section 3progress seen over recent decades in methods that combine non-linear static (pushover)...

Section 3

Making the best first impression

Customer Service Marketing your work Title and abstract

First impression of paper: clear/concise/convincing

Importance of your results

Validity of your conclusions

Relevance of your aims

It sells your work: Readers judge your style & credibility

Often first/only part that is read by

readers & reviewers

Your title & abstract summarize your study


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, jargon “New” or “novel”

Customer Service Marketing your work

Interrogative Does a hot drink provide faster

absorption of paracetamol than a tablet?

Indicative/ Descriptive

Bulk and surface properties of liquid Al-Li and Li-Zn alloys

… + Method in subtitle

Xxxxxxx: a randomised longitudinal fMRI study

Assertive/ Declarative

β-Adrenoceptor blockade modulates fusiform gyrus activity to black versus

white faces / Retardation of plastic instability via damage-enabled

microstrain delocalization

Pharm Res; Psychopharmacol; J Mater Sci; Metall Mater Trans A

Title and abstract

Title


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 synonyms

Cite your previous publications when relevant

*From PsycINFO, BIOSIS, ChemWeb, ERIC Thesaurus, GeoRef, MeSH, etc


Context Background, problem, aim

Results Outcomes, effects,

statistics & key data

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


Biomedical abstracts (structured)

Purpose Influenza CD8+ T-cell epitopes are conserved amongst influenza strains and can be recognized by influenza-specific cytotoxic T-cells (CTLs). An influenza peptide vaccine eliciting these CTLs would therefore be an alternative to current influenza vaccines, which are not cross-reactive. However, peptide antigens are poorly immunogenic due to poor delivery to antigen presenting cells. In this study, we investigated the potential of virosomes as a delivery system for influenza T-cell peptides. Methods The conserved human HLA-A2.1 influenza T-cell epitope M158–66 was formulated with virosomes. We assessed the immunogenicity and protective effect of the peptide-loaded virosomes in HLA-A2 transgenic mice. Delivery properties of the virosomes were studied in mice and in vitro dendritic cell cultures. Results Immunization of HLA-A2.1 transgenic C57BL/6 mice with peptide-loaded virosomes in the presence of the adjuvant CpG-ODN 1826 increased the number of peptide-specific CTLs. Vaccination with adjuvanted peptide-loaded virosomes reduced weight loss in mice after heterologous influenza infection. Association with fusion-active virosomes was found to be crucial for antigen uptake by dendritic cells, and subsequent induction of CTLs in mice. Conclusions These results show that influenza virosomes loaded with conserved influenza epitopes could be the basis of a novel cross-protective influenza vaccine.

Modified from: Soema et al. Pharm Res. 2015; 32: 1505–1515.


Biomedical abstracts (structured)

Purpose Influenza CD8+ T-cell epitopes are conserved amongst influenza strains and can be recognized by influenza-specific cytotoxic T-cells (CTLs). An influenza peptide vaccine eliciting these CTLs would therefore be an alternative to current influenza vaccines, which are not cross-reactive. However, peptide antigens are poorly immunogenic due to poor delivery to antigen presenting cells. In this study, we investigated the potential of virosomes as a delivery system for influenza T-cell peptides. Methods The conserved human HLA-A2.1 influenza T-cell epitope M158–66 was formulated with virosomes. We assessed the immunogenicity and protective effect of the peptide-loaded virosomes in HLA-A2 transgenic mice. Delivery properties of the virosomes were studied in mice and in vitro dendritic cell cultures. Results Immunization of HLA-A2.1 transgenic C57BL/6 mice with peptide-loaded virosomes in the presence of the adjuvant CpG-ODN 1826 increased the number of peptide-specific CTLs. Vaccination with adjuvanted peptide-loaded virosomes reduced weight loss in mice after heterologous influenza infection. Association with fusion-active virosomes was found to be crucial for antigen uptake by dendritic cells, and subsequent induction of CTLs in mice. Conclusions These results show that influenza virosomes loaded with conserved influenza epitopes could be the basis of a novel cross-protective influenza vaccine.

Modified from: Soema et al. Pharm Res. 2015; 32: 1505–1515.

Why study is needed

What you did

What you found

How you advance the field


Physical science abstracts (unstructured)

Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is widely used as an important model system for investigating inorganic precipitation reaction or crystallization. However, recent results show that the yield of vaterite CaCO3 microspheres is poor—up to 16 mM—in ethanol/water in the presence of polyelectrolyte poly(sodium 4-styrenesulfate) (PSS). We now report an approach to synthesize pure vaterite CaCO3 microspheres through improving the concentration of polymer PSS, improving the yield up to 80 mM. Our time-resolved experimental results revealed that the vaterite microspheres evolved gradually from an initial amorphous precursor, to poorly crystallized nanoparticles, to sphere-like aggregates, to vaterite microspheres embedded within the calcite rhombohedra, and finally to the vaterite microspheres with smooth surface. Our findings provide valuable insight into the formation of vaterite CaCO3 microspheres and demonstrate the possibility for large-scale synthesis of CaCO3 materials with controllable morphology and crystallographic structure in aqueous solution at room temperature.

Modified from: Zhang et al. J Mater Science. 2015; 50: 5540–5548.


Physical science abstracts (unstructured)

Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is widely used as an important model system for investigating inorganic precipitation reaction or crystallization. However, recent results show that the yield of vaterite CaCO3 microspheres is poor—up to 16 mM—in ethanol/water in the presence of polyelectrolyte poly(sodium 4-styrenesulfate) (PSS). We now report an approach to synthesize pure vaterite CaCO3 microspheres through improving the concentration of polymer PSS, improving the yield up to 80 mM. Our time-resolved experimental results revealed that the vaterite microspheres evolved gradually from an initial amorphous precursor, to poorly crystallized nanoparticles, to sphere-like aggregates, to vaterite microspheres embedded within the calcite rhombohedra, and finally to the vaterite microspheres with smooth surface. Our findings provide valuable insight into the formation of vaterite CaCO3 microspheres and demonstrate the possibility for large-scale synthesis of CaCO3 materials with controllable morphology and crystallographic structure in aqueous solution at room temperature.

Modified from: Zhang et al. J Mater Science. 2015; 50: 5540–5548.

Why study is needed

What you did

What you found

How you advance the field

Customer Service Marketing your work Tips for the abstract

S

(1) Ensure all information matches that in main text

(2) Don’t copy/paste from main text; paraphrase using:

Change voice, rhythm, style

Separate/join sentences

Discourse markers Additionally, Furthermore, In contrast

Split sentences by recasting conjunctions; join 2 sentences with a semicolon (;) or use

subordination

Active to passive, or passive to active; alternate short/long sentences; invert order

Sentence logic Either/or; neither/nor; not only, but also

Introductory phrase According to; When; We found that

Change word class An altered direction -> A directional change

S

Steps to improve your abstract

(5) Paraphrase from main text

Class abstracts activity

Change voice, rhythm, style

Separate/join sentences

Discourse markers Additionally, Furthermore, In contrast

Recast conjunctions; join 2 sentences with a semicolon (;) or use subordination

Active to passive, or passive to active; alternate short/long sentences; invert order

Sentence logic Either/or; neither/nor; not only, but also

Introductory phrase According to; When; We found that

Change word class An altered direction -> A directional change

Customer Service Marketing your work A good cover letter

Dear Dr García-Fernández,

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

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

Assessing the seismic performance of asymmetric structures is challenging because of their elevation irregularities. Various methods have been proposed to estimate the peak response of asymmetric structures to seismic motion, with considerable progress seen over recent decades in methods that combine non-linear static (pushover) analysis of a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) mathematical model with the response spectrum analysis of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) model. In this study, we improve an earlier nonlinear analysis method by determining the nonlinear properties of two independent equivalent SDOF models based on the principal direction of the first modal response of the structure in each nonlinear stage. This is determined based on the results of the pushover analysis of the structure. The largest peak response is then estimated by combining the analysis of the two modal responses. Previous methods rely on the elastic mode shape for estimating the seismic response, where a change in mode shape can markedly alter the results. By contrast, the current method takes into account changes in the principal direction of the first modal response, allowing for a more reliable estimation of the response of asymmetric structures to ground motion acting at an arbitrary angle of incidence. We believe the findings presented here would be of considerable interest to the readers of the Journal of Seismology. The implementation of seismic performance evaluation is expanding worldwide, and the evaluation methods are improving with the progress of computational methods. These recent advancements, including those presented here, have implications in many fields related to seismology including building engineering, mining and exploration, and seismic hazards, all of which are of interest to your readers.

Why study needs to be

done

What was done and what

was found

Interest to journal’s readers

We would also like to suggest the following reviewers for our manuscript…

Editor’s name Manuscript title

Article type

Recommend reviewers / non-reviewers

Customer Service Marketing your work Cover letter to the editor

Other important information:

Recommended reviewers Author’s contact information

We would like to recommend the following reviewers to evaluate our manuscript: 1. Reviewer 1 and contact information 2. Reviewer 2 and contact information 3. Reviewer 3 and contact information 4. Reviewer 4 and contact information Please address all correspondence to:

Reviewers

Contact information

Can also exclude reviewers


We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with submission to the Journal of Economic Research & Practice. 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


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)


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


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

Activity 3

Please see Activity 3 in your workbook

Section 4

Avoiding common peer reviewer complaints

Reviewer complaints

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!

Reviewer complaints

Common complaints – Introduction

Ideas are not logically organized

Introduce topics that are not discussed in Results/Discussion

Not introduce important topics that are discussed in Results/Discussion

Cited studies are not up-to-date

Cited studies are geographically biased

Why study needs to be done?

Keep focused

Write last

<5 years

International

Reviewer complaints

Common complaints – Methods

Transparency in study design

Sample size not large enough (no power calculation)

Patient enrollment, exclusion, & randomization unclear

Interventions and assessments not clearly described

Unclear how missing data (lost to follow-up) were handled

Ethical approval and informed consent (x2 ) not clear

Consult a statistician

Use flowchart

Reproducibility

Imputation methods

Always required

Reviewer complaints

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

• Use 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


Reviewer complaints

2 categorical endpoints

Paired (within sample)

Unpaired (between sample)

McNemar’s test

Fisher’s exact test 2 treatment groups

*for sample sizes > 60

Chi-square test* >2 treatment groups

du Prel et al. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010; 107: 343–8.


Reviewer complaints

Continuous endpoints

Parametric Nonparametric

Paired Unpaired Paired Unpaired

2 groups: Paired t test

>2 groups: Repeated-

measures ANOVA

2 groups: Unpaired t test

>2 groups: ANOVA (F test)

2 groups: Wilcoxon signed-

rank test

>2 groups: Friedman

one-way ANOVA

2 groups: Mann–Whitney U test (Wilcoxon

rank-sum test )

>2 groups: Kruskal–Wallis

test

Lang and Secic 1997; 71.


Reviewer complaints

Statistical significance does not equal clinical significance!

“When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals).”

http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html

“Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as P values, which fail to convey important information about effect size and precision of estimates.”

Common complaints – Results

Reviewer complaints

“Drug A significantly reduced LDL cholesterol by 28% (p<0.05). Therefore, Drug A is effective in reducing cholesterol levels…”

• How much is 28%? Is this clinically relevant? • How does this effect generalize to the population? What is

the 95% CI?


Statistical significance does not equal clinical significance!

Reviewer complaints

“Drug A significantly reduced LDL cholesterol levels from 4.7±0.3 mmol/L to 3.4±0.6 mmol/L (p=0.02, 95% CI: 0.8–1.8). Because a minimal reduction of 1.4 mmol/L is required to be clinically effective, the efficacy of Drug A is still unclear.”

• Use absolute values • State exact P-value • State 95% CI and minimal clinically relevant difference


Reviewer complaints

Some teachers reported that they developed an understanding of what ICT is and the way technology can enhance teaching and learning of difficult science concepts through the collaborative design of science lessons in teams. “I developed an understanding of how ICT can be applied in the design and teaching of a technology-enhanced lesson,” said one of the pre-service teachers.

• Match qualitative data to the claim • “Tell” and “Show”


Modified from: Kafyulilo et al. Educ Inf Technol. 5 May 2015; DOI 10.1007/s10639-015-9398-0

Topic sentences are unsupported!

Reviewer complaints

Common complaints – Discussion

Unexpected/negative results not explained

Limitations not discussed

The results are repeated in the Discussion

Conclusions are overgeneralized

Reporting transparency

Establish credibility

Summarize/interpret results

We showed that tumor volumes in Groups A, B, and C were 34.6, 74.2, and 53.9 mm3, respectively, after a 4-month drug treatment, reflecting only a 8.6% decrease. However, after a 12-month drug treatment, the tumor volumes in Groups A, B, and C were 16.3, 18.7, and 16.9 mm3, respectively, which reflects a 45.2% decrease (p<0.05). This demonstrates that a 12-month treatment is necessary for the drug to effectively reduce tumor size among the three groups.

Reviewer complaints








The results presented in this study demonstrate that Drug X more effectively reduces tumor size after 12 months of treatment (45.2% reduction) than it does after 4 months (8.6% reduction).


Reviewer complaints








Based on presented findings

“Our results showing the efficacy of this treatment in preventing recurring myocardial infarctions in obese Japanese patients demonstrate that this treatment should be implemented in other populations with high cardiovascular risk.”


Reviewer complaints








Based on presented findings

“Our results showing the efficacy of this treatment in preventing recurring myocardial infarctions in obese Japanese patients suggest that this treatment may be useful in other obese populations with high cardiovascular risk.”


Reviewer complaints 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

Reviewer complaints 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

Reviewer complaints

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

Response: It’s very clear that you’re not familiar with the current analytical methods in the field. I recommend that you identify a more suitable reviewer for my manuscript now.

Reviewer response letter

Reviewer complaints

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

S

Be an effective communicator

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

Developing advanced writing skills

Logically communicating your ideas in your manuscript

Making the best first impression

Avoiding common peer reviewer complaints

Thank you!

Any questions?

Follow us on Twitter

@EdanzEditing

Like us on Facebook

facebook.com/EdanzEditing

Download and further reading edanzediting.co.jp/kyushu1211

Trevor Lane: [email protected] Ayli Chong: [email protected]

section 3progress seen over recent decades in methods that combine non-linear static (pushover)...

Documents