161223 Edanz sk2

50 %
50 %
Information about 161223 Edanz sk2

Published on December 21, 2016

Author: edanz_group

Source: slideshare.net

1. 6 Young Researchers on Cancer Study: SK2 Group 23 December 2016 Dr Trevor Lane, Education Director Author Success Workshop: Effectively Promoting Your Research

2. Researchers need continued help on the path to publication success Preparation Journal Selection Writing 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 • Expert Scientific Review • Revising • Editing • Reformatting • Training in ethics, writing • 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 and mid career researchers • Training in writing grant proposals • Grant proposal editing

3. S Be an effective communicator Your goal is not only to publish, but also to be widely read and cited Confidently promote your research to  The journal editor  The journal peer reviewers  Academic and non-academic audiences

4. Section 1 Making a good first impression

5. Academic publishing What editors want “Journal Impact Factor” = No. citations in indexed journals ÷ No. articles, past 2 years Original and novel research (“journalism” aspect) Well-designed, well-reported, transparent study News, importance, innovation, timeliness High scientific & technical quality, sound research & publication ethics Logical, engaging contents; correct English & formatting High readability & interest, informative Useful message Clear, real-world relevance, influence 1 2 3 4

6. Academic publishing Impact and study design Systematic reviews of RCTs Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) Other 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

7. Academic publishing 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 SRQR/COREQ Qualitative studies Register trials in advance, at: clinicaltrials.gov; who.int/ictrp/network/en; controlled-trials.com

8. Academic publishing Research and publishing ethics Submissions No plagiarism No cheating Authorship Submit to only one journal; do not republish without permission; no salami; do not manipulate peer review Paraphrase/summarize/synthesize & cite all sources Do not fabricate or falsify data/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 Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE Know more on research ethics… https://www.jsps.go.jp/j-kousei/data/rinri_e.pdf

9. Academic publishing Evaluating your study 1. Novelty/originality? 2. Real-world significance and importance/interest? 3. How soon can the findings be applied? 4. Is the study discussed in the context of what is known? 5. Potential for changing international practice/policy? 6. Potential for changing thinking in the field? 7. Potential for changing thinking in other fields? 8. Are implications both short term and long term? 9. Methodological quality (study design type, analyses)? 10. Study quality (sample/controls, size, duration, variables)? 11. Are biases minimized so as not to affect validity/reliability? 12. Compliance with…(a) research, trial, publishing ethics? 13. …(b) relevant reporting and data accessibility guidelines? 14. Writing is high quality and suitable for non-specialists?  1 2 3 4 …Be clear on topic/focus, report type, readers, urgency, reach, publishing cost

10. Academic publishing Choose a journal early v Which factor is most important to you? Aims & scope, Readership Publication speed/frequency Print/Online, Open access Indexing, Rank, Impact factor Acceptance rate/ criteria (novelty?) Articletype/length, evidence level “Luxury” / Traditional / Megajournal

11. Academic publishing Reputable publisher Elsevier, Wiley, PLOS, etc. Clear contact details Editorial board International and familiar Indexed Indexed by common databases Authors Do you recognize the authors? Fees Paid only after acceptance; clearly stated in website Trustworthy journals thinkchecksubmit.org

12. Academic publishing Journal Selector www.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector Insert your proposed abstract or keywords

13. Academic publishing Filter/sort by: • Field of study • Impact factor • Indexed in SCI • Open access • Publishing frequency Journal’s aims & scope, IF, and publication frequency • Author guidelines • Journal website Similar abstracts? Journal Selector www.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector

14. Customer ServiceMarketing your work Introduces another document Peer review Publication Acceptance Journal submission cover letter Manuscript  Submitting cover letters…

15. Customer ServiceMarketing your work Cover letter features Explains manuscript matches journal aims and scope Meets journal cover letter requirements Promotional, professional, polite Plain English; concise, free of errors Your communication skills and scientific impact Written by the corresponding author

16. Customer ServiceMarketing your work 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 oncologists treating such patients. As a premier journal covering the broad field of cancer, we believe that the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment is the perfect platform from which to share our results with the international medical community. Give the background to the research What was done and what was found Conclusion/ relevance and 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

17. Customer ServiceMarketing your work 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)

18. Customer ServiceMarketing your work Cover letter to the editor This study is the first to demonstrate that the preoperative mGPS, a simple clinical tool, is a useful prognostic factor for postoperative survival in breast cancer patients undergoing curative resection for liver metastases. This information is immediately clinically applicable for surgeons and medical oncologists treating such patients. As a premier journal covering breast cancer treatment, we believe that Breast Cancer Research and Treatment is the perfect platform from which to share our results with all those concerned with breast cancer.  Why your study is interesting to the journal’s readership (para 4) Target your journal – keywords from the Aims and Scope Conclusion/importance Relevance

19. Customer ServiceMarketing your work Cover letter to the editor Highlight recent issues in the media “Given the considerable attention prostate cancer has received worldwide, it will be important to…” Highlight recent policy changes “Recently, the local government has implemented new incentives to promote cancer screening…” Highlight recently published articles in their journal “The positive effect of exercise on cancer-specific survival has recently been showcased in your journal. However, it still remains unclear…” Highlight current controversies “Currently, there is disagreement on the role of antioxidants in cancer therapy. Our study aims to address this controversy…”

20. Customer ServiceMarketing 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 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. Last paragraph:  Declarations related to publication ethics  Source of funding  Conflicts of interest Ethics Funding Conflicts of interest

21. Customer ServiceMarketing 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: From Asia, Europe, North America, Australasia & choose reviewers who have published in your target journal Can also exclude 2–3 reviewers

22. Customer ServiceMarketing your work Abstracts Aim Objective, hypothesis, Q Results Most important findings Conclusion Answer, relevance, implications Methods Techniques, measurements No references, jargon, unusual abbreviations, figures/tables (Human studies: Include funding source and clinical trial registration number) Background Context, problem Can be “structured” or “unstructured”

23. Customer ServiceMarketing your work Structured abstract Modified from: Marconi et al. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:556. Background Diffusion Weighted (DW) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) has been studied in several cancers including cervical cancer. This study was designed to investigate the association of DW-MRI parameters with baseline clinical features and clinical outcomes (local regional control (LRC), disease free survival (DFS) and disease specific survival (DSS)) in cervical cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiation. Methods This was a retrospective study approved by an institutional review board that included 66 women with cervical cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation who underwent pre-treatment MRI at our institution between 2012 and 2013. A region of interest (ROI) was manually drawn…on a single axial CT slice encompassing the widest diameter of the cervical tumor while excluding areas of necrosis…. Results Women with disease staged III-IV (FIGO) had significantly higher mean ADCmax values compared with those with stage I-II (1.806 (0.4) vs 1.485 (0.4), p = 0.01). Patients with imaging defined positive nodes also had significantly higher mean (±SD) ADCmax values compared with lymph node negative patients (1.995 (0.3) vs 1.551 (0.5), p = 0.03)…. Conclusions Pre-treatment ADCmax measured in the primary tumor may be associated with FIGO stage and lymph node status. Pre-treatment ADCmin may be a prognostic factor associated with disease-free survival and disease-specific survival in cervical cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiation. Prospective validation of these findings is currently ongoing.

24. Customer ServiceMarketing your work Unstructured abstract Source: Harland et al. Familial Cancer. 2016;15:139‒44. Germline CDKN2A mutations occur in 40% of 3-or-more case melanoma families while mutations of CDK4, BAP1, and genes involved in telomere function (ACD, TERF2IP,POT1), have also been implicated in melanomagenesis. Mutation of the promoter of the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) gene (c.−57 T>G variant) has been reported in one family. We tested for the TERT promoter variant in 675 multicase families wild-type for the known high penetrance familial melanoma genes, 1863 UK population-based melanoma cases and 529 controls. Germline lymphocyte telomere length was estimated in carriers. The c.−57 T>G TERT promoter variant was identified in one 7-case family with multiple primaries and early age of onset (earliest, 15 years) but not among population cases or controls. One family member had multiple primary melanomas, basal cell carcinomas and a bladder tumour. The blood leukocyte telomere length of a carrier was similar to wild-type cases. We provide evidence confirming that a rare promoter variant of TERT (c.−57 T>G) is associated with high penetrance, early onset melanoma and potentially other cancers, and explains <1% of UK melanoma multicase families. The identification of POT1 and TERT germline mutations highlights the importance of telomere integrity in melanoma biology.

25. Customer ServiceMarketing your work Unstructured abstract Conclusion We provide evidence confirming that a rare promoter variant of TERT (c.−57 T>G) is associated with high penetrance, early onset melanoma and potentially other cancers, and explains <1% of UK melanoma multicase families. The identification of POT1 and TERT germline mutations highlights the importance of telomere integrity in melanoma biology. Results The c.−57 T>G TERT promoter variant was identified in one 7-case family with multiple primaries and early age of onset (earliest, 15 years) but not among population cases or controls. One family member had multiple primary melanomas, basal cell carcinomas and a bladder tumour. The blood leukocyte telomere length of a carrier was similar to wild-type cases. Aim/MethodWe tested for the TERT promoter variant in 675 multicase families wild-type for the known high penetrance familial melanoma genes, 1863 UK population-based melanoma cases and 529 controls. Germline lymphocyte telomere length was estimated in carriers. Background Germline CDKN2A mutations occur in 40% of 3-or-more case melanoma families while mutations of CDK4, BAP1, and genes involved in telomere function (ACD, TERF2IP,POT1), have also been implicated in melanomagenesis. Mutation of the promoter of the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) gene (c.−57 T>G variant) has been reported in one family. Present tense Past tense Past tense Present tense Note: Theoretical papers often use present tense throughout

26. Customer ServiceMarketing your work 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, but include some synonyms  Cite your previous publications when relevant *Standard terms from PsycINFO, BIOSIS, ChemWeb, ERIC Thesaurus, GeoRef, MeSH, etc

27. Please see Activity 1 in your Workbook Activity 1

28. Navigating peer review Section 2

29. Customer ServicePeer review The submission process Accepted— publication! EditorAuthor Peer review Reject Results novel? Topic relevant? Clear English? Properly formatted? Revision • New experiments • Improve readability • Add information • Revise figures

30. Customer ServicePeer 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

31. Customer ServicePeer review Peer review models Other models • Transferable/Cascading: Manuscript & reviews passed to another journal of publisher • Portable: Manuscript & reviews passed along to another journal • Collaborative: Reviewers (& authors) engage with each other • Post-publication: Peer or public review after publication • Pre-submission (“portable”): Reviews passed to editor at submission

32. Customer ServicePeer review 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!

33. Customer ServicePeer review Decision letter  Ideas are not logically organized; Poor presentation  Purpose and relevance are unclear  Introduction lacks focus and does not justify approach  Methods are unclear (variables, missing data)  Not discussed: Negative results, limitations, implications  Discussion has repeated/new results; Conclusions too general  Cited studies are not up-to-date; key references missing Common reviewer complaints

34. Customer ServicePeer review Decision letter  “Slush pile” desk review: Rejection (not novel, no focus or rationale, wrong scope or format) / Resubmit (after edit)  Peer review: Accept / Accept with minor or language revisions / Revise & resubmit / “Reject”  Hard rejection (rejected outright) • Flaw in design or methods • Major misinterpretation, lack of evidence  Soft rejection (possibility for resubmission) • Incomplete reporting or overgeneralization • Additional analyses needed • Presentation problem Interpret the decision letter carefully (& after a break)

35. Customer ServicePeer review Find & organize the queries Reviewer comment: The authors looked for polymorphisms in the promoter region of the putative tumor suppressor 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 article sections and by reviewer!

36. Customer ServicePeer review Group similar comments together Organize the reviewers’ comments Reviewer 1: “Re-analyze the data in Figure 3 using a Mann–Whitney U test.” Reviewer 2: “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

37. Customer ServicePeer review Distribution of data affects analysis and presentation • Parametric tests (e.g., t-test and ANOVA) can be used only with continuous & normally distributed data with a large enough sample size • The mean ± SD only for normally distributed data Simple guide: • If SD is ≥ mean, most likely not normally distributed • If SD is > 0.5 × mean, may not be normally distributed Use Shapiro-Wilk’s W test for normality Wrong statistical tests Common complaints

38. Customer ServicePeer review Continuous endpoints Parametric Nonparametric Paired Unpaired Paired Unpaired 2 groups: Paired t test >2 groups: Repeated- measuresANOVA 2 groups: Unpaired t test >2 groups: ANOVA (F test) 2 groups: Wilcoxon signed- ranktest >2 groups: Friedman one-wayANOVA 2 groups: Mann–Whitney U test (Wilcoxon rank-sumtest) >2 groups: Kruskal–Wallis test Lang and Secic 1997; 71. Common complaints

39. Customer ServicePeer review 2 categorical endpoints Paired (within sample) Unpaired (between sample) McNemar’s test Fisher’s exact test 2 treatment groups Chi-square test >2 treatment groups du Prel et al. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010; 107: 343–8. Common complaints

40. Customer ServicePeer review Decision letter 1 10 January 2016 Dear Dr. Tunn, Manuscript ID JOS-11-7739: “Self-consciousness of affluence predicts willingness to seek cancer treatment.” 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 the Applied Psychosocial Economics: An International Journal. 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 our Journal. 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

41. Customer ServicePeer review  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

42. Customer ServicePeer review 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

43. Customer ServicePeer review Decision letter 2 10 January 2016 Dear Dr. Tunn, Manuscript ID JOS-11-7739: “Self-consciousness of affluence predicts willingness to seek cancer treatment.” Your manuscript has been reviewed, and we believe that after revision your manuscript may become suitable for publication in our Journal . 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/APE/ 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

44. Customer ServicePeer review Decision letter 2 …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 our Journal, 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 Applied Psychosocial Economics: An International Journal and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. How to respond Due date for resubmission

45. Customer ServicePeer review Reviewer response letter Fernando L. Schumann Editor-in-Chief Neotropical Entomology 2 September 2016 Dear Dr Schumann, Re: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. WJS-07-5739 Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled “Drosophilids as model of tumorigenesis by loss of heterozygosity,” 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

46. Customer ServicePeer 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

47. Customer ServicePeer 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

48. Customer ServicePeer 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 step down and identify a more suitable reviewer for my manuscript now!!! Reviewer response letter

49. Customer ServicePeer 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., 2016]. Hence, we have explained the use of this function and the Pack model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2–6). Disagree with evidence Revisions Location Reviewer response letter

50. Customer ServicePeer review Reviewer comment: Currently, the authors’ conclusion that this gene is involved in cancer progression is not completely validated by their in vitro analyses. They should do additional in vivo experiments using a genetic mouse model to show that cancer is promoted 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

51. Customer ServicePeer review 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 You may appeal rejections if you think the reviewer/editor has made a mistake

52. Activity 2 Please see Activity 2 in your Workbook

53. Publicizing your research Section 3

54. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Manuscript structure Introduction Methods Results and Discussion (IMRaD) Title & Abstract End matter Solution Situation/ Problem Evaluation /Comment General background Aims Methodology Results and figures Summary of findings Final solution & Implications Evaluation of findings Problem in the field Current state of the field References, Acknowledgments, Funding, Conflicts of interest, Previous publication/presentation, Ethics/Data sharing

55. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Unknown mechanism We therefore investigated the expression levels of core clock genes in human colorectal liver metastasis tissue, adjacent liver tissue, and primary colorectal tumor. Furthermore, we related the expression levels to clinicopathological factors in these patients. Aim …However, the functioning of the circadian clock in patients with colorectal liver metastases has remained unclear. A better understanding of how tumors affect the circadian clock may help elucidate the role of the clock in cancer patients. Match your aim to the problem/gap Modified from: Huisman at al. Tumor Biology. 4 August 2016; doi:10.1007/s13277-016-5231-7.

56. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Recognizing IMRaD Signal phrases Results: showed, found, observed, identified, demonstrated, revealed, indicated, (not) significantly different Discussion: our/these findings, when compared with, confirm, agree with, disagree with, differ from, are similar to, consistent, mechanism, explanation, possible, plausible Conclusions: In conclusion, In summary, Taken together, Overall, Therefore, Hence, Thus, suggest, have implications, further/future work Context: has been studied, such as, is important, recently, X found that Problem: unfortunately, however, but, nevertheless, although, despite, still unclear, lacking, unknown Objectives: (in) this study, (in) the present study, purpose of this study, aims/aimed, examine, investigate, study, evaluate, assess, determine Methods: measured, evaluated, by means of, used, calculated, performed

57. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Coherence in communication Logical connectors at starts of sentences/clauses Sequence, process 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,… Conditional If,Evenif,When,Unless,Whether(ornot),Except, Providedthat,Until,Without,Otherwise,…

58. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Program To ascertain the efficaciousness of the program, all of the program participants were interrogated upon participant program completion. [Academic] To determine the efficacy of the program, we interviewed all participants. Simplify your sentences [Non-academic] The researchers checked that the program worked by interviewing all participants.

59. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Publicizing your article Increase the impact of your research after publication • Presentations • Web, email • Social media • Press releases • Newsletters • Open days Respect news embargo Report clearly and accurately Respect copyright / CC licenses CC-BY Respect journal publication policy Check conference guidelines

60. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Your multiple audiences Everyone evaluates your study…and you Pre- and post-publication impact • Journal editors & reviewers • Readers, opinion/policy makers, practitioners, professionals • Students, researchers, industry, businesses, organizations • Employers, schools, interest groups, service users, consumers • (Science) Media, public, politicians • Conference/journal panels • Review boards, funders, donors Quality, Impact & Relevance Why your work is important!

61. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Match your audience Pre- and post-publication impact IMRaD research article (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) (journals, posters, slides) Hard news (conclusion as “lede”) (press releases) Hard news, delayed lede (implication at start) Soft news/ Feature story (news- letters) Hard news, delayed lede + kicker (implication at start & end) Only after journal publication!

62. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Match your audience Writing for the public Hard news Newsworthiness: why care? PITCH • Proximity • Impact • Timeliness • Conflict • Human interest (e.g., unexpectedness, opinions, commentary)

63. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Match your audience Writing a news release for reporters Hard news  Heading • Can say “new”; can use subheading • Name the source/people  Conclusion first (“lede”/“top line”) • Name the source/people; ~20 words • Try present perfect tense  6WHs • Who?, What? Where? Why? When? How?  Results before Methods; can use bullets  Background last

64. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Match your audience Elements of a news release Hard news  Use letterhead  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (or Embargo date)  Short title (+ dateline, city name)  Quotes on insights/implications/importance, from named experts; no repetition!  Include keywords  Include full citation/link and evidence level  End with END or ENDS or ### or -30-  Contact info, institution info, explanations, photo available, in “Notes to Editors”

65. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Match your audience Tips Hard news  Give only important details  Include definitions in introductory or incidental text (“Periodontal disease, or gum disease, affects…”)  Check all data, details, and names  Write for the layperson: avoid jargon and technical language  Be concise! Short paragraphs; 300-400 words  Be interesting! What is different/new?  End with Call to action, or a quotation

66. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Match your audience Who to target Hard news  International media (traditional, online)  International news agencies  National media  Local media (for local community)  Specialist news agency/hub (e.g., EurekAlert)  Specialist media (practitioners)  Consumer media (popular magazines)  Institution / academic society  Interest groups (social media / blogs)

67. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Social media Useful link…http://connectedresearchers.com/online-tools-for-researchers/

68. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publicize your work Non-technical language ‘Predatory’ open access: longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics So-called predatory publishers are causing unfounded negative publicity for open access publishing in general. There is a lack of comprehensive studies about several aspects of this phenomenon, including extent and regional distribution…. New study sheds light on characteristics of the ‘predatory’ scholarly publishing market New light has been shed on the volume and market characteristics of so- called ‘predatory’ scholarly journal publishing in a study conducted by researchers from Hanken School of Economics and published in the open access journal BMC Medicine…. 1 2

69. Please see Activity 3 in your Workbook Activity 3

70. S Be an effective communicator Your goal is not only to publish, but also to be widely read and cited Confidently promote your research to  The journal editor  The journal peer reviewers  Academic and non-academic audiences

71. Thank you! Any questions? Follow us on Twitter @EdanzEditing Like us on Facebook facebook.com/EdanzEditing Download and further reading edanzediting.co.jp/sk2_2016 Dr Trevor Lane: tlane@edanzgroup.com

Add a comment