20160928 edanz chulabhorn_landing
TRANSCRIPT
Chulabhorn Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand28 September 2016
Best practices for writing & publishing your research manuscript
Download at: edanzediting.com/chulabhorn2016
Trevor Lane, PhDEducation Director, Edanz
Be an effective communicator
Your goal is not only to publish, but also to be widely read and highly cited
Plan well before you begin writing Choose the best journal Logically organize your ideas Clearly communicate your ideas Succeed with Edanz
Planning well
Section 1
Download at: edanzediting.com/chulabhorn2016
Planning wellTips for
publication success (1)
1. Identify trends: (systematic) reviews, editorials, theme issues, Calls for papers, “most read”…organize journal clubs
2. Read the primary literature
3. Identify an important question, or incorrect or incomplete knowledge/evidence• Do you have the expertise/resources?• Is the question focused?• What is new? How is the study useful?• What is the best/most practical study design?
Planning well {Impact and study design
Systematic reviews of RCTs
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
Non-randomized controlled trials
Observational studies (cohort, case-control, surveys/audits/interviews, diagnostics)
Case studies, case series, technical notes,computer models (in silico), animals (in vivo), in vitro
{Intervention studies
Non-interventionstudies
Register clinical trials in advance!
Planning well
Is my study novel?
Trial registries/ databases
Medical forums,
websites
Medical & general online
searches
Use ICD codes from WHO or MeSH keywords for consistency, but also try synonyms
Tips for publication success
(2)
Planning well
S
Get feedback at conferences• Check novelty, relevance, interest level• Check methods, data, illustrations, conclusions
Pre-submission “publication” OK if:• Abstracts in conference proceedings• Clinical trial summaries in online registers• Own web? Preprint servers (bioRxiv)?
Dissertation/thesis? Check the target journal!
Organize pre-submission peer review
Tips for publication success
(3)
Planning well What editors want (1)
Submissions
No plagiarism
No data manipulation
Authorship
Submit to only one journal; do not republish an article; no salami; do not manipulate peer review
Paraphrase/summarize/synthesize & cite all sources
Do not fabricate or falsify dataDo not manipulate parts of images
(1) Study design or data acquisition/analysis; (2) Writing/revising; (3) Approval; (4) Accountability
Conflicts of interest
State funding source and any financial/personal relationships that could bias the work
Safety Ethics board approval; for humans: signed consent, data privacy; animal & environmental safety
Planning well What editors want (2)
Always follow ethics guidelines
Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE
Good Publication Practice 3, GPP3
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors , ICMJE
Planning well What editors want (3)
Declare in your cover letter…
Not submitted to other journals
Research ethics
All authors agree and contributed
Original and unpublished
Funding & potential conflicts of interest Possible reviewers
Clinical journals: authorship, COI, ethics approval & consent, ©
Planning well What editors want (4)
“Journal Impact Factor” = No. citations ÷ No. articles
Original and novel research
Well-designed,well-reported,
transparent studyNews, importance,
innovation, timelinessHigh scientific & technical quality,
sound research & publication ethics
Logical, engaging contents; correct
formattingHigh readability &
interest, informative
Useful message
Clear, real-world relevance, influence
1 2
3 4
Planning well International reporting guidelines
http://www.equator-network.org/
PRISMA Systematic reviews & Meta-analyses
STROBE Observational studies
CARE Case reports
CONSORT Randomized controlled trials
ARRIVE Animal studies
QOREC Qualitative studies
Register trials in advance, at:clinicaltrials.gov; who.int/ictrp/network/en; controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.in.th
Planning well
CONSORT
http://www.equator-network.org/
International reporting guidelines
• Trial design• Participant eligibility• Setting• Interventions• Outcomes• Sample size• Randomization• Blinding• Statistics
Section 2
Selecting the best journal
Download at: edanzediting.com/chulabhorn2016
Journal selection Choose your journal first!
Author guidelines• Manuscript structure• Word limits, References • Format, Procedures
Aims and scope• Topics• Readership• Be sure to emphasize
• Check journal requirements• Check relevant references• Check novelty, importance & usefulness
Journal selection Evaluating impact
Assess your findings objectively
How new/important are your findings? How strong is the evidence?
How large is your scientific advancement?Low or high impact journal
Novelty
How broadly relevant are your findings?International or regional journal
General or specialized journal
Relevance/Application
Journal selection Choosing a journal
v
Which factor is most important to you?
Aims & scope, Readership
Publication speed/frequency
Online/Print,Open access
Indexing, Rank,Impact factor
Acceptance rate/criteria
Article type / evidence level
“Luxury” / Traditional / Megajournal
Cost, Circulation/reach, Production quality,
Copyright, News releases
Review quality, Cascading review, Fast track
Reputation, Experience, Relevance (cited in your
manuscript?)
Topic, Audience type and location
Clinical/Basic, Surgical/ Medical, Theory/Practice
Journal selection 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
Journal selection Open access models
Green
• Self-archive accepted version in personal, university, or repository website (e.g., PubMed Central)
• Journal may have embargo period before self-archiving is allowed; may allow final version to be archived
Gold• Free for public on publication• Author might keep © but may
pay (e.g., US$1000–5000)
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/
Journal selection Questionable journals
Some OA journals/publishers are not good!Easy way to cheat authors!
• Promise quick and easy publication• Often ask for a “submission/handling” fee• May copy name of real journal; fake website; fake IF• May not exist, or may be of very low quality• Beware of spam e-mails!
If you are ever unsure, please check Beall’s List (questionable publishers)
https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/
Journal selection
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
Journal selection
THINK Trusted and appropriate?
SUBMIT Only if OK
thinkchecksubmit.org
CHECK Do you know the journal?
Trustworthy journals
Journal selection Oncology journals
1. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (115.84)2. Lancet Oncology (24.69)3. Cancer Cell (23.523)4. Journal of Clinical Oncology5. Cancer Discovery6. Journal of the National Cancer Institute7. Leukemia8. Cancer Research9. Seminars in Cancer Biology10. Oncogene
By IF, 2014
http://oncologypro.esmo.org/Publications/
Journal selection Oncology journals
1. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (32.242)2. Nature Reviews Cancer (25.467)3. Lancet Oncology (13.940)4. Cancer Cell5. Journal of Clinical Oncology6. Journal of the National Cancer Institute7. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology8. Cancer Research9. Cancer Discovery10. Clinical Cancer Research
By SCImago Journal Rank, 2015
http://www.scimagojr.com
Journal selection Journal Selectorwww.edanzediting.com/journal_sele
ctor
Insert your proposed abstractor keywords
Journal selection Journal Selectorwww.edanzediting.com/journal_sele
ctor
Matching journals
Filter/Sort by:• Field of study• Impact factor, SCI• Open access• Publishing
frequency
Journal’s aims & scope, IF,
and publication frequency
Journal selection Journal Selectorwww.edanzediting.com/journal_sele
ctor• Author guidelines• Journal website
Are they currently publishing similar articles?
Similar published articles
Have you cited any of these articles?
Shows the editor that your study builds on research
already published in their journal
Section 3
Logical organization: Effective writing
Download at: edanzediting.com/chulabhorn2016
Effective writingDrafting process
Where to start?
Your findings form the basis of your manuscript
First organize your findings
Logic, then English language
Figure 1
Figure 2
Table 1
Figure 3
Logical flow• Time order• Most least
important• General specific• Simple complex• Whole parts
Is anything missing?
?Additional analyses?
Effective writingWriting 1st outline
1. Important reason for study
2. Research Q / Hypothesis
3. Aim & approach4. Main methods5. Display items &
key findings6. Major conclusion
Write down key ideas in bullet points (topic sentences)
Then, draft a very rough title/abstract
Use Journal Selector to find similar articles
Effective writingWriting 2nd outline
1. IntroductionA. General backgroundB. Related studiesC. Problems in the fieldD. Aim & approach
2. MethodsE. Subjects/Samples/MaterialsF. General & specific methodsG. Statistical analyses
3. ResultsH. Key points about Figure 1I. Key points about Table 1J. Key points about Figure 2
4. DiscussionK. Major conclusionL. Key supporting findingsM. Relevance to published studiesN. Limitations; unexpected resultsO. ImplicationsP. Future directions
Expand on ideas, as bulletsDraft article using IMRaD
(Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion)
Get feedback & revise each section
Revise content/logic before language
List information from your reading in the appropriate section: Paraphrase with citations!
Effective writing
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
Drafting your manuscript
Effective writing Drafting your manuscript
Title/Abstract
IntroductionMethods (can be at end or
mostly online or in legends)
Results
Discussion(=IMRaD)
Title/Abstract
Methods
Results
Discussion
Introduction
Abstract /Title
write
Effective writingRevising & Editing
Write your manuscript section-by-section– Get feedback after each section; set deadlines– Easier for your colleagues to review– Less stressful for everyone
Revise for content & overall logic (reporting guidelines)Revise for journal style (see guidelines/past papers)Edit for conciseness, clarity, consistency & accuracy:
read aloud / print out / search for common errorsGet feedback from pre-submission peer reviewGet language assistance
Effective writing Importance of logic (1)
Check logical relationshipsWhile 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/once they had flowered.
Effective writing Importance of logic (2)
Check the logic of punctuation
The GFP tags appeared green and blue, yellow and green and yellow and blue.The GFP tags appeared green and blue, yellow and green, and yellow and blue.
The patient said he admired his parents, Prince Charles and Lady Diana.
The patient said he admired his parents, Prince Charles, and Lady Diana.
The variables included family size, personal and household incomes.
The variables included family size and personal and household incomes.
Effective writing Importance of logic (3)
Logical connectors
Sequence
Cause-Effect
Contrast Although, Even though, Whereas, However, In contrast, Despite (+noun or verb -ing),…
Because (of), To (+verb), Owing to, So that, Therefore, Thus, Hence, Consequently,…
Until, After, Before, While, Since, When, Then, Next, First/Second/Third, Finally,…
Condition If, Even if, Unless, Whether (or not), Except, Provided that, Until, Without, Otherwise,…
Addition Furthermore…, In addition…, Additionally…, Moreover
Effective writing Improving readability (1)
Use short sentences15–20 words
One idea per sentence; use short words
Use active voiceSimpler, more direct, and easier to read
Recommended by most writing style guides and journals!“Nature journals prefer authors to write in the active voice”
(http://www.nature.com/authors/author_resources/how_write.html)
Effective writing
Readers expect… verbs to closely follow their subjects Bottom heavy (not top heavy) sentences
Subject
The viral infection that was caught by the patient on a trip to an outbreak-prone area in Africa spread among the hospital staff quickly.
The patient caught a viral infection on a trip to an outbreak-prone area in Africa. This infection spread quickly among the hospital staff.
Verb
Improving readability (2)
Effective writingAvoid nominalizations
Use strong verbs instead of converting a verb into a noun
Estimate EstimationDecide DecisionAssess Assessment
We made a/an… We conducted a/an…Extra verb
We decided… Clear, short, and direct
Effective writing Avoid complex words
PreferredEnoughClearDetermineBeginTrySizeKeepEnoughUse
AvoidAdequateApparentAscertainCommenceEndeavorMagnitude*RetainSufficientUtilization
*OK in certain fields (magnitude of earthquakes)
Effective writing Delete unnecessary words
“A number of studies have shown that the charged group...”
“As a matter of fact, such a low-temperature reaction…”
“That is another reason why, we believe…”
“It is well known that most of the intense diffraction peaks...”“It is well known that most of the intense diffraction peaks...”
“As a matter of fact, such a This low-temperature reaction…”
“A number of studies have shown that the charged group...”
“That is thus another reason why Therefore, we believe…”
Effective writing Delete unnecessary words
AvoidAt a concentration of 2 g/LAt a temperature of 37CIn order toIn the first placeFour in numberGreen colorSubsequent toPrior to
PreferredAt 2 g/LAt 37CToFirst FourGreenAfterBefore
Effective writing Common mistakes (1)
Respectively is often misused Use it to refer to 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.
Effective writing Common mistakes (2a)
Compared with is for saying how similar things are different
The toxicity of the new scaffold was reduced compared to the previous scaffold.
The toxicity of the new scaffold was reduced compared with that of the previous scaffold.
The toxicity of the new scaffold was lower than that of the previous scaffold.
Effective writing Common mistakes (2b)
Compared to is for saying how different things are similar
The extracellular matrix can be compared with a scaffold.
The extracellular matrix can be compared to a scaffold.
Effective writing
Patient parameters…improved significantly; it is significant that…X was caused by YThe risk of developing X in this case-control study…
Patient variables…improved considerably/markedly; it is important that…X was associated with/related to/linked to YThe odds of developing X in this case-control study…
Don’t misuse statistical words
Common mistakes (3)
Section 4
Logical organization: Manuscript structure
Download at: edanzediting.com/chulabhorn2016
Manuscriptstructure Title and abstract
First impression of paper:clear/concise/convincing
Importance of your results
Validity of your conclusions
Relevance of your aims
Promote your work: Readers judge your style & credibility
Gain attention and encourage readers to read full version
Your title & abstract summarize your study
Manuscriptstructure Title and abstract
Title
Important points
Only the main idea Accurate, simple Include keywords Fewer than 20 words Include key variable,
population, model, or study type
Avoid
Unneeded words (A study of)Complex or sensational wordsComplex word orderAbbreviations“New” or “novel”
Manuscriptstructure Title and abstract
QuestionCan ischemic preconditioning
improve prognosis after coronary artery bypass surgery?
Topic / Variables
Prognostic effects of ischemic preconditioning in coronary artery
bypass patients
…. + Method (hanging title)
Xxxxxxx: randomized controlled trial
Statement of conclusion
Ischemic preconditioning improves prognosis after coronary artery
bypass
Title
Check journal style
Manuscriptstructure Title and abstract
Context Background, problem, aim
Results Outcomes, effects,properties, statistics
Conclusion Relevance, implicationsLearning points, future
Methods Patients/materials/animalsTreatments, measurements
No references, unusual abbreviations, figures/tablesClinical: funding & trial registration number after abstract
Abstract
Manuscriptstructure Title and abstract
Numerous systemic treatment options exist for patients with mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS); however, the comparative efficacy of these treatments is unclear. We performed a retrospective analysis of our cutaneous lymphoma database to evaluate the treatment efficacy of 198 MF/SS patients undergoing systemic therapies. The primary end point was time to next treatment (TTNT). Patients with advanced-stage disease made up 53%. The median follow-up time from diagnosis for all alive patients was 4.9 years (range 0.3‒39.6), with a median survival of 11.4 years. Patients received a median of 3 lines of therapy (range 1‒13), resulting in 709 treatment episodes. Twenty-eight treatment modalities were analyzed. We found that the median TTNT for single- or multiagent chemotherapy was only 3.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.2‒5.1), with few durable remissions. α-interferon gave a median TTNT of 8.7 months (95% CI 6.0‒18.0), and histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) gave a median TTNT of 4.5 months (95% CI 4.0‒6.1). When compared directly with chemotherapy, interferon and HDACi both had greater TTNT (P < .00001 and P = .01, respectively). In conclusion, this study confirms that all chemotherapy regimens assessed have very modest efficacy; we recommend their use be restricted until other options are exhausted.
Modified from: Cannegieter et al. Blood. 2015; 125: 229‒235.
Use signal phrases and IMRaD order
Manuscriptstructure Title and abstract
Modified from: Cannegieter et al. Blood. 2015; 125: 229‒235.
Numerous systemic treatment options exist for patients with mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS); however, the comparative efficacy of these treatments is unclear. We performed a retrospective analysis of our cutaneous lymphoma database to evaluate the treatment efficacy of 198 MF/SS patients undergoing systemic therapies. The primary end point was time to next treatment (TTNT). Patients with advanced-stage disease made up 53%. The median follow-up time from diagnosis for all alive patients was 4.9 years (range 0.3‒39.6), with a median survival of 11.4 years. Patients received a median of 3 lines of therapy (range 1‒13), resulting in 709 treatment episodes. Twenty-eight treatment modalities were analyzed. We found that the median TTNT for single- or multiagent chemotherapy was only 3.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.2‒5.1), with few durable remissions. α-interferon gave a median TTNT of 8.7 months (95% CI 6.0‒18.0), and histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) gave a median TTNT of 4.5 months (95% CI 4.0‒6.1). When compared directly with chemotherapy, interferon and HDACi both had greater TTNT (P < .00001 and P = .01, respectively). In conclusion, this study confirms that all chemotherapy regimens assessed have very modest efficacy; we recommend their use be restricted until other options are exhausted.How does your study contribute to your field?
What did you find?
What did you do?
Why did you do the study?
Manuscriptstructure Introduction
Why is your study needed?
Current state of the field
Background information
Specific aim/approachAim
Problem in the field
Previous studies
Currentstudy
General
SpecificImportance, Research Q & Hypothesis/variables
Worldwide relevance?Broad/specialized?
Up-to-date, InternationalNot too many self-cites
Manuscriptstructure
Problem/knowledge gap
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
Manuscriptstructure Methods
How the study was done
• Processes, treatments, measurements
• Variables (direct/proxy)• Outcome/endpoints (1o, 2o)
• Data conversions• Statistical tests (& P level)• Consult a statistician
Who/what was studied
• Design rationale; “power”• Participants, controls, N• Materials, surveys, ethics
Data analysis
Describe all aspects of the design
Manuscriptstructure Methods
Describe all aspects of the design
Established techniques
• Name the method• Cite previously published studies• Briefly state modifications
• Rationale; systematic evaluation• Enough detail for reproducibility• Use Supplementary Information
Organization• Arrange in subsections• Use subheadings if needed• Parallel order with the figures
New techniques
Manuscriptstructure Results
• Efficacy/safety• Group/subgroups• Uni-/bi-/multivariable
• Each subsection corresponds to one figure/ method; check figure Nos.
• What you found, not what it means
• Upload as Supplementary Materials
• Data accessibility
Logical presentation
Subsections
Factual description
Present results logically and factually
Manuscriptstructure Discussion
Summary of findings
Relevance
Conclusion
Similarities/differencesUnexpected/negative resultsLimitations; unanswered/new Q
Implications
Previous studies
Currentstudy
Future studies
Specific
General
How do you advance your field?
Manuscriptstructure
Discussion: beginning and end
This randomized, open-label, Phase 3 controlled trial compared PFS rate in pre-menopausal women with ER-positive advanced breast cancer after 24 weeks of treatment with 3-monthly goserelin 10.8 mg or monthly goserelin 3.6 mg. The results of the primary efficacy analysis showed that goserelin 10.8 mg demonstrated non-inferiority to goserelin 3.6 mg….
Re-introductionMain finding
Future & importance
Modified from: Noguchi et al. Breast Cancer. 9 Sept 2015; doi:10.1007/s12282-015-0637-4.
In conclusion, this study demonstrated that 3-monthly goserelin 10.8 mg is non-inferior to monthly goserelin 3.6 mg in pre-menopausal women with ER-positive advanced breast cancer by assessment of PFS rate at 24 weeks. As such, this formulation may represent an alternative and more convenient treatment option for pre-menopausal women with ER-positive advanced breast cancer.
Conclusion in context
Why is your study important?
Manuscriptstructure
Link your ideas logically
General background
Aims
Methodology
Results and figures
Summary of findings
Conclusion/implications
Relevance of findings
Problem in the field
Current state of the fieldIntroduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Solution
Situation/Problem
Evaluation/Comment
Manuscriptstructure
Linking manuscript sections
…predictive signatures through meta-analysis of publicly available gene-expression signatures are needed…
…few tests predict the probability of short-term prognosis following neoadjuvant chemotherapy…
…we identified two prognostic and TP53 mutation-driven signatures in breast cancer and one specific for prognosis prediction in patients with ER-negative tumors.
Background
Problem
Conclusion
Discussion
Introduction
Modified from: Lehmann et al. BMC Cancer. 2015; 15: 179.
To analyze the prognostic and predictive value of publicly available signatures, we performed a large-scale meta-analysis of cancer signatures…
Aim & Approach
Manuscriptstructure
Research Article
Short Communication
Case Study/Report
Technical Note
Review Article
Editorial
Letter to the Editor
Brief report about a specific finding
Full-length paper (can be a meta-analysis)
Brief report about a specific situation
Brief report about a new methodology
Summary of recent advances in a field
Brief discussion about an interesting topic
Brief discussion about a published article
Types of articles
Manuscriptstructure
Background Concise description of disease or treatment
New case presentation
• Patient information• Diagnostic tests and results• Interventions• Follow-up
DiscussionInterpret findings, while referencing other cases
Case reports
• Implications/educational value: New or unexpected diagnosis, treatment, side effect, etiology
• Future directions
Break
Any questions?
Follow us on Twitter@EdanzEditing
Like us on Facebookfacebook.com/EdanzEditing
Access our services
partner.edanzediting.com/portal/chulabhorn-hospital
Section 5
Communicating your research with editors and reviewers
Download at: edanzediting.com/chulabhorn2016
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating with journals
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 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.
Give the background to the research
What was done and what was found
Conclusion/use & interest to journal’s readers
Cover letter to the editor
Editor’s name Manuscript title
Article type
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating with journals
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 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 National Natural Science Fund. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Other important information: Disclaimers related to publication ethics Source of funding Conflicts of interest
Ethics
Conflicts of interest
Funding
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating with journals
Cover letter to the editor
Other important information:
Recommended reviewers Author’s contact information
We would like to recommend the following reviewers to evaluate our manuscript: 1. Reviewer 1 and contact information2. Reviewer 2 and contact information3. Reviewer 3 and contact information4. Reviewer 4 and contact information Please address all correspondence to:
Reviewers
Contact information
Can also exclude reviewers
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating 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
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating 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 PlanCover LettersCommunicating with journals 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
• Transferable/Cascading: Manuscript & reviews passed along (same publisher)
• Portable: Manuscript & reviews passed to another journal (another publisher)
• Collaborative: Reviewers/authors discuss • Post-publication: Online public review• Pre-submission: Reviews obtained first
Fast Track: Review expedited if public emergency
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating with journals Decision letter
Ideas are not logically organized Presentation is poor; IMRaD sections not correct Purpose and relevance are unclear Methods are unclear/inappropriate; Ethics problems Wrong (statistical) tests; statistical vs clinical significance,
association vs causation, exact P values and 95% CIs, error bars
Not discussed: Negative results, limitations, implications Discussion has repeated or new results Conclusions too general or unsupported Cited studies are not up-to-date; important ones missing
Common reviewer complaints
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating with journals Decision letter
Desk rejection (not novel, no focus or rationale, wrong scope or format) / Resubmit after professional editing
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 with journals
Reviewer response letter
Respond to every reviewer comment
Easy for editor & reviewers to
see changes
• Keep to the deadline; be polite• Restate reviewer’s comment; refer to line and page numbers
Use a different color font
Highlight the textStrikethrough font for deletions
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating with journals
Reviewer response letter
Fernando CieloEditor-in-ChiefNeotropical Entomology Letters
2 September 2016
Dear Dr Cielo,
Re: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. WJS-07-5739
Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled “Population dynamics of mosquitoes in response to humidity and temperature,” which we would like to resubmit for consideration for publication in Neotropical Entomology Letters.
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 Letters.
Address editor personally
Manuscript ID number
Thank reviewers
Highlight major changes
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating 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
RevisionsLocation
Why agree
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating 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 the journal identify a more suitable reviewer for my manuscript now!!!
Reviewer response letter
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating 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
RevisionsLocation
Reviewer response letter
Agree or disagree with evidence
Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating with journals
If asked to do new experiments…
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
Responding to major requests
Section 6
Promoting your research
Download at: edanzediting.co.jp/chulabhorn2016
Customer ServicePromoting your work
Your multiple audiences
Everyone evaluates your study…and you
• 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!
Customer ServicePromoting your work
When should you present your work?
Before you publish?
After you publish?
Conferences, Seminars,Lab Meetings, Journal Clubs
Conferences, Seminars,Press Conferences, Media Enquiries, Media Interviews,
Social Media, Open Days, Public Education
Customer ServicePromoting your work
Presenting afteryou publish
Advantages
Actively promote your article
Advice on future directions
Networking with researchers/media
Networking with journal editors
Customer ServicePromoting your work
Publicizing your article
Increase the impact of your research after publication
• Presentations• Web, email• Social media• Press releases• Newsletters• Reports
Respect news embargo
Report clearly and accurately
Respect copyright / CC licenses
CC-BY
Respect journal publication policy
Check conference guidelines
Publicize your research ethically
Customer ServicePromoting your work
Publicizing your article
Reaching different audiences
IMRaD research article
(journals, posters, slides)
News(Conclusion
= “lead” paragraph)
News, delayed
lead
News + kicker
News, delayed lead + kicker
Only after journal publication!
(press releases, websites, social media, summaries)
Customer ServicePromoting your work Match your audience
Writing for the public
Hard news
Newsworthiness: why care? PITCH• Proximity• Impact• Timeliness• Conflict• Human interest (e.g., unexpectedness)
Customer ServicePromoting your work Match your audience
Writing for the public
Hard news
6WHs• Who?• What?• Where?• Why?• When?• How?
Put the conclusion (lead) first and keep it short (15-20 words)
Use short paragraphs 300-400 words Use simple words Avoid jargon Reference the journal
article early
Customer ServicePromoting your work Social media
Customer ServicePromoting your work
Non-technical language
‘Predatory’ open access: longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics
So-called predatory publishers are causing unfounded negative publicity for open access publishing in general. There is a lack of comprehensive studies about several aspects of this phenomenon, including extent and regional distribution….
New study sheds light on characteristics of the ‘predatory’ scholarly publishing market
New light has been shed on the volume and market characteristics of so-called ‘predatory’ scholarly journal publishing in a study conducted by researchers from Hanken School of Economics and published in the open access journal BMC Medicine….
1
2
Section 7
Succeed with Edanz
Download at: edanzediting.co.jp/chulabhorn2016
Researchers face challenges on the path to publication success
Preparation Journal SelectionWriting
Submission Peer Review Publication Success
• Read/manage references
• Write outline• Authorship• Peer feedback• Present at
conferences
• Assess research impact
• Compare journals/publishers
• (Pre-)Submission strategy
• Write/edit in English without plagiarism
• Writing process• Follow journal
& reporting guidelines
• Publication ethics
• Display items, supplemental material
• Ethics declarations
• Abstract & cover letter
• Select reviewers• Navigate
submission systems
• Navigate review process
• Understand editor & reviewers
• Revise paper• Respond to
reviewers, point by point
• Resubmit or submit elsewhere
• Archive/share• Promote work
to (non)-academic community
• Next project/budget/grant
• Collaborators• Track citations
and altmetrics• Technology
transfer• Update CV
Researchers need continued help on the path to publication
success
Preparation Journal SelectionWriting
Submission Peer Review Publication Success
• Training in reading papers, ethics, writing, presenting
• Expert Scientific Review
• Expert Scientific Review
• Journal Selection & submission strategy
• Training in ethics, writing, presenting
• Editing• Reformatting• Guided
rewriting
• Training inethics, writing, presenting
• Editing• Abstract
Development• Cover Letter
Development• Reviewer
Recommendation
• Training in navigating peer review
• Review Editing• Point-by-point
checking• Response Letter
Development• Reformatting
• Press release, news writing
• Media & presentation training
• Training for early/mid career researchers
• Training in writing grant proposals
• Grant proposal editing
Be an effective communicator
Your goal is not only to publish, but also to be widely read and highly cited
Plan well before you begin writing Choose the best journal Logically organize your ideas Clearly communicate your ideas Succeed with Edanz
Thank you!
Any questions?
Trevor Lane: [email protected]
Follow us on Twitter@EdanzEditing
Like us on Facebookfacebook.com/EdanzEditing
Access our services
partner.edanzediting.com/portal/chulabhorn-hospital