20150929 edanz chulabhorn
TRANSCRIPT
Trevor Lane, PhD Senior Editor, Edanz
Chulabhorn Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
29 September 2015
Publishing Clinical Research: Increasing Your Chances of Acceptance
Be an effective communicator
Your goal is not only to publish, but also to be widely read and cited
Plan well before you begin writing Choose the best journal Logically organize your ideas Clearly communicate your ideas Succeed with Edanz
Plan well
Section 1
Good planning Publication success = Academic success
S
Publication Metrics and Success on the Academic Job Market van Dijk et al. Current Biology. 2014; 24: R516-R517.
• >25,000 researchers in PubMed • Which factors positively correlate with
academic success?
• Number of publications • Impact factor of the journal • Number of citations • University ranking • Male vs Female
Good planning Tips for publication success
S
Poster or oral presentations at conferences • Check relevance, aims, interest level • Check methods, data, illustrations, conclusions
Pre-submission “publication” OK if: • Abstracts in conference proceedings • Media stories based on conferences • Clinical trial summaries in online registers • Own web? Preprint servers (bioRxiv)?
Dissertation/thesis? -> Check with journal!
Seek expert assistance
Good planning What editors want (1)
State conflicts of interest
No plagiarism or redundancy
Clear author contributions
No fabrication or falsification
Always follow ethics guidelines
(1) Study design/data analysis, (2) Writing, (3) Approval,
(4) Responsibility
Possible financial, personal bias
Good planning What editors want (2)
Always follow ethics guidelines
Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE
Good Publication Practice 3, GPP3
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors , ICMJE
)
Good planning What editors want (3)
Declare in your cover letter…
Not submitted to other journals
Funding, donations
All authors agree and contributed
Original and unpublished
State potential conflicts of interest
Research ethics
Clinical journals: authorship, COI, IRB & consent, CONSORT, © form
Good planning
Increase impact
High quality research
Reader engagement,
usefulness
Original & novel research
Well designed & reported, logical, transparent study
News value, importance
What editors want (4)
High scientific & technical quality, sound research/publication ethics,
registered trials
Clear, real-world, biological/clinical
relevance
Good planning Research with impact (1)
1. Read the primary literature
2. Identify trends: (systematic) reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, theme issues, Calls for papers, “most read”…organize journal clubs
3. Identify an important question, gap in knowledge/evidence, incomplete answer • 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?
Good planning
Is my finding 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
Research with impact (2)
Good planning Impact and study design
Systematic
reviews of RCTs
Randomized controlled
trials (RCTs)
Other controlled trials
Observational studies (cohort, case-control,
cross-sectional surveys/audits, diagnostics)
Computer models (in silico), animal models (in vivo),
in vitro, case studies
Case studies, anecdote, opinion, technical,
simulation
Hypothesis
testing
{ Descriptive
Methodological {
{
Intervention
studies
Non-
intervention
studies
{
Secondary
research
Primary
research
{ { Experimental (exposure assigned)
{
{ Non-
experimental
Good planning
PRISMA Systematic reviews &
Meta-analyses
STROBE Observational studies
CARE Case reports
CONSORT Randomized controlled
clinical trials
ARRIVE Animal studies
http://www.equator-network.org/
International clinical reporting guidelines
Good planning
CONSORT
http://www.equator-network.org/
International clinical reporting guidelines
Good planning Register clinical trials!
Retrospective registration is sometimes possible
Should be registered before journal submission
Where to register? Thai Clinical Trials Registry
www.clinicaltrials.in.th
Section 2
Select the best journal
Journal selection 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!
Journal selection Evaluating impact
Assess your findings objectively
How new are your findings? How strong is the evidence?
Incremental or large advance? Low or high impact journal
Novelty
How broadly relevant are your findings? International or regional journal
General or specialized journal
Relevance/Application
Journal selection Choose your journal first!
Author guidelines • Manuscript structure • Word limits, References • Procedures, Copyright
Aims and scope • Topics • Readership • Be sure to emphasize
clinicaltrials.gov; who.int/ictrp/network/en; controlled-trials.com; clinicaltrials.in.th
• Check relevant references • Check importance, quality & usefulness • Check prospective clinical trials are registered
Journal selection Factors to consider when choosing a journal
v
Aims & scope, Readership
Publication speed/frequency
Online/print Open access
Indexing, Rank, Impact factor
Acceptance rate/criteria
Article type / evidence level
“Luxury” / Traditional / Megajournal
Online first, Supplemental materials, Cost
Fast track
Which factor is most important to you?
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
• Journal may allow final version to be archived
• Journal may impose embargo period
Gold • Free for public on publication • Author might keep © but may
pay (e.g., US$1000–3000)
Journal selection Predatory 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; false IF • May not exist, or may have very low quality • Beware of spam e-mails!
If you are ever unsure, please check Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers
http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/02/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2015/
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 Trustworthy journals
THINK Trusted and appropriate?
SUBMIT Only if OK
thinkchecksubmit.org
CHECK Do you know the journal?
Journal selection Journal Selector www.edanzediting.com/journal_selector
Insert your proposed abstract or keywords
Journal selection Journal Selector www.edanzediting.com/journal_selector
Matching journals
Filter/Sort by: • Field of study • Impact factor, SCI • Open access • Publishing
frequency
Journal’s aims & scope, IF,
and publication frequency
Journal selection Journal Selector www.edanzediting.com/journal_selector
• 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: Write effectively
Effective writing
Writing outlines
Logically organizing your ideas
Communicating in English
2 factors to consider when writing a manuscript
Write outline & draft abstract
Write manuscript & finalize abstract
Effective writing
Writing outlines
Where to start?
Your findings form the basis of your manuscript
First step: logically organize your findings
Figure 1
Figure 2
Table 1
Figure 3
Logical flow (chronology, least to most
important, general to specific,
whole+parts)
Is anything missing?
? Additional analyses?
Effective writing
Writing outlines
I. Introduction A. General background B. Related studies C. Problems in the field D. Aims
II. Methods A. Subjects/Samples/Materials B. General methods C. Specific methods D. Statistical analyses
III. Results A. Key points about Figure 1 B. Key points about Table 1 C. Key points about Figure 2 D. Key points about Figure 3 E. Key points about Figure 4
IV. Discussion A. Major conclusion B. Key findings that support conclusion C. Relevance to published studies D. Limitations E. Unexpected results F. Implications G. Future directions
Write down key ideas in bullet points
No need for sentences or correct English yet
Then, draft the title/abstract
List information from your reading in the appropriate section: Paraphrase with citations!
Effective writing
Writing outlines
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
Effective writing
Writing outlines
Title/Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Title/Abstract
Methods
Results
Discussion
Introduction
Abstract /Title
write
Title/Abstract
Intro: Aim
Figures/ Results {Methods}
Discussion: Conclusion
[Intro / IMRaD]
read
Effective writing
Revising & Editing
Write your manuscript section-by-section – Less stressful – Get feedback after each section; set deadlines – Easier for your colleagues to review
Revise for content & overall logic
Revise for journal style (see guidelines/past papers)
Edit for conciseness, clarity, consistency & accuracy
Get feedback from pre-submission peer review
Get language assistance
Effective writing
Write logical sentences!
A is 4 times larger than B ? A is 4-fold larger than B ? A is 4 times as large as B ?
B is 4 times smaller than A ?
B is 75% smaller than A ? B is 25% the size of A ?
A B
Comparing data; Method–Purpose; Condition–Effect; Reason–Result; Cause–Effect; Contrast; Similarity;
Sequence; Addition; Exemplification
Importance of logic
Effective writing
Write logical sentences!
A is 4 times larger than B ? A is 4-fold larger than B ? A is 4 times as large as B
B is 4 times smaller than A ?
B is 75% smaller than A; B is 25% the size of A
A B
Comparing data; Method–Purpose; Condition–Effect; Reason–Result; Cause–Effect; Contrast; Similarity;
Sequence; Addition; Exemplification
Importance of logic
Effective writing
Improving readability
Use short sentences 15–20 words
One idea per sentence
Use active voice Simpler, 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
Improving readability
Avoid nominalizations
Use strong verbs instead of converting a verb into a noun
Estimate Estimation
Decide Decision
Assess Assessment
We made a/an… We conducted a/an… Extra verb
We decided… Clear, short, and direct
Effective writing
To make a determination of the efficaciousness of the optional program, we conducted an interrogation of
all the participating optional program students.
To determine the success of the program, we interviewed all the participants.
Improving readability
Effective writing Avoid complex words
Preferred Enough Clear Determine Begin Try Very Size Keep Enough End Use
Avoid Adequate Apparent Ascertain Commence Endeavor Exceedingly Magnitude* Retain Sufficient Terminate* Utilization *OK in certain fields (magnitude of earthquakes, to terminate gene expression)
Effective writing Delete unnecessary words
“A number of studies have shown that the charged group...”
“...as described in our previous study.”
“...at a flow rate of 1.0 mL/min.”
“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…”
“...as described previously in our previous study.”
“...at a flow rate of 1.0 mL/min.”
Effective writing Delete unnecessary words
Avoid At a concentration of 2 g/L At a temperature of 37C At a wavelength of 340 nm In order to In the first place Four in number Green color Subsequent to Prior to
Preferred At 2 g/L At 37C At 340 nm To First Four Green After Before
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 2
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 3
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 Common mistakes 4
Readers expect… verbs to closely follow their subjects heavy ends (not starts) of sentences
Subject
The viral infection that the patient caught 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
Effective writing
After we considered relevant results from the clinical tests, all patients were given analgesic drugs.
Cell vitality was generally not affected by the pure EGCG…
“Cell viability was reduced by only 3.5% by the pure EGCG…”
?
After considering the relevant patient parameters from the clinical work-up, all patients were finally put on painkillers.
Be accurate and concise!
After we considered relevant results from the clinical tests, all patients were given analgesic drugs. / After considering relevant results from the clinical tests, we gave analgesic drugs to all patients.
Common mistakes 5
Effective writing
Patient parameters …improved significantly; it is significant that… X was correlated with Y The 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 Y The odds of developing X in this case-control study…
Don’t misuse statistical words
Common mistakes 6
Section 4
Logical organization: Structure your manuscript
Manuscript structure 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
Manuscript structure Title and abstract
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/the, A study of) Complex or sensational words Complex word order Abbreviations “New” or “novel”
Manuscript structure Title and abstract
Interrogative Can ischemic preconditioning
improve prognosis after coronary artery bypass surgery?
Indicative/ Descriptive*
Prognostic effects of ischemic preconditioning in coronary artery
bypass patients
* + Method (subtitle)
Xxxxxxx: randomized controlled trial
Assertive/ Declarative*
Ischemic preconditioning improves prognosis after coronary artery
bypass / Improved prognosis after coronary artery bypass by ischemic
preconditioning
Title
Manuscript structure Title and abstract
Context Background, problem, aim
Results Outcomes, effects,
properties, statistics
Conclusion Relevance, implications Learning points, future
Methods Patients/materials/animals Treatments, measurements
No references, unusual abbreviations, figures/tables Clinical: funding & trial registration number after abstract
Abstract
Manuscript structure Title and 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.
Manuscript structure Title and abstract
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?
Manuscript structure Title and abstract
Search Engine Optimization
Identify 7–8 keywords (include synonyms, use Medical Subject Headings [MeSH]*)
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
Cite your previous publications when relevant
*Or standard terms from PsycINFO, BIOSIS, ChemWeb, ERIC Thesaurus, GeoRef, etc
Manuscript structure Introduction
Why is your study needed?
Current state of the field
Background information
Specific aim/approach Aim
Problem in the field
Previous studies
Current study
General
Specific Importance/Hypothesis
Worldwide relevance? Broad/specialized?
Up-to-date International
Manuscript structure Methods
How the study was done
• Processes, treatments, measurements
• Variables (direct/proxy) • Outcome/endpoints (1o, 2o)
• Quantification/models • Statistical tests (& P level) • Consult a statistician
Who/what was studied
• Participants, controls • Enrollment, N & “power” • Materials, databases
Data analysis
Describe all aspects of the design
Manuscript structure Methods
Describe all aspects of the design
Established techniques
• Cite previously published studies • Briefly state modifications
• Enough detail for reproducibility • Use Supplementary Information
Organization • Arrange in subsections • Parallel order with the figures
New techniques
Manuscript structure Results
• Efficacy/safety • Group/subgroups • Uni-/bi-/multivariable
• Each subsection corresponds to one figure and method
• What you found, not what it means
• Use Supplementary Information
• Data accessibility
Logical presentation
Subsections
Factual description
Present results logically and factually
Manuscript structure Discussion
Summary of findings
Relevance
Conclusion
Similarities/differences Unexpected/negative results Limitations (validity, reliability)
Implications
Previous studies
Current study
Future studies
Specific
General
How do you advance your field?
Manuscript structure Conclusion
In conclusion, we found an independent, graded association between lower levels of the estimated GFR and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. These risks were evident at an estimated GFR of less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 and substantially increased with an estimated GFR of less than 45 ml per minute per 1.73 m2. Our findings support the validity of the National Kidney Foundation staging system for chronic kidney disease but suggest that the system could be further refined, since all persons with stage 3 chronic kidney disease (GFR, 30 to 59 ml per minute per 1.73 m2) may not be at equal risk for each outcome. Our findings highlight the clinical and public health importance of chronic kidney disease that does not necessitate dialysis.
Conclusion
Key finding
Implications
Future directions
Importance
Go et al. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 1296–1305.
Why is your study important?
Manuscript structure Link your ideas
General background
Aims
Methodology
Results and figures
Summary of findings
Implications for the field
Relevance of findings
Problem in the field
Current state of the field Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Solution
Situation/Problem
Evaluation/Comment
Manuscript structure Link your ideas
…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
Manuscript structure
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
Manuscript structure
Background Concise description of disease or treatment
New case presentation
• Patient information • Diagnostic tests and results • Interventions • Follow-up
Discussion Interpret findings, while referencing other cases
Case reports
• Implications/educational value: diagnosis, treatment, etiology
• Future directions
Section 5
Communicate effectively with journals
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating 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 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
Interest to journal’s readers
Cover letter to the editor
Editor’s name Manuscript title
Article type
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating with journals 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
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating with journals 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:
Disclaimers related to publication ethics Source of funding Conflicts of interest
Ethics
Funding
Conflicts of interest
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating with journals Cover letter to the editor
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: Problem statement (para 2)
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating with journals 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 interesting to the journal’s readership (para 4)
Target your journal – keywords from the Aims and Scope
Conclusion
Relevance
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating with journals
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating with journals
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 Plan Cover Letters
Communicating 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 also published • 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
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating with journals 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 clinical significance Unclear statistics: Power, Need exact P values, 95% CI,
Association ≠ Causation, Confounders, Fishing expeditions Not discussed: Negative results, limitations, implications Discussion has repeated results; Conclusions too general
Common reviewer complaints
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating with journals Decision letter
“Slush pile” desk review: Rejection (not novel, no focus or rationale, wrong scope or format) / Resubmit
Peer review: Accept / Accept with minor or language revisions / Revise & resubmit / “Reject”
Hard rejection (“decline the manuscript for publication”) • Flaw in design or methods, ethics • Major misinterpretation, lack of evidence
Soft rejection (“cannot consider it further at this point”) • Incomplete reporting or overgeneralization • Additional analyses needed • Presentation problem
Interpret the decision letter carefully (& after a break)
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating with journals Reviewer response letter
Respond to every reviewer comment
Easy for editor & reviewers to
see changes
• Revise and keep to the deadline; be polite! • Restate reviewer’s comment; refer to line and page numbers
Use a different color font
Highlight the text
Strikethrough font for deletions
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating with journals Reviewer response letter
Fernando L. Cônsoli Editor-in-Chief Neotropical Entomology 2 September 2013 Dear Dr Cônsoli, Re: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. WJS-07-5739 Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled “Population dynamics of Drosophilids in response to humidity and temperature,” which we would like to resubmit for consideration for publication in Neotropical Entomology. The reviewer’s comments were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments. Revisions in the manuscript are shown as highlighted text. In accordance with the first comment, the title has been revised and the entire manuscript has undergone substantial English editing. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in Neotropical Entomology.
Address editor personally
Manuscript ID number
Thank reviewers
Highlight major changes
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating with journals 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
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating with journals
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 strongly recommend that you identify a more suitable reviewer for my manuscript.
Reviewer response letter
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating with journals
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters
Communicating with journals
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
Promote your research
Customer Service Promoting your
work
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
Customer Service Promoting your
work
Presenting after you publish
Advantages
Actively promote your article
Advice on future directions
Networking with researchers
Networking with journal editors
Customer Service Promoting your
work Publicizing your article
Increase the impact of your research after publication
• Conferences • Web, email • Social media • Media • Newsletters • Reports
Respect news embargo
Report clearly and accurately
Respect access/archive policies
Respect copyright/CC licenses
Respect journal publication policy
Check conference guidelines
Customer Service Promoting your
work Publicizing your article
Reaching different audiences
IMRaD research article
(journals,
posters, slides)
Hard news
(press
releases)
Hard news, delayed
lede
Hard news + kicker
Soft news +
explana-tions + kicker
Full feature + kicker
(news-letters)
Hard news, delayed lede + kicker
Soft news + explana-
tions
(news releases)
Only after journal publication!
Researchers face challenges on the path to publication success
Preparation
Journal Selection
Writing
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 • Title & Abstract • Follow journal
& reporting guidelines
• Publication ethics
• Display items, supplemental material
• Ethics declarations
• 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 • Patenting • Update CV
Edanz supports researchers throughout their career
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
• Editing • Reformatting • Abstract
Development • Guided
rewriting
• Training in ethics, writing, presenting
• Editing • Cover Letter
Development • Reviewer Rec-
ommendation
• Training in navigating peer review
• Review Editing • Point-by-point
checking • Response
Letter Development
• Reformatting
• Press release, news writing
• Media training
• Training for early career researchers
• Training in writing grant proposals
• Grant proposal editing
Section 7
Succeed with Edanz
Succeed with Edanz
S
Overview
• Introduction – what we do, who we are
• How we can help Chulabhorn Hospital
• Using our services
• Using the Chulabhorn Hospital Portal
• How to get maximum value
Succeed with Edanz
S
What we do
Language editing for the academic publishing industry
Support individual authors Work with universities and institutes
Collaborate with publishers
We prepare manuscripts to pass through submission and peer review
Succeed with Edanz
S
Who we are
Edanz
We raise authors’ chances of acceptance
for publication 150,000
80
Succeed with Edanz
S
How are we different?
Native English speakers
Research experience
Publishing experience
In-depth knowledge of the manuscript’s content
Excellent language and editing skills
Our experts
Succeed with Edanz
S
Our experts
Daniel Wheeler 2009 - DM Critical Care and Anaesthesiology, University of Oxford 2006 - PhD Neurobiology, University of Cambridge 1994 - BM BCh Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford • Lecturer and honorary consultant anesthetist at the University of Cambridge • Member of the Royal College of Physicians since 1997 • Published over 40 peer-reviewed papers
Ludovic Croxford 2000 - PhD Medical Immunology, University College London 1994 - BSc Biochemistry and Toxicology, University of Surrey • Multi-disciplinary immunologist with research experience in a wide
range of fields, especially neuroimmunology, autoimmunity and oncology
• Published over 40 peer-reviewed papers, reviews and book chapters in journals including Nature, Nature Immunology and Nature Medicine
Succeed with Edanz
S
Our publishing partnerships
Succeed with Edanz
S
Key people at Edanz
Dr Kate Harris
Senior Editor and Project Manager
Ms Emi Maeda & Ms Aya Irikita
Global Customer Service
Succeed with Edanz
S
To raise the quantity and quality of journal publications from Chulabhorn authors
To support Chulabhorn authors during the publication process
To provide easy and cost-effective access to our high-quality services
How we can help Chulabhorn Hospital
Succeed with Edanz
S
1. Language Editing • Language Edit (compulsory) • Second Edit • Review Edit • Point-by-Point Review & Edit
2. Publication Success Services • Journal Selection
• Expert Scientific Review
• Cover Letter Development
• Reviewer Recommendation
• Abstract Development
• Custom Services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting)
Using our services
Succeed with Edanz Using our services
S Publication
success!
Succeed with Edanz
S
1. Decide which services you need
2. Use the Chulabhorn Hospital Portal
3. Send us all the appropriate files
Using our services
edanzediting.com/portal/chulabhorn-hospital
Succeed with Edanz
S
1. Language Editing • Language Edit • Second edit • Review edit • Point-by-point edit
2. Content services • Journal Selection
• Expert Scientific Review
• Cover Letter Development
• Reviewer Recommendation
• Abstract Development
• Custom Services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting)
Our services
Language Edit:
Edanz edits for grammar, clarity, and accuracy of scientific expression
Edanz helps you clearly communicate the novelty and significance of your research
Edanz edits to the requirements of your target journal
Succeed with Edanz
S
1. Language Editing • Language Edit • Second Edit • Review edit • Point-by-point edit
2. Content services • Journal Selection
• Expert Scientific Review
• Cover Letter Development
• Reviewer Recommendation
• Abstract Development
• Custom Services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting)
Our services
Second Edit:
Strongly recommended!
Send your manuscript back for more help or clarification after Revising your manuscript Adding data Responding to our questions
Succeed with Edanz
S
1. Language Editing • Language Edit • Second Edit • Review Edit • Point-by-point edit
2. Content services • Journal Selection
• Expert Scientific review
• Cover Letter Development
• Reviewer Recommendation
• Abstract Development
• Custom Services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting)
Our services
Review Edit:
After peer review
After you have revised your manuscript according to the peer review comments
Succeed with Edanz
S
1. Language Editing • Language Edit • Second Edit • Review Edit • Point-by-Point Review & Edit
2. Content services • Journal Selection
• Expert Scientific Review
• Cover Letter Development
• Reviewer Recommendation
• Abstract Development
• Custom services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting)
Our services
Point-by-Point Review & Edit:
After peer review
After you have revised your manuscript and drafted your reviewer response letter
Edanz will check your revisions and reviewer responses are appropriate and correct
Succeed with Edanz
S
1. Language Editing Services • Language edit • Second edit • Review edit • Point-by-point edit
2. Content services • Journal Selection
• Expert Scientific Review
• Cover Letter Development
• Reviewer Recommendation
• Abstract Development
• Custom Services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting)
Our services
Journal Selection:
Objective and strategic help in choosing the most appropriate target journal Tell us your preferences (we might not agree!) Tell us the journal submission history
Succeed with Edanz
S
1. Language Editing Services • Language edit • Second edit • Review edit • Point-by-point edit
2. Content services • Journal Selection
• Expert Scientific Review
• Cover Letter Development
• Reviewer Recommendation
• Abstract Development
• Custom Services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting)
Our services
Expert Scientific Review:
Pre-submission peer review
Support for revising a rejected manuscript Expect to make revisions after the review Expect to supply new data or a modified rationale
Succeed with Edanz
S
1. Language Editing • Language Edit • Second Edit • Review edit • Point-by-point edit
2. Content services • Journal Selection
• Expert Scientific Review
• Cover Letter Development
• Reviewer Recommendation
• Abstract Development
• Custom Services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting)
Our services
Cover Letter or Abstract Development, Reviewer Recommendation:
Edanz will prepare an abstract or cover letter based on your manuscript
Edanz will find 4 appropriate peer reviewers
Succeed with Edanz
S
1. Language Editing • Language Edit • Second Edit • Review Edit • Point-by-Point Edit
2. Content services • Journal Selection
• Expert Scientific Review
• Cover Letter Development
• Reviewer Recommendation
• Abstract Development
• Custom Services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting)
Our services
Custom Services:
Rewriting, revising, responding, combining, shortening, etc.
Reformatting for new journal
Need something else? Please let us know!
Succeed with Edanz
S
Our services
1. Language Editing • Language Edit • Second Edit • Review Edit • Point-by-Point Review & Edit
2. Publication Success Services • Journal Selection
• Expert Scientific Review
• Cover Letter Development
• Reviewer Recommendation
• Abstract Development
• Custom Services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting)
Succeed with Edanz
S
Chulabhorn Hospital Portal
edanzediting.com/portal/chulabhorn-hospital
Succeed with Edanz
S
Chulabhorn Hospital Portal
edanzediting.com/portal/chulabhorn-hospital
Succeed with Edanz
S
Process overview
Phase 1: Ordering and approval
What we do
• Edanz team checks files; we might have questions • We might suggest different (or fewer) services • We obtain approval from your institution before
starting work
Succeed with Edanz
S
Process overview
Phase 2: Working with our editor
What we do
• Return first stage in 3 days • Some services have a longer timeline • Organize revisions as needed
Succeed with Edanz
S
You do not personally pay for these services!
Contact us for help or advice
• Use the “Contact us” page on portal
• Send us any files and tell us your situation and your questions
• Ask us if you need any clarification
All fees are paid by Chulabhorn Hospital
Process overview
Succeed with Edanz
S
Always use the Chulabhorn Hospital Portal
Upload all relevant files
Tell us the journal submission history; send us reviewer comments
Tips: • Use Expert Scientific Review and Journal
Selection at the start • After first Language Edit, use Second Edit • Respond to all questions and comments • Revise/reformat when necessary
To get maximum value…
Be an effective communicator
Your goal is not only to publish, but also to be widely read and cited
Plan well before you begin writing Choose the best journal Logically organize your ideas Clearly communicate your ideas Succeed with Edanz
Tom da Costa: [email protected] Trevor Lane: [email protected]
Thank you!
Any questions?
Access our services
edanzediting.com/portal/chulabhorn-hospital
Follow us on Twitter
@EdanzEditing
Like us on Facebook
facebook.com/EdanzEditing