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


“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


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…”

?


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


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


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


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


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…)


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.


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


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


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


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!


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


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


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


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


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)



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…”



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



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



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


Activity 3: Cover letters

Confidently navigate peer review

Section 5



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!



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!



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


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


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)


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



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



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.



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



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


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



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



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



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



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



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



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


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…


Activity 5: Revising

Promote your research after publication

Section 7


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


Publicize your work

Presenting after you publish

Advantages

Actively promote your article

Advice on future directions

Networking with researchers…

Networking with journal editors


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


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!


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!


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

Date post:	14-Apr-2017
Category:	Education
Upload:	edanz-group
View:	652 times
Download:	2 times