-specific survival rates were evaluated in relation to the mGPS. Prognostic significance was retrospectively analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Overall, the results showed a significant association between cancer-specific survival and the mGPS and carcinoembryonic antigen level, and a higher mGPS was associated with increased aggressiveness of liver recurrence and poorer survival in these patients. This study is the first to demonstrate that the preoperative mGPS via a simple ICT tool is a useful prognostic factor for postoperative survival in cancer patients undergoing curative resection. This information is immediately clinically applicable for surgeons as well as hospital information and patient record systems and health care protocol developers. As a premier journal covering ICT in health care, we believe that the International Medical ICT Journal is the perfect platform from which to share our results with all those concerned with ICT use in cancer management.
Give the background to the research
What was done and what was found
Interest to journal’s readers
Cover letter to the editor
Editor’s name Manuscript title
Article type
Declarations on publication ethics Suggested reviewers Contact information
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Cover letter to the editor
However, …an alternative approach… …presents a new challenge …a need for clarification… …a problem/weakness with… …has not been dealt with… …remains unstudied …requires clarification …is not sufficiently (+ adjective) …is ineffective/inaccurate/inadequate/inconclusive/incorrect/unclear Few studies have… There is an urgent need to… There is growing concern that… Little evidence is available on… It is necessary to… Little work has been done on…
Key phrases: Problem statement (para 2)
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Cover letter to the editor
Highlight recent issues in the media
“Given the considerable attention climate change has received worldwide, it will be important to…”
Highlight recent policy changes
“Recently, the Japanese government has implemented new incentives to promote entrepreneurship …”
Highlight recently published articles in
their journal
“It has recently been shown that PMS2 mutations cause Lynch Syndrome (ten Broeke et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:319). However, it still remains unclear…”
Highlight current controversies
“Currently, there is disagreement on the effect of substrate rigidity on stem cell differentiation. Our study aims to address this controversy with a novel…”
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Cover letter to the editor
This study is the first to demonstrate that the preoperative mGPS via a simple ICT tool is a useful prognostic factor for postoperative survival in cancer patients undergoing curative resection. This information is immediately clinically applicable for surgeons as well as hospital information and patient record systems and health care protocol developers. As a premier journal covering ICT in health care, we believe that the International Medical ICT Journal is the perfect platform from which to share our results with all those concerned with ICT use in cancer management.
Why interesting to the journal’s readership (para 4)
Target your journal – keywords from the Aims and Scope
Conclusion
Relevance
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Cover letter to the editor
We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with submission to the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. This study was funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Must include:
Declarations related to publication ethics Source of funding Conflicts of interest
Ethics
Funding
Conflicts of interest
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
Recommending reviewers
Where to find them?
From your reading/references, networking at conferences
How senior? Aim for mid-level researchers
Who to avoid? Collaborators (past 5 years),
researchers from your university
International list: 1 or 2 from Asia, 1 or 2 from Europe, and 1 or 2 from North America
Choose reviewers who have published in your target journal
edanzediting.com/portal/ubd
UBD Portal Users…
FREE Cover Letter Development Service for UBD Portal Orders! Promotion period: 2015.11.23–2015.12.31
Please see Activity 3 in your Workbook
Activity 3: Cover letters
Confidently navigate peer review
Section 5
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
What reviewers are looking for
The science
The manuscript
Relevant hypothesis Good experimental design Appropriate methodology Good data analysis Valid conclusions
Logical flow of information Manuscript structure and formatting Appropriate references High readability ……Peer review is a positive process!
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
Find & organize the queries
Reviewer comment: The authors looked for polymorphisms in the promoter region of the gene; however, they didn't evaluate the untranslated regions. That is one of my concerns about this methodology.
Rephrased question: Why didn’t the authors evaluate polymorphisms in the untranslated regions of the gene?
Organize revisions by IMRaD and by reviewer!
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
Group similar comments together
Organize the reviewers’ comments
Reviewer 1: “Re-analyze the data in Figure 3 using a Mann–Whitney U test.”
Reviewer 3: “Repeat the experiments in Figure 3 with additional controls.”
Note: the comments of one reviewer may affect the comments of another
• Mann–Whitney U test: 2 groups • Kruskal–Wallis test: >2 groups
Intro/Discussion Methods/Results References
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Decision letter
Ideas are not logically organized; Poor presentation Purpose and relevance are unclear Topics in the Results/Discussion are not in the Introduction Methods are unclear (variables, missing data); Ethics Wrong (statistical) tests; statistical vs clinical significance Unclear statistics: Power, Need exact P values, 95% CI,
Association ≠ Causation, Confounders, Fishing expeditions Not discussed: Negative results, limitations, implications Discussion has repeated results; Conclusions too general Cited studies are not up-to-date
Common reviewer complaints
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Decision letter
“Slush pile” desk review: Rejection (not novel, no focus or rationale, wrong scope or format) / Resubmit
Peer review: Accept / Accept with minor or language revisions / Revise & resubmit / “Reject”
Hard rejection (“decline the manuscript for publication”) Flaw in design or methods, ethics Major misinterpretation, lack of evidence
Soft rejection (“cannot consider it further at this point”) Incomplete reporting or overgeneralization Additional analyses needed Presentation problem
Interpret the decision letter carefully (& after a break)
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Decision letter 1
10 January 2015
Dear Dr. Wong,
Manuscript ID JOS-11-7739: “Prediction of the largest peak nonlinear seismic response of asymmetric structures under bi-directional excitation”
Your manuscript has been reviewed, and we regret to inform you that based on our Expert reviewers’ comments, it is not possible to further consider your manuscript in its current form for publication in the Journal of Seismology.
Although the reviews are not entirely negative, it is evident from the extensive comments and concerns that the manuscript, in its current form, does not meet the criteria expected of papers in the Journal of Seismology. The results appear to be too preliminary and incomplete for publication at the present time.
The reviewer comments are included at the bottom of this letter. I hope the information provided by the reviewers will be helpful to revise your manuscript in future. Thank you for your interest in the journal.
Decision
Reason
Comments
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Decision letter 2
10 January 2015
Dear Dr. Wong,
Manuscript ID JOS-11-7739: “Prediction of the largest peak nonlinear seismic response of asymmetric structures under bi-directional excitation”
Your manuscript has been reviewed, and we believe that after revision your manuscript may become suitable for publication in Journal of Seismology. The reviewer concerns are included at the bottom of this letter.
You can submit a revised manuscript that takes into consideration these comments. You will also need to include a detailed commentary of the changes made. Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission may be subject to re-review by the reviewers before a decision is made.
To revise your manuscript, log into https://www.editorialmanager.com/JSeis/ and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.
…
Decision
How to re-submit
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Decision letter 2
How to respond
Due date for resubmission
…You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using bold or colored text. Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Center.
When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).
IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.
Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to JSE, your revised manuscript should be uploaded by 10 May. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.
Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Journal of Seismology and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
The Reviewer comments are not entirely negative.
It is not possible to consider your manuscript in its current form.
I hope the information provided will be helpful to revise your manuscript in the future.
I regret that the outcome has not been favorable at this time.
Editor may be interested in your work
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
We cannot publish your manuscript
Your study does not contain novel results that merit publication in our journal.
We appreciate your interest in our journal. However, we will not further consider your manuscript for publication.
We wish you luck in publishing your results elsewhere.
Editor is not interested in your work
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Reviewer response letter
Respond to every reviewer comment
Easy for editor & reviewers to
see changes
• Revise and keep to the deadline; be polite • Restate reviewer’s comment • Refer to line and page numbers
Use a different color font
Highlight the text
Strikethrough font for deletions
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Reviewer response letter
Fernando L. Cônsoli Editor-in-Chief Neotropical Entomology 2 September 2013 Dear Dr Cônsoli, Re: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. WJS-07-5739 Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled “Population dynamics of Drosophilids in response to humidity and temperature,” which we would like to resubmit for consideration for publication in Neotropical Entomology. The reviewer’s comments were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments. Revisions in the manuscript are shown as highlighted text. In accordance with the first comment, the title has been revised and the entire manuscript has undergone substantial English editing. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in Neotropical Entomology.
Address editor personally
Manuscript ID number
Thank reviewers
Highlight major changes
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Reviewer response letter
Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.
Response: We agree with the Reviewer’s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We describe our new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results section (Page 6, Lines 12–18).
Agreement
Revisions Location
Why agree
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare with previous results.
Response: It’s very clear that you’re not familiar with the current analytical methods in the field. I recommend that you identify a more suitable reviewer for my manuscript now.
Reviewer response letter
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare with previous results.
Response: Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the “Pack model” [Pack et al., 2015]. Hence, we have explained the use of this function and the Pack model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2–6).
Evidence
Revisions
Location
Reviewer response letter
Agree or disagree with evidence
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
Reviewer comment: Currently, the authors’ conclusion that this gene is involved in heart development is not completely validated by their in vitro analyses. They should do additional in vivo experiments using a genetic mouse model to show that heart development is regulated by this gene.
Reasons why reviewers might make these comments
Current results are not appropriate for the scope or impact factor of the journal
Reviewer is being “unfair”
“Unfair” reviewer comments
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
What you should do
First, contact the journal editor if you feel the reviewer is being unfair
Do the experiments, revise, and resubmit • Prepare point-by-point responses • Include the original manuscript ID number
Formally withdraw submission and resubmit to a journal with a different scope or lower impact factor • Revise & reformat according to the author guidelines
“Unfair” reviewer comments
Please see Activity 4 in your Workbook
Activity 4: Peer review
Make the most of Edanz services
Section 6
Succeed with Edanz
S
What we do
Language editing for the academic publishing industry
Support individual authors Work with universities and institutes
Collaborate with publishers
We prepare manuscripts to pass through submission and peer review
Succeed with Edanz
S
Who we are
Edanz
We raise authors’ chances of acceptance
for publication 150,000
80
Succeed with Edanz
S
How are we different?
Native English speakers
Research experience
Publishing experience
In-depth knowledge of the manuscript’s content
Excellent language and editing skills
Our experts
Succeed with Edanz
S
Our publishing partnerships
Succeed with Edanz
S
Key people at Edanz
Dr Kate Harris
Senior Editor and Project Manager
Ms Emi Maeda & Ms Aya Irikita
Global Customer Service
Succeed with Edanz
S
1. Language Editing • Language Edit (compulsory) • Second Edit (recommended) • Review Edit • Point-by-Point Review & Edit
2. Publication Success Services • Journal Selection
• Expert Scientific Review
• Cover Letter Development
• Reviewer Recommendation
• Abstract Development
• Custom Services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting)
Using our services
Succeed with Edanz
S
Using our services
Publication success!
Succeed with Edanz
S
UBD Portal
http://www.edanzediting.com/portal/ubd
Succeed with Edanz
S
http://www.edanzediting.com/portal/ubd
UBD Portal
Succeed with Edanz
S
Always use the UBD Portal
Upload all relevant files
Tell us the journal submission history; send us reviewer comments
Tips: • Use Expert Scientific Review and Journal
Selection at the start • After first Language Edit, use Second Edit • Respond to all questions and comments • Revise/reformat when necessary
To get maximum value…
Please see Activity 5 in your Workbook
Activity 5: Revising
Promote your research after publication
Section 7
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Publicize your work
When should you present your work?
Before you publish?
After you publish?
BOTH!
Conferences, Seminars, Lab Meetings, Journal Clubs
Conferences, Seminars, Press Conferences, Media Enquiries, Media Interviews,
Social Media, Open Days, Public Education
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Publicize your work
Presenting after you publish
Advantages
Actively promote your article
Advice on future directions
Networking with researchers…
Networking with journal editors
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Publicize your work Publicizing your article
Increase the impact of your research after publication
• Conferences • Web, email • Social media • Media • Newsletters • Reports
Respect news embargo
Report clearly and accurately
Respect access/archive policies
Respect copyright/CC licenses
Respect journal publication policy
Check conference guidelines
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Publicize your work Your multiple audiences
Everyone evaluates your study…and you
Pre- and post-publication impact
• Journal editors & reviewers • Readers, opinion/policy makers • Students, researchers, industry • Employers, schools, interest groups • (Science) Media, public, politicians • Conference/journal panels • Review boards, funders, donors
Quality, Impact & Relevance
Why your work is important!
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Publicize your work Match your audience
Pre- and post-publication impact
IMRaD research article
(journals,
posters, slides)
Hard news
(press
releases)
Hard news, delayed
lede
Hard news + kicker
Soft news/
Feature story
(news-letters)
Hard news, delayed lede + kicker
Only after journal publication!
Please see Activity 6 in your Workbook
Activity 6: Academic versus non-academic writing
S
Be an effective communicator
Your goal is not only to publish, but also to be widely read and cited
Make a good first impression Choose the best journal Communicate your research to the journal
and others
Like us on Facebook
facebook.com/EdanzEditing
Thank you!
Any questions?
@EdanzEditing Follow us on Twitter
Trevor Lane: [email protected] Andrew Jackson: [email protected] Ruth Tunn: [email protected]
Download and further reading edanzediting.com/brunei2015
FREE Cover Letter Development Service for UBD Portal Orders Promotion period: 2015.11.23–2015.12.31
edanzediting.com/portal/ubd