20160928 edanz chulabhorn_landing

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


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


Always follow ethics guidelines

Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE

Good Publication Practice 3, GPP3

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors , ICMJE


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, ©


“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


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


ctor

Matching journals

Filter/Sort by:• Field of study• Impact factor, SCI• Open access• Publishing

frequency

Journal’s aims & scope, IF,

and publication frequency


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


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.


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.


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


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


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”


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


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


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


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


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



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



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



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


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


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)


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



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



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


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 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


Agree or disagree with evidence


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!


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


Presenting afteryou publish

Advantages

Actively promote your article

Advice on future directions

Networking with researchers/media

Networking with journal editors


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


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


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