Download - 20151002 Edanz Shinshu
Shinshu University2 October 2015
Submitting your research manuscript to a journal
Trevor Lane, PhD; Kate Harris, PhDSenior Editors
Seminar series
June 18 Writing & manuscript structureJune 27 Making effective presentations
October 2 Abstracts & manuscript submissionOctober 3 Presentation skills & practice
Today’s seminar
June 18 Writing & manuscript structureJune 27 Making effective presentations
October 2 Abstracts & manuscript submissionOctober 3 Presentation skills & practice
Be an effective communicator
Your goal should be not only to publish, but also to be widely read and cited
Make a good first impression Choose the best journal Write clearly and concisely
Section 1
Titles and abstracts
Manuscriptstructure What’s your message?
Where to start?
Your findings are why you want to publish your work
Form the basis of your manuscript
First step is to logically organize
your findings
Figure 1
Figure 2
Table 1
Figure 3
Logical flow (chronology, least to most
important, general to specific,
whole+parts)
Is anything missing?
?Additional analyses?
Manuscriptstructure Link your ideas
General background
Aims
Methodology
Results and figures
Summary of findings
Implications for the field
Relevance of findings
Problem in the field
Current state of the fieldIntroduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Solution
Situation/Problem
Evaluation/Comment
Manuscriptstructure Title and abstract
First impression of paper:clear/concise/convincing
Importance of your results
Validity of your conclusions
Relevance of your aims
It sells your work: Readers judge your style & credibility
Often first/only part that is read by
readers/reviewers
Your title & abstract summarize your study
Manuscriptstructure Title and abstract
Title
Important points Only main idea/s Accurate, simple Population/model Include keywords Fewer than 20
words Hanging title:
method/study type
Avoid
Unneeded words (a/the, A study of)Complex or sensational wordsComplex word orderAbbreviations“New” or “novel”
Manuscriptstructure Title and abstract
InterrogativeCan ischemic preconditioning
improve prognosis after coronary artery bypass surgery?
Indicative/ Descriptive*
Prognostic effects of ischemic preconditioning in coronary artery
bypass patients
* + Method (subtitle)
Xxxxxxx: randomized controlled trial
Assertive/Declarative*
Ischemic preconditioning improves prognosis after coronary artery
bypass / Improved prognosis after coronary artery bypass by ischemic
preconditioning
Title
Manuscriptstructure Title and abstract
Search Engine Optimization Identify 7–8 keywords (include synonyms, use
Medical Subject Headings [MeSH]*)
Use 2 in your title, 5–6 in the keyword list Use 3 keywords 3–4 times in your abstract Use keywords in headings when appropriate Be consistent throughout your paper Cite your previous publications when relevant
*Or standard terms from PsycINFO, BIOSIS, ChemWeb, ERIC Thesaurus, GeoRef, etc
Manuscriptstructure Title and abstract
Unstructured
Structured
Graphical
Video
Defined sections, mainly in clinical abstracts
Undefined sections, across disciplines
Schematic or model, physical sciences
Video-based abstract, not often used
Abstract
Manuscriptstructure Graphical abstracts
Visually demonstrate key features of the study Help readers quickly identify suitable articles
Carbon-layer protected cuprous oxide nanowire arrays for efficient water reduction
Zhang et al. ACS Nano. 2013; 7: 1709–1717.
In this work, we propose a solution-based carbon precursor coating and subsequent carbonization strategy to form a thin protective carbon layer on unstable semiconductor nanostructures as a solution to the commonly occurring photocorrosion problem of many semiconductors. A proof-of-concept is provided by using glucose as the carbon precursor to form a protective carbon coating onto cuprous oxide (Cu2O) nanowire arrays which were synthesized from copper mesh. The carbon-layer-protected Cu2O nanowire arrays exhibited remarkably improved photostability as well as considerably enhanced photocurrent density. The Cu2O nanowire arrays coated with a carbon layer of 20 nm thickness were found to give an optimal water splitting performance, producing a photocurrent density of −3.95 mA cm – 2 and an optimal photocathode efficiency of 0.56% under illumination of AM 1.5G (100 mW cm–2). This is the highest value ever reported for a Cu2O-based electrode coated with a metal/co-catalyst-free protective layer. The photostability, measured as the percentage of the photocurrent density at the end of 20 min measurement period relative to that at the beginning of the measurement, improved from 12.6% on the bare, nonprotected Cu2O nanowire arrays to 80.7% on the continuous carbon coating protected ones, more than a 6-fold increase. We believe that the facile strategy presented in this work is a general approach that can address the stability issue of many nonstable photoelectrodes and thus has the potential to make a meaningful contribution in the general field of energy conversion.
Manuscriptstructure Graphical abstracts
Visually demonstrate key features of the study
Help readers quickly identify suitable articlesTargeting the lymphatics using dendritic polymers
Kaminskas and Porter. Adv Drug Delivery Rev. 2011; 63: 890–900.
http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/graphical-abstract
Manuscriptstructure Structured abstracts
Aim Objective, hypothesis
Results Most important findings
Conclusion Relevance, implications
Methods Techniques, measurements
No references, unusual abbreviations, figures/tables
Abstract
Context Background, problem
Manuscriptstructure Unstructured abstracts
In the Tahe oilfield in China, heavy oil is commonly lifted using the light oil blending technology. However, due to the lack of light oil, the production of heavy oil has been seriously limited. Here, we aimed to reduce light oil usage and maintain heavy oil production using a new compound technology of light oil blending and electric heating. We developed a pressure and temperature coupling model based on mass, momentum and energy conservation. The heat-transfer parameters and pressure drop are calculated by using the Hasan – Kabir and Hagedorn – Brown methods, respectively. This model also considers the effects of blending light and heavy oils as well as heating the electric rods. Our calculations demonstrate that electric heating coupled with light oil blending is much more effective than either alone. In conclusion, our study shows that the amount of light oil used can be reduced by combining the electric heating technology. This novel method should improve heavy oil production in regions lacking light oil.
Modified from: Zhu et al. J Petrol Explor Prod Technol. 2014; DOI: 10.1007/s13202-014-0126-x.
Manuscriptstructure Unstructured abstracts
ConclusionIn conclusion, our study shows that the amount of light oil used can be reduced by combining the electric heating technology. This novel method should improve heavy oil production in regions lacking light oil.
Results
We developed a pressure and temperature coupling model based on mass, momentum and energy conservation. The heat-transfer parameters and pressure drop are calculated by using the Hasan–Kabir and Hagedorn–Brown methods, respectively. This model also considers the effects of blending light and heavy oils as well as heating the electric rods. Our calculations demonstrate that electric heating coupled with light oil blending is much more effective than either alone.
Aims/methods
Here, we aimed to reduce light oil usage and maintain heavy oil production using a new compound technology of light oil blending and electric heating.
ContextIn the Tahe oilfield in China, heavy oil is commonly lifted using the light oil blending technology. However, due to the lack of light oil, the production of heavy oil has been seriously limited.
Modified from: Zhu et al. J Petrol Explor Prod Technol. 2014; DOI: 10.1007/s13202-014-0126-x.
Implications
Manuscriptstructure Unstructured abstracts
In the Tahe oilfield in China, heavy oil is commonly lifted using the light oil blending technology. However, due to the lack of light oil, the production of heavy oil has been seriously limited. Here, we aimed to reduce light oil usage and maintain heavy oil production using a new compound technology of light oil blending and electric heating. We developed a pressure and temperature coupling model based on mass, momentum and energy conservation. The heat-transfer parameters and pressure drop are calculated by using the Hasan–Kabir and Hagedorn – Brown methods, respectively. This model also considers the effects of blending light and heavy oils as well as heating the electric rods. Our calculations demonstrate that electric heating coupled with light oil blending is much more effective than either alone. In conclusion, our study shows that the amount of light oil used can be reduced by combining the electric heating technology. This novel method should improve heavy oil production in regions lacking light oil.
Modified from: Zhu et al. J Petrol Explor Prod Technol. 2014; DOI: 10.1007/s13202-014-0126-x.
Why study needs to be done
Aims and methods to address problem
What you found
How study contributes to the field
Manuscriptstructure Drafting the manuscript
How does your study contribute to your field?
What did you find?
What did you do?
Why did you do the study?
Title/Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Manuscriptstructure
Title/Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Title/Abstract
Methods
Results
Discussion
Introduction
Abstract /Title
write
Title/Abstract
Intro: Aim
Figures/Results {Methods}
Discussion: Conclusion
[Intro / IMRaD]
read
Drafting the manuscript
Activity 1
Please see Activity 1 in your workbook
Journal selection
Section 2
Journal selection Publication success = Academic success
S
Publication Metrics and Success on the Academic Job Marketvan Dijk et al. Current Biology. 2014; 24: R516-R517.
• >25,000 researchers in PubMed• Which factors positively correlate with
academic success?
• Number of publications• Impact factor of the journal• Number of citations• University ranking• Male vs Female
Journal selectionWhat editors want (1)
State conflicts of interest
No plagiarism or redundancy
Clear author contributions
No fabrication or falsification
Always follow ethics guidelines
Study design/data analysis, Writing, Approval, Responsibility
Possible financial, personal bias
Committee on Publication Ethics, COPEGood Publication Practice 3, GPP3
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors , ICMJE)
Journal selectionWhat editors want (2)
Declare in your cover letter…
Not submitted to other journals
Funding, donations
All authors agree and contributed
Original and unpublished
State potential conflicts of interest Research ethics
Journal selection
Increaseimpact
High qualityresearch
Logically organized,Engages journal’s
readership
Original and novel research
Well-designed study,Well reported,
TransparentNews value, importance
What editors want (3)
High scientific & technical quality, sound
research/publication ethics
Clear, real-world, practical relevance
Journal selection Choose your journal first!
Author guidelines• Manuscript structure• Word limits, References • Procedures, copyright
Aims/scope statement• Topics• Readership• Be sure to emphasize
• Check relevant references• Check originality, importance & usefulness• Check human clinical trials are registered
Journal selectionEvaluating impact
How new are your findings? How strong is the evidence?
Incremental or large advance?Low or high impact journal
Novelty
Assess your findings honestly & objectively
Identify new material to be used as a photocatalyst• Medium to high impact factor journalImprove the photocatalytic efficiency of an existing material• Low to medium impact factor journal
Journal selectionEvaluating impact
Assess your findings honestly & objectively
How broadly relevant are your findings?International or regional journal
General or specialized journal
Relevance/Application
Journal selection Factors to consider when choosing a journal
Aims & scope, Readership
Publication speed/frequency
Online/Print,Open access
Indexing, Rank,Impact factor
Acceptance rate/criteria
Article type / evidence level
“Luxury” / Traditional / Megajournal
Online first, Supplemental materials, Cost
Fast track
Which factors are important for you?
Journal selection Journal Selectorwww.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector
Insert your proposed abstractor keywords
Journal selection
Matching journals
Journal Selectorwww.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector
Filter by:• Field of study• Impact factor• Open access• Publishing
frequency
Journal’s aims & scope, IF,
and publication frequency
Journal selection Journal Selectorwww.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector
• Author guidelines• Journal website
Are they currently publishing similar articles?
Have you cited relevant ones?
Similar published articles
Activity 2
Please see Activity 2 in your workbook
Section 3
Communicating your research with editors
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research Publication models
Subscription-based
• Mostly free for the author• Reader has to pay
Open access • Free for the reader• Author usually has to pay
Hybrid• Subscription-based
journal• Has open access options
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research Open access models
Green
• Can self-archive accepted version in personal, university, or repository website
• May allow final version to be archived
• May have embargo period before self-archiving is allowed
Gold• Free for public on publication• Author might keep © but may
pay (e.g., US$1000–3000)
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research Open access myths
Open access (OA) is too expensive
• Not all OA journals charge a publication fee
• Many research grants (59%) and universities (24%)
pay for OA fees (only 12% of authors paid)*
• May offer waiver for authors who cannot afford it
*SOAP survey: http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research
The quality of OA journals is not good
OA journals have the same peer review process as subscription-based journals
Impact factors are lower partly because they are
newer• Less visibility in the field• Fewer citations possible
Open access myths
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research Predatory journals
Some OA journals are not good
Easy way to get money from authors
• Promise quick and easy publication• Often ask for a “submission/handling” fee• May copy name of real journal; false IF• May not exist, or may have low quality• Beware of spam e-mails!
If you are ever unsure, please check Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers
http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/06/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2013/
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research
Reputable publisher Springer, Elsevier, Wiley, PLoS, etc.
Editorial board International and familiar
Indexed Indexed by common databases
Authors Do you recognize the authors?
Fees Paid only after acceptance
Trustworthy journals
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research
THINK Trusted and appropriate?
SUBMIT Only if OK
thinkchecksubmit.org
CHECK Do you know the journal?
Trustworthy journals
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research
Dear Dr Lippman,
Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled “ Evaluation of the Glasgow prognostic score in patients undergoing curative resection for breast cancer liver metastases,” which we would like to submit for publication as an Original Article in the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.
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) in these patients. The present study evaluated the mGPS 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 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, a simple clinical tool, is a useful prognostic factor for postoperative survival in patients undergoing curative resection for breast cancer liver metastases. This information is immediately clinically applicable for oncologists treating such patients. As a premier journal covering the broad field of cancer, we believe that the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment is the perfect platform from which to share our results with the international medical community.
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 PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research Cover letter to the editor
However, …an alternative approach… …a 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
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 PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research Cover letter to the editor
This study is the first to demonstrate that the preoperative mGPS, a simple clinical tool, is a useful prognostic factor for postoperative survival in breast cancer patients undergoing curative resection for liver metastases. This information is immediately clinically applicable for surgeons and medical oncologists treating such patients. As a premier journal covering breast cancer treatment, we believe that Breast Cancer Research and Treatment is the perfect platform from which to share our results with all those concerned with breast cancer.
Why interesting to the journal’s readership (para 4)
Target your journal – keywords from the Aims and ScopeConclusion
Relevance
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your researchRecommending
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
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your researchBe careful who you
recommend!
Section 4
Communicating your research with reviewers and others
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research Peer review process
~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
• Evaluation• Finding
reviewers
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your researchWhat 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 PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research Peer review
Blinded/masked?
Other models
• 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• Portable/Transferable/Cascading:
Manuscript & reviews passed along• Collaborative: Reviewers (& authors)
engage with other• Post-publication: Online public review• Pre-submission: Reviews passed to editor• Optional: Authors organize pre-
submission review w./w.o. formal peer review
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your researchPeer 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
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research 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 PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research 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 PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research 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 PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research Decision letter
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 PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research Decision letter
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 PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research Decision letter
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 PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research 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 PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research Reviewer response letter
Fernando L. CônsoliEditor-in-ChiefNeotropical 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 PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research 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
RevisionsLocation
Why agree
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research
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.
Reviewer response letter
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research
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
RevisionsLocation
Reviewer response letter
Agree or disagree with evidence
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research
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 PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research
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
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research 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 PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your research 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!
• Conferences• Web, email• Social media• Media• Newsletters• Reports
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating
your researchCommunicating with different audiences
Pre- and post-publication impact
IMRaD research article
(journals, posters, slides)
Hard news
(press
releases)
Hard news, delayed
lede
Hard news + kicker
Soft news +
explana-tions + kicker
Full feature + kicker
(news-letters)
Hard news, delayed lede + kicker
Soft news + explana-
tions
(news releases)
Only after journal publication!
Activity 3
Please see Activity 3 in your workbook
Be an effective communicator
Your goal should be not only to publish, but also to be widely read and cited
Make a good first impression Choose the best journal Write clearly and concisely
Thank you!
Any questions?
Download and further readingedanzediting.co.jp/shinshu151002
Follow us on Twitter@EdanzEditing
Like us on Facebookfacebook.com/EdanzEditing
Trevor Lane: [email protected] Harris: [email protected]