20150929 Edanz Chulabhorn

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


Always follow ethics guidelines

Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE

Good Publication Practice 3, GPP3

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors , ICMJE

)


Declare in your cover letter…

Not submitted to other journals

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Original and unpublished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


Matching journals

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

frequency

Journal’s aims & scope, IF,

and publication frequency


• 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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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”


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


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


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.


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?


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


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



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



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 interesting to the journal’s readership (para 4)

Target your journal – keywords from the Aims and Scope

Conclusion

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



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!


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


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


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)


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



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



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 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



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



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


work

Presenting after you publish

Advantages

Actively promote your article

Advice on future directions

Networking with researchers

Networking with journal editors


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


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


• 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


• 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






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







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


• Expert Scientific review





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






• 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







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







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







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







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






Succeed with Edanz

S

Chulabhorn Hospital Portal


Succeed with Edanz

S

Chulabhorn Hospital Portal


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


Follow us on Twitter

@EdanzEditing

Like us on Facebook

facebook.com/EdanzEditing