Download pdf - 160302 Edanz Hokkaido Day2 Afternoon

Hokkaido University

2 March 2016

Trevor Lane, PhD Kate Harris, PhD

Author Success Workshop: Effectively Communicating Your Research

S

Be an effective communicator

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

Publish ethically Promote your research to the journal

editor and reviewers Promote your research to others

Adhere to publication ethics

Section 1

Customer Service Publication ethics Good publication ethics

Submissions

Plagiarism

Data manipulation

Authorship

Submit to only one journal at a time; do not republish the same paper; no salami

Paraphrase and cite all sources

Do not fabricate or falsify data; do not manipulate parts of images

All authors are true authors, approve of final manuscript, approve of target journal

Funding & COIs Disclose any funding and financial/personal

relationships

Safety Humans: Approval, signed consent, privacy;

animal and environmental safety

Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE

Customer Service Publication ethics Four criteria for authorship

1. Substantial contribution to study design, or data collection/analysis/interpretation

2. Writing or revising the manuscript

3. Approval of final version

4. Responsible for all content (accuracy and integrity)

http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

Customer Service Publication ethics Gift/ghost authorship

Making someone an author when they do not deserve it (friends, colleagues, etc.)

Gift authorship

• Try to make paper more prestigious by adding a “big name” • Adding the department head to every paper from their department • Thanking someone for a contributed material

Not making someone an author when they do deserve it

Ghost authorship • Hide conflict of interest by excluding an author (e.g., company

employee); hide contribution by junior members (e.g., students) [People who helped write the paper should be included in the Acknowledgements or else they are “ghost writers”]

Customer Service Publication ethics Acknowledgements

Nugraha et al. Biomaterials. 2011; 32: 6982–6994.

Thank those who have made positive contributions

Funding agencies (some journals have a

separate Funding section)

Customer Service Publication ethics

What are they?

Conflicts of interest (COIs)

Financial or personal relationships that may bias your research

Being objective is essential in scientific research

Customer Service Publication ethics Personal COIs

You are researching a new drug, and your spouse works for the drug company

Biased for personal reasons

You are writing a review on animal research, and you are an active member of PETA*

*People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Customer Service Publication ethics Financial COIs

You are researching a new material, and…

• an author works for the company making the material

• the company funded your study

• an author owns stock in the company

Biased for financial reasons


A company is funding your research

Avoiding conflicts of interest

What should you do?

• State the company’s role in the study design • State the company’s role in data analysis • State the company’s role in manuscript writing • Should be disclosed in the cover letter

Some journals will ask you to include a statement such as: “I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility

for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis”*

*http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/ author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html


An author works at the company

Avoiding conflicts of interest

What should you do?

• Ensure study design not unfairly manipulated • Ensure author is blinded during data analysis • Restrict role of the author in manuscript writing • Should be addressed BEFORE study begins! • Should be disclosed in the cover letter

Customer Service Publication ethics Does disclosing COIs lead to rejection?

No! It makes the journal editor aware of the COIs and confident that you were not biased in your study

Not declaring a COI during submission may lead to the rejection or retraction of your paper

Journal editors may or may not publish these COIs along with your article

Customer Service Publication ethics Sequential submissions

Author Editor Reviewer 1 wk

4 wks 2 wks

Total ~2 months

3 journals = over 6 months!

Customer Service Publication ethics Multiple submissions

Author Editor2 Reviewer2

3 journals = ~2 months!

Editor1 Reviewer1

Editor3 Reviewer3

You must submit your manuscript to only one journal at a time

Customer Service Publication ethics Why is it unethical?

Wastes editors’ time & resources

• After first acceptance, have to withdraw submission from the others

• Damages your reputation with publishers

Duplicate publication • It will be noticed in the field; copyright problems • One or both articles may be retracted • Wastes time and damages your reputation with both

the publisher and your peers


You can submit to another journal only if:

You have been rejected by the first journal You have formally withdrawn the submission

When can you submit to another journal?

Customer Service Publication ethics Can you publish a paper translated into English?

What do you need to do?

1. Obtain permission from the first publisher

2. Tell journal editor of English journal: – You already obtained permission to re-publish – Why necessary to publish in English

3. Cite the original publication

Note: many journal editors will not be interested in publishing non-original articles

Customer Service Publication ethics Salami publishing

Don’t slice your research to increase your

publication output!

One study

4 publications

Why unethical? Readers will not have access to all the relevant information to

critically evaluate the study

Customer Service Publication ethics Salami publishing

One study

4 publications

Same sample population Same controls Experiments concurrent Dependent results

Distinct populations Different controls Experiments sequential Independent results

One larger paper will have more impact in the field and more citations!


Makes readers think others’ words or ideas are your own

Copying published text (even with a citation)

Stating ideas of someone else without citing the source

Plagiarism


Copying text that you have written and published before into your manuscript

Self-plagiarism

May violate copyright

Makes readers think you are presenting something new


Expressing published ideas using different words

Paraphrasing

Tips on paraphrasing:

• Write the text first into another language, and then later translate back into English

• Verbally explain ideas to a colleague • Name a published method and cite it • Consider text location

– Introduction vs. Discussion

Customer Service Publication ethics Paraphrasing tips

Vary sentence structure to avoid patchwriting or listing Vary sentence structure to avoid patchwriting or listing

Change voice, rhythm, style

Separate/join sentences

Discourse markers Coincidentally; Also in agreement; Indeed

Join 2 sentences (semicolon, colon for a reason/list, or by subordination); alternate short/long sentences

Active to passive, or passive to active; negative to positive, or positive to negative;

invert word or sentence order

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

Introductory phrase According to X’s method,…; In X’s study,…; X

showed/reported…; When X…

Change word class An altered direction -> A directional change

Customer Service Publication ethics Good paraphrasing

24. Li et al. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8: e68372.

“The magnitude of the change in carbon storage depends on how physical, chemical, or biological processes are altered over time under different land uses.”

The size of the carbon storage change depends on how physical, chemical, or biological processes are changed over time under different land uses.24

Temporal changes in biological, chemical, or physical processes under different land uses can influence the size of the carbon storage change.24

Please see Activity 1 in your Workbook

Activity 1: Publication ethics

Select the best journal

Section 2

Journal selection

Increase impact

High quality research

Logical, engaging, useful message

Original and novel research

Well-designed, well-reported,

transparent study News value, importance, timeliness

What editors want

High scientific & technical quality, appropriate & clear methods,

sound research & publication ethics

High readability & interest; clear, real-

world relevance

Impact factor (past 2 years) = No. of citations / No. of articles

Journal selection Choose your journal early!

Author guidelines • Manuscript structure • Word limits, References • Procedures, Copyright

Aims and scope • Topics • Readership • Be sure to emphasize

• Learn journal writing style • Check relevant references • Check originality, importance & usefulness!

Journal selection Evaluating impact

How new/important are your findings? How strong is the evidence?

Incremental or large advance? Low or high impact journal

Novelty

Assess your findings honestly & objectively

Create new algorithm for detecting and filtering spam • Medium to high impact factor journal Improve the accuracy and efficiency of an existing spam filter • Low to medium impact factor journal

Journal selection Evaluating impact

How broadly relevant are your findings? International or regional journal

General or specialized journal

Relevance/Application

Aims & scope, Readership

Assess your findings honestly & objectively

Journal selection Factors to consider when choosing a journal

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

Cascading review; Fast track

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

• Can self-archive accepted version in personal, university, or repository website

• May allow final version to be archived

• May have embargo period before self-archiving is allowed

Gold • Free for public on publication • Author might keep © but may

pay (e.g., US$1000–3000)

Journal selection Open access myths

Open access (OA) is expensive and low quality

• Not all OA journals charge a fee

• Many research grants and universities pay for OA fees

• Journals may offer waiver for authors who cannot afford it

• OA journals are peer reviewed

• Impact factors may be lower partly because they are newer

Journal selection Predatory journals

Some Open Access journals are not good

Easy way to get money from 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 be of 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

THINK Trusted and appropriate?

SUBMIT Only if OK

thinkchecksubmit.org

CHECK Do you know the journal?

Trustworthy journals

Journal selection Journal Selector www.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector

Insert your proposed abstract or keywords

Journal selection Journal Selector www.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector

Filter/sort by: • Field of study • Impact factor • Indexed in SCI • Open access • Publishing frequency

Journal’s aims & scope, IF, and publication frequency

• Author guidelines • Journal website

Similar abstracts


Activity 2: Journal Selection

Make a good first impression with your

cover letter

Section 3

Coverage and Staffing Plan

Communicating with journals

First impression for journal editors

Timeliness, Uniqueness, Relevance

Writing style Interesting to their readers?

Why your work is important!

Cover letters



Dear Dr Struman,

Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled “Evaluation of ICT in Glasgow prognostic scoring in patients undergoing curative

resection for liver metastases,” which we would like to submit for publication as an Original Article in the International Medical

ICT Journal.

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) using an ICT platform in these patients. The present study evaluated the mGPS using ICT 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 using ICT 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 via a simple ICT tool is a useful prognostic factor for postoperative survival in cancer patients undergoing curative resection. This information is immediately clinically applicable for surgeons as well as hospital information and patient record systems and health care protocol developers. As a premier journal covering ICT in health care, we believe that the International Medical ICT Journal is the perfect platform from which to share our results with all those concerned with ICT use in cancer management.

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

Declarations on publication ethics Suggested reviewers Contact information


Communicating with journals Cover letter to the editor

However, …an alternative approach… …presents a new challenge …a need for clarification… …a problem/weakness with… …has not been dealt with… …remains unstudied …requires clarification …is not sufficiently (+ adjective) …is ineffective/inaccurate/inadequate/inconclusive/incorrect/unclear Few studies have… There is an urgent need to… There is growing concern that… Little evidence is available on… It is necessary to… Little work has been done on…

Key phrases: Problem statement (para 2)



Highlight recent issues in the media

“Given the considerable attention climate change has received worldwide, it will be important to…”

Highlight recent policy changes

“Recently, the Japanese government has implemented new incentives to promote entrepreneurship …”

Highlight recently published articles in

their journal

“It has recently been reported in your journal that wind turbines produce the cleanest form of energy. However, their efficiency still remains a problem…”

Highlight current controversies

“Currently, there is disagreement on the maximum efficiency of solar cells. Our study aims to address this controversy…”



This study is the first to demonstrate that the preoperative mGPS via a simple ICT tool is a useful prognostic factor for postoperative survival in cancer patients undergoing curative resection. This information is immediately clinically applicable for surgeons as well as hospital information and patient record systems and health care protocol developers. As a premier journal covering ICT in health care, we believe that the International Medical ICT Journal is the perfect platform from which to share our results with all those concerned with ICT use in cancer management.

Why interesting to the journal’s readership (para 4)

Target your journal – keywords from the Aims and Scope

Conclusion

Relevance



We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with submission to the International Medical ICT Journal. This study was funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Must include:

Declarations related to publication ethics Source of funding Conflicts of interest

Ethics

Funding

Conflicts of interest


Communicating with journals Special cover letters

Reason for Fast Track

Timeliness, broad importance for society, urgency Interest to broad community Novelty, originality, high quality Contribution to field/literature, new insights/ideas Separate letter, or statement in cover letter? Statement within article (25–250 words)? Include statement in Abstract? Can sometimes be followed by “full paper”

Fast track…e.g., peer review in 2–5 weeks, but limitations on word count/figures


Communicating with journals Special cover letters

Combined declaration + rapid review request

We confirm that this manuscript is original, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under consideration by another journal other than International Medical ICT Journal. Our ICT-linked algorithm is the first one to be used prognostically in oncology. No other studies have been published on ICT as a prognostic factor for postoperative survival in cancer patients undergoing curative resection.

[Details of specific features]…We thus believe our article would make an immediately useful contribution to the literature and to clinical practice, and to readers of International Medical ICT Journal.

Ethics

General features

Specific features & call to action

Declarations related to publication ethics Reason for rapid review



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



Be careful who you recommend!


Activity 3: Cover letters

Navigating peer review

Section 4

Customer Service Peer review Peer review process

Submission Peer

review Revision Publication

~1 week 4–6 weeks 0–8 weeks ?

How can I make the process quicker?

3–12 months

• Follow author guidelines • Prepare a cover letter • Recommend reviewers

• Fully revise manuscript • Respond to all comments • Adhere to deadlines; ask

for extensions in advance

• Evaluation • Finding

reviewers

Customer Service Peer review Peer review models

Blinded/ masked?

• Single-blind: Reviewers’ names not revealed to authors

• Double-/Triple-blind: Anonymous • Open: All names revealed • Transparent: Reviews published

with paper • Fast Track: Expedited if public

emergency

Customer Service Peer review Peer review models

Other models

• Portable/Transferable/Cascading: Manuscript & reviews passed along

• Collaborative: Reviewers (& authors) engage with each other

• Post-publication: Online public review

• Pre-submission: Reviews may be passed to editor

http://arxiv.org: Preprints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance, Statistics; may later go to a peer-reviewed journal

http://arxiv.org/

http://arxiv.org/

Customer Service Peer review What reviewers are looking for

The science

The manuscript

Relevant hypothesis Good experimental design Appropriate methodology Good data analysis Valid conclusions

Logical flow of information Manuscript structure and formatting Appropriate references High readability ……Peer review is a positive process!

Customer Service Peer review

Group similar comments together

Organize the reviewers’ comments

Reviewer 1: “Redraw the chemical formulae as Lewis structures.”

Reviewer 3: “Redraw the chemical formulae as skeletal (line-angle) formulae.”

Note: the comments of one reviewer may affect the comments of another

• Lewis structures: no stereochemistry • Skeletal formulae: stereochemistry

Intro/Discussion Methods/Results References

Customer Service Peer review Decision letter

Ideas are not logically organized; Poor presentation

Purpose and relevance are unclear

Topics in the Results/Discussion are not in the Introduction

Methods are unclear (variables, missing data)

Not discussed: Negative results, limitations, implications

Discussion has repeated results; Conclusions too general

Cited studies are not up-to-date

Common reviewer complaints

Customer Service Peer review 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 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)

Customer Service Peer review Decision letter 1

10 January 2015

Dear Dr. Wong,

Manuscript ID JOS-11-7739: “Prediction of the largest peak nonlinear seismic response of asymmetric structures under bi-directional excitation”

Your manuscript has been reviewed, and we regret to inform you that based on our Expert reviewers’ comments, it is not possible to further consider your manuscript in its current form for publication in the Journal of Seismology.

Although the reviews are not entirely negative, it is evident from the extensive comments and concerns that the manuscript, in its current form, does not meet the criteria expected of papers in the Journal of Seismology. The results appear to be too preliminary and incomplete for publication at the present time.

The reviewer comments are included at the bottom of this letter. I hope the information provided by the reviewers will be helpful to revise your manuscript in future. Thank you for your interest in the journal.

Decision

Reason

Comments


The Reviewer comments are not entirely negative.

It is not possible to consider your manuscript in its current form.

I hope the information provided will be helpful to revise your manuscript in the future.

I regret that the outcome has not been favorable at this time.

Editor may be interested in your work


We cannot publish your manuscript

Your study does not contain novel results that merit publication in our journal.

We appreciate your interest in our journal. However, we will not further consider your manuscript for publication.

We wish you luck in publishing your results elsewhere.

Editor is not interested in your work


10 January 2015

Dear Dr. Wong,

Manuscript ID JOS-11-7739: “Prediction of the largest peak nonlinear seismic response of asymmetric structures under bi-directional excitation”

Your manuscript has been reviewed, and we believe that after revision your manuscript may become suitable for publication in Journal of Seismology. The reviewer concerns are included at the bottom of this letter.

You can submit a revised manuscript that takes into consideration these comments. You will also need to include a detailed commentary of the changes made. Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission may be subject to re-review by the reviewers before a decision is made.

To revise your manuscript, log into https://www.editorialmanager.com/JSeis/ and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

…

Decision

How to re-submit


…You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using bold or colored text. Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Center.

When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to JSE, your revised manuscript should be uploaded by 10 May. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Journal of Seismology and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

How to respond

Due date for resubmission

Customer Service Peer review Reviewer response letter

Respond to every reviewer comment

Easy for editor & reviewers to

see changes

• Revise and keep to the deadline; be polite • Restate reviewer’s comment • Refer to line and page numbers

Use a different color font

Highlight the text

Strikethrough font for deletions

Customer Service Peer review Reviewer response letter

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

Response: We agree with the Reviewer’s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We describe our new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results section (Page 6, Lines 12–18).

Agreement

Revisions Location

Why agree


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).

Disagree with evidence

Revisions

Location

Reviewer response letter


Reviewer comment: Currently, the authors’ conclusion is based on multiple imputation calculations for 50 proteins but with incomplete expression data. They should do additional imputations after comparing 500 proteins based on a prior case-control study.

Reasons why reviewers might make these comments

Current results are not appropriate for the scope or impact factor of the journal

Reviewer is being “unfair”

“Unfair” reviewer comments


What you should do

First, contact the journal editor if you feel the reviewer is being unfair

Do the experiments, revise, and resubmit • Prepare point-by-point responses • Include the original manuscript ID number

Formally withdraw submission and resubmit to a journal with a different scope or lower impact factor • Revise & reformat according to the author guidelines

“Unfair” reviewer comments


Activity 4: Peer review

Promote your research after publication

Section 5


Publicize 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


Publicize your work

Presenting after you publish

Advantages

Actively promote your article

Advice on future directions

Networking with researchers/media

Networking with journal editors


Publicize 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


Publicize your work Your multiple audiences

Everyone evaluates your study…and you

Pre- and post-publication impact

• 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!


Publicize your work Match your audience

Pre- and post-publication impact

IMRaD research article

(journals,

posters, slides)

Hard news

(conclusion as “lede”)

(press

releases)

Hard news, delayed

lede

Hard news + kicker

Soft news/

Feature story

(news-letters)

Hard news, delayed lede + kicker

Only after journal publication!



Writing for the public

Hard news

Newsworthiness: why care? PITCH…

• Proximity • Impact • Timeliness • Conflict • Human interest (e.g., unexpectedness)




Hard news

Heading

• Can say “new”; can use subheading • Name the source/people

Conclusion first (lede/top line) • Name the source/people • Implications or importance as a quote

Results before Methods; use bullets Background last End with a quote




Hard news

6WHs

• Who? • What? • Where? • Why? • When? • How?

Keep the lede short (15-20 words) 300-400 words; short paragraphs Background info in Notes



Elements of a press release

Hard news

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (or Embargo date) Dateline, city name Quotes on insights, from named experts; no

repetition! Include keywords Contact info in Notes Include full citation; name journal / evidence

level in the text End with END or ENDS or ### or -30-



Who to target

Hard news

International media (traditional, online) International news agency National media Local media (local community) Specialist news agency/hub (e.g., EurekAlert) Specialist media (practitioners) Consumer media Institution / academic society Interest group / social media / blogs


Activity 5: Publicizing your work

Thank you!

Any questions?

Follow us on Twitter

@EdanzEditing

Like us on Facebook

facebook.com/EdanzEditing

Download and further reading edanzediting.co.jp/hokkaido1603

Trevor Lane: [email protected] Kate Harris: [email protected]