Section 4

Making the best first impression

Customer Service Marketing your work 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

Customer Service Marketing your work Your title

Important points

Only the main idea Accurate, simple Population/model Include keywords Fewer than 20 words Hanging title:

method/study type

Avoid

Unneeded words (“A study of”) Complex or sensational words Complex word order Abbreviations “New” or “novel”

Customer Service Marketing your work Your title

Interrogative Quantifying electron transfer

reactions in biological systems: what interactions play the major role?

Indicative/ Descriptive*

Highly efficient light management for perovskite solar cells

* + Method (subtitle)

Distribution of cations in FeSbO4: A computer modeling study

Assertive/ Declarative*

Coral mucus fuels the sponge loop in warm- and cold-water coral reef

ecosystems / Insect stereopsis demonstrated using a 3D insect

cinema

Question form

Key finding

Key topic/aim

Customer Service Marketing your work Keywords

Search Engine Optimization

Identify 7–8 keywords (try to use standard terms*)

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; include synonyms

Cite your previous publications when relevant

*Or standard terms from PsycINFO, BIOSIS, ChemWeb, ERIC Thesaurus, INSPEC, GeoRef, MeSH etc

Customer Service Marketing your work Structured abstract

Context Background, problem, aim

Results Outcomes, effects,

properties, statistics

Conclusion Relevance, implications Learning points, future

Methods Subjects/materials/animals Treatments, measurements

No references, unusual abbreviations, figures/tables

Customer Service Marketing your work Unstructured abstract

Three-dimensional hierarchical ternary nanostructures for high-performance Li-ion battery anodes

Silicon is considered one of the most promising anode materials for high-performance Li-ion batteries due to its 4200 mAh/g theoretical specific capacity, relative abundance, low cost, and environmental benignity. However, silicon experiences a dramatic volume change (∼300%) during full charge/discharge cycling, leading to severe capacity decay and poor cycling stability. Here, we report a three-dimensional (3D) ternary silicon nanoparticles/conducting polymer/carbon nanotubes hybrid anode material for Li-ion batteries. The hierarchical conductive hydrogel framework with carbon nanotubes as the electronic fortifier offers a continuous electron transport network and high porosity to accommodate the volume expansion of Si particles. By 3D wrapping of silicon nanoparticles/single-wall carbon nanotubes with conducting polymer nanostructures, a greatly improved cycling performance is achieved with reversible discharge capacity over 1600 mAh/g and 86% capacity retention over 1000 cycles at the current rate of 3.3 A/g. Our findings represent a new direction for using advanced nanostructured materials to fabricate robust, high-performance lithium-ion batteries with improved capacity decay and cycling stability.

Reprinted with permission from: Liu B, et al. Nano Lett. 2013, 13, 3414‒3419.

Customer Service Marketing your work Unstructured abstract

Silicon is considered one of the most promising anode materials for high-performance Li-ion batteries due to its 4200 mAh/g theoretical specific capacity, relative abundance, low cost, and environmental benignity. However, silicon experiences a dramatic volume change (∼300%) during full charge/discharge cycling, leading to severe capacity decay and poor cycling stability.

Context

Here, we report a three-dimensional ternary silicon nanoparticles/conducting polymer/carbon nanotubes hybrid anode material for Li-ion batteries. Methods

The hierarchical conductive hydrogel framework with carbon nanotubes as the electronic fortifier offers a continuous electron transport network and high porosity to accommodate the volume expansion of Si particles. By 3D wrapping of silicon nanoparticles/single-wall carbon nanotubes with conducting polymer nanostructures, a greatly improved cycling performance is achieved with reversible discharge capacity over 1600 mAh/g and 86% capacity retention over 1000 cycles at the current rate of 3.3 A/g.

Results

Our findings represent a new direction for using advanced nanostructured materials to fabricate robust, high-performance lithium-ion batteries with improved capacity decay and cycling stability.

Conclusions

Reprinted with permission from: Liu B, et al. Nano Lett. 2013, 13, 3414‒3419.

Customer Service Marketing your work

A model has been developed to predict growth kinetics of the intermetallic phases (IMCs) formed in a reactive diffusion couple between two metals for the case where multiple IMC phases are observed. The model explicitly accounts for the effect of grain boundary diffusion through the IMC layer, and can thus be used to explore the effect of IMC grain size on the thickening of the reaction layer. The model has been applied to the industrially important case of aluminum to magnesium alloy diffusion couples in which several different IMC phases are possible. It is demonstrated that there is a transition from grain boundary-dominated diffusion to lattice-dominated diffusion at a critical grain size, which is different for each IMC phase.

Modified from: Wang et al. Metall Mater Trans A. 2015; 46: 4106–4114.

Physical science abstracts (short)

What you did

What you found

Customer Service Marketing your work

Check author guidelines

Check recently published articles

Consider your audience

For interdisciplinary audiences, include background and conclusion

Identify journal editor preference

What the journal requires

Physical science abstracts

When should you include background and conclusions?

Customer Service Marketing your work Cover letter to the editor

Dear Dr Robens-Garcia

Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled “Prediction of the largest peak nonlinear seismic response of asymmetric

structures under bi-directional excitation,” which we would like to submit for publication as an Original Article in the

Journal of Seismology Today.

Assessing the seismic performance of asymmetric structures is challenging because of their elevation irregularities. Various methods have been proposed that combine non-linear static (pushover) analysis of a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) mathematical model with the response spectrum analysis of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) model. Although these methods aim to estimate the peak response of asymmetric structures to seismic motion, they have been shown to be limited in their accuracy. In this study, we improve an earlier nonlinear analysis method by determining the properties of two independent SDOF models based on the results of a pushover analysis of an asymmetric structure. The largest peak response is then estimated by combining the analysis of the two modal responses. In contrast to previous methods, ours takes into account changes in the principal direction of the first modal response. This allows our model to more reliably estimate the response of asymmetric structures to ground motion acting at an arbitrary angle of incidence. The novel computational method presented here can more accurately evaluate the seismic performance of asymmetric structures. Accurately evaluating seismic performance is crucial given the high rate of building development worldwide. Therefore, because this model will have implications in building engineering, mining and exploration, and seismic hazards, we believe this study will be of considerable interest to the readers of the Journal of Seismology Today.

Why study needs to be done

What was done and what was

found

Interest to journal’s readers

Editor’s name Manuscript title

Article type

Customer Service Marketing your work Cover letter to the editor

The novel computational method presented here can more accurately evaluate the seismic performance of asymmetric structures. Accurately evaluating seismic performance is crucial given the high rate of building development worldwide. Therefore, because this model will have implications in building engineering, mining and exploration, and seismic hazards, we believe this study will be of considerable interest to the readers of the Journal of Seismology Today.

Why your study is interesting to the journal’s readership (para 4)

Target your journal – keywords from the Aims and Scope

Conclusion/importance

Relevance

Customer Service Marketing your work 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 information 2. Reviewer 2 and contact information 3. Reviewer 3 and contact information 4. Reviewer 4 and contact information Please address all correspondence to:

Reviewers

Contact information

Can also exclude reviewers

Customer Service Marketing your work 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 Journal of Seismology Today. This study was funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Last paragraph:

Declarations related to publication ethics Source of funding Conflicts of interest

Ethics

Funding

Conflicts of interest

Customer Service Marketing your work

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

Section 5

Confidently navigating the peer review process

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 • Revise figures

Peer review 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

Peer review What reviewers are looking for

The science

The manuscript

Relevant hypothesis Good study 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!

Innovation & Importance, Information, Interest, Influence =

IMPACT

Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review Decision letter

“Slush pile” desk review: Rejection (not novel, no focus or rationale, wrong scope or format) / Resubmit after editing

Peer review: Accept / Accept with minor revisions / Revise & resubmit / “Reject” • Hard rejection

o Flaw in design or methods, ethics o Major misinterpretation, lack of evidence

• Soft rejection o Incomplete reporting or overgeneralization o Additional analyses needed o Presentation problem

Interpret the decision letter carefully (& after a break)

Peer review Decision letter

Ideas are not logically organized; Poor presentation Purpose and relevance are unclear Cited studies are not up-to-date Topics in the Results/Discussion are not in the Introduction Methods are unclear (variables, missing data); Ethics Wrong (statistical) tests; statistical vs real-world significance Unclear statistics: Power, Need exact P values, 95% CI,

Association ≠ Causation Not discussed: Negative results, limitations, implications Discussion has repeated results or new results Conclusions too general, confident, precise; not supported

Common reviewer complaints

Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review 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

Peer review Reviewer response letter

Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.

Response: We agree with the Reviewer’s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We describe our new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results section (Page 6, Lines 12–18).

Agreement

Revisions Location

Why agree

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 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

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 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

Activity 3

Please see Activity 3 in your workbook

S

Be an effective communicator

Your goal is not only to be published, but also to be widely read and highly cited

Planning well and developing your writing skills

Logically communicating your ideas in your manuscript

Making the best first impression

Confidently navigating the peer review process

Thank you!

Any questions?

Follow us on Twitter

@EdanzEditing

Like us on Facebook

facebook.com/EdanzEditing

Download and further reading edanzediting.co.jp/tokushima1603

Trevor Lane: tlane@edanzgroup.com Eri Kinoshita: ekinoshita@edanzgroup.com