121129 Edanz Tokyo

Jeff Robens, PhD

Senior Editor29 November 2012

Raising Your Chances of

Publication Success

Download from: edanzediting.co.jp/tokyo2012

About Jeff…

Researcher

Teacher

Mentor

Author

Peer reviewer

Senior Editor

� Reading strategies

� Good experimental design

� Manuscript structure

� Display items

� Journal selection

� Evaluating Significance

� Cover letters

� Responding to peer review

Today’s presentation …

Before your start

Section 1

Before you start …

Self-assess knowledge of topic

Read Title and Abstract first

Strategies for reading

Have you read similar papers?

Familiar with the terminology?

Do you understand the relevance

of the hypothesis


Read Figures and Results

Read Discussion for interpretation

Self-assess knowledge of topic

Read Title and Abstract first

Refer to Introduction and

Methods if necessary

Strategies for reading

Read last paragraph of introduction

for hypothesis/objectives


Good

Experimental

Design

Good

Experimental

Design

Relevant

hypothesis

Relevant

hypothesis

Appropriate

methodology

Appropriate

methodology

Proper

analysis

Proper

analysis

Accurate

conclusions

Accurate

conclusions

Consult a statistician

What is the association?

Present

quickly

and

efficiently

Present

quickly

and

efficiently

Take time

to build

suspense

Take time

to build

suspense

Structuring your

manuscript

Section 2

Structuring your

manuscript Telling a story

�Beginning

� ‘tell them what you did and why’

�Middle

� ‘tell them how you did it and what you found’

�End

� ‘tell them again what you did and what it means’.

Structuring your

manuscript IMRaD

� Abstract

� Introduction

� Methods

� Results

� and

� Discussion

The beginning

The end

The middle

Structuring your

manuscript

Title

Abstract

Introduction

Discussion

Methods

Results

The ‘write’ order

After selecting target journal

During your research

Write last

Abstracts General Guide

Aims

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Why the study was done (20%)

Your hypothesis (10%)

Techniques (10%)

Most important findings (40%)

Conclusion & implications (20%)

Structuring your

manuscript

�Sufficient background information

�Puts your work into context

�Comprehensive literature review

�Cite reviews

Introduction

General

Specific

Structuring your

manuscript Methods

� Subheadings with multiple methods

� New methods must be described in sufficient

detail that they can be reproduced

� Established methods can be referenced

Structuring your

manuscript

� Past tense to describe your results

� Do not explain the results

� Avoid duplicating data among figures, tables

and text

Results

Structuring your

manuscript Display items

� Present a large amount of data quickly and

efficiently

�Keep it simple — use separate panels if

necessary

� Label all parts of your figures

� Legends must be able to ‘stand alone’

Structuring your

manuscript

)

Abbreviations

defined

Clear concise legend/caption

Data

formatted

for clarity

Tables

Structuring your

manuscript Figures

Axes labeled

Clear, ‘stand

alone’ legend

Scale bars

Structuring your

manuscript Discussion

BeginningBeginning

MiddleMiddle

EndEnd

Summarize key findings

State major conclusion

Summarize key findings

State major conclusion

Restate major conclusion

Applications/implications

Suggest future work

Restate major conclusion

Applications/implications

Suggest future work

Interpret results in context of other

studies

Describe limitations

Interpret results in context of other

studies

Describe limitations

What is the theme?

Impact factorImpact factor Publishing frequencyPublishing frequency

Open accessOpen accessReadershipReadership

Aims/scopeAims/scope

Journal

Selection

Journal

Selection

Journal selection

Section 3

Journal selectionFactors to consider

� Aims and scope

� Readership

� Publishing frequency

� Open access

� Impact factor

Which factor is most important to you?

Journal selectionEvaluating significance

NoveltyNovelty

RelevanceRelevance

AppealAppeal

Are your findings:

Incremental advances?

Conceptual advances?

Are your findings:

Incremental advances?

Conceptual advances?

Are your findings:

In an area of popular appeal?

Are your findings:

In an area of popular appeal?

Are your findings:

Geographically/ethnically specific?

Relevant to the human condition?

Are your findings:

Geographically/ethnically specific?

Relevant to the human condition?

Journal selectionJournal Advisor

Cover Letters

Section 4

Coverage and

Staffing PlanCover Letters

What do

journal editors want?

What do

journal editors want?

High quality research

Good design

Well executed

High quality research

Good design

Well executed

Original and novelOriginal and novel

Interesting to

journal’s readership

Interesting to

journal’s readership

Clear and concise

English

Clear and concise

English

Coverage and


Abstract:

First impression for readers

Abstract:

First impression for readers

Cover letter:

First impression for journal editors

Cover letter:

First impression for journal editors

Significance

Relevance

Significance

Relevance

Level of EnglishLevel of EnglishRecommend

reviewers?

Recommend

reviewers?

Why your work

is important!

Why your work

is important!

Coverage and


Dear Editor-in-Chief,

I am sending you our manuscript entitled “Techniques to detect

entanglement in cats” by Schrodinger et al. We would like to have the

manuscript considered for publication in Quantum Theory Frontiers.

Please let me know of your decision at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely yours,

Albert Einstein, PhD

Bad example

Not personalNot personal

Too shortToo short

No information about

the manuscript

No information about

the manuscript

Coverage and


Dear Dr Graeber,

Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled “Amyloid-like inclusions in the brains of Huntington’s disease patients”, by

McGowan et al., which we would like to submit for publication as a Research Paper in Neurogenetics.

Recent immunohistochemical studies have revealed the presence of neuronal inclusions containing an N-terminal portion of

the mutant huntingtin protein and ubiquitin in the brain tissues of Huntington’s disease (HD) patients; however, the role of

these inclusions in the disease process has remained unclear. One suspected disease-causing mechanism in Huntington’s

disease and other polyglutamine disorders is the potential for the mutant protein to undergo a conformational change to a

more stable anti-parallel β-sheet structure…

To confirm if the immunohistochemically observed huntingtin- and ubiquitin-containing inclusions display amyloid features, we

performed Congo red staining and both polarizing and confocal microscopy on post-mortem human brain tissues obtained

from five HD patients, two AD patients, and two normal controls. Congo red staining revealed a small number of amyloid-like

inclusions showing green birefringence by polarized microscopy, in a variety of cortical regions.... ….detected inclusions

observed in parallel sections, suggesting that only a relatively small proportion of inclusions in HD adopt an amyloid-like

structure.

We believe our findings will be of particular interest to the readership of Neurogenetics, which includes researchers and

clinicians studying the genetic and molecular mechanisms underlying neurodegenerative diseases. Therefore, we feel that your

journal provides the most suitable platform for the dissemination of our work to the research community.

Please address all correspondence to….

Give the

background to

the research

What was

done and what

was found

Interest to

journal’s readers

A good cover letter

Coverage and

Staffing PlanCover Letters General rules

General rulesGeneral rules

Manuscript title/

Publication type

Manuscript title/

Publication type

Corresponding

author details

Corresponding

author details

Backround,

rationale, results

Backround,

rationale, results

Address editor

personally

Address editor

personally

Why are your

findings important?

Why are your

findings important?

“Must-have”

statements

“Must-have”

statements

Peer Review

Section 5

Peer ReviewImproves your manuscript

� Peer review is a positive process

� Improves science

� Recommend to get involved in the peer

review process

http://www.springer.com/authors/

journal+authors/peer-review-academy

Peer Review

Point-by-point

RevisionRevision

Be politeBe politeRespond to

every comment

Respond to

every comment

Easy to see

changes

Easy to see

changes

Refer to line and page numbers

Use a different color font

Highlight the text

Peer Review

� Conduct additional experiments and

analyses as suggested

� If this is impossible, you must explain why

� You can disagree with reviewers, but

provide evidence (cite references)

� Comply with deadlines

Revision

Peer Review

Dear Dr. _____________: [address editor by name]

Thank you for your consideration of our manuscript

entitled _____________ [insert manuscript title]. We

have reviewed the comments of the reviewers and have

thoroughly revised the manuscript. We found the

comments helpful, and believe our revised manuscript

represents a significant improvement over our initial

submission.

In response to the reviewers’ suggestions we have

[summarize the key changes here]

The response –point-by-point

Peer Review

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 makes it impossible to fully interpret

the data in terms of the prevailing theories. In addition, in its

current form it would be difficult to tell that this measurement

constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported

values. We have redone the analysis using a Gaussian fitting

function.

Agreement

Peer Review

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 that a simple Gaussian fit

would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies.

However, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data

in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al, 1998]. We have added

two sentences to the paper (page 3 paragraph 2) to explain the

use of this function and Smith’s model.

Disagreement

Avoiding Rejection

Section 4

Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: the manuscript

Rationale and aims

not stated

Citations

Inappropriate data

presentation

Poor grammar

and style

Journal requirements

not met


� Clearly and explicitly stated

� Why did you do it?

� Why is it important?

Rationale and aims

not stated


� Research not appropriate for

the aims/scope of the journal

� Author guidelines not followed

� Formatting

Journal requirements

not met


Citations

Self-citations Old/irrelevant


Citations

• Broadly from different research groups

• Couple older seminal papers

• Couple review articles

• Mostly recent original articles

• Field-dependent

• Cell biology – within the last 2-3 years

Cite properly


� Clear and concise English

� No speling or grammatical errors

� Short sentences, easier to understand

Poor grammar

and style

spelling


� Illogical representation

� Duplication of results

� Too much data

� Raw data

Inappropriate data

presentation

Avoiding Rejection Reasons for rejection: other

Inappropriate journal

selected

Unlucky timingUnlucky timing

Thank you!

www.edanzediting.co.jp

Any questions?

Follow us on Twitter

@JournalAdvisor

Download and further reading

edanzediting.co.jp/jsco2012

Like us on Facebook

facebook.com/JournalAdvisor

Documents

121129 Edanz Tokyo