151109 Edanz Kinki

Effectively Communicating Your Research

Kinki University

9 November 2015

Dr Trevor Lane

Dr Eri Kinoshita

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

Succeeding with Edanz

Section 1


Coverage and Staffing Plan Writing skills

Where to start?

Your findings form the basis of your manuscript

First organize your findings

Logic, then English language

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?

Use your illustrations to structure your manuscript

Coverage and Staffing Plan Writing skills 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 {

{

Secondary

research

Primary

research

{ } Experimental (exposure assigned)*

}

} Non-

experimental

*

Coverage and Staffing Plan Writing skills Use reporting guidelines

PRISMA Systematic reviews &

Meta-analyses

STROBE Observational studies

CARE Case reports

CONSORT Randomized controlled

trials

http://www.equator-network.org/

clinicaltrials.gov; who.int/ictrp/network/en; controlled-trials.com; umin.ac.jp/ctr

Coverage and Staffing Plan Writing skills Use reporting guidelines

CONSORT


Coverage and Staffing Plan Writing skills Prepare an outline

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, as IMRaD

Use reporting guidelines

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!

Coverage and Staffing Plan Writing skills Journal Selector

www.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector

Insert your proposed abstract/title or keywords


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

Journal Selector www.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector

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

• Author guidelines • Journal website

Similar abstracts

Coverage and Staffing Plan Writing skills Get feedback

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, and journal style (see guidelines/past papers)

Edit for conciseness, clarity, consistency & accuracy

Get feedback from pre-submission peer review

Get language assistance

Coverage and Staffing Plan Writing skills Avoid mistakes 1

Keep it simple!

Use short sentences 15–20 words; one idea per sentence

Prefer simpler/shorter words

Use active voice Simpler, more direct, and easier to read

Most writing style guides and journals prefer it… “Nature journals prefer authors to write in the active voice”

(http://www.nature.com/authors/author_resources/how_write.html)

Coverage and Staffing Plan Writing skills Avoid mistakes 1

Prefer 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)


“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.”

Avoid mistakes 2

Delete extra words!


Avoid At a concentration of 2 g/L At a temperature of 37C In order to In the first place Four in number Green color Subsequent to Prior to Future plans; past history

Prefer At 2 g/L At 37C To First Four Green After Before Plans; history

Avoid mistakes 2


Estimate Estimation

Decide Decision

Assess Assessment

We made a/an… We conducted a/an… Extra verb

We decided… Clear, short, and direct

Avoid mistakes 3

Don’t hide verbs inside nouns!


Compared with is for saying how 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.

Avoid mistakes 4


Readers expect…

verbs to closely follow their subjects heavy ends (not starts) of clauses

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

Avoid mistakes 5

Activity 1

Please see Activity 1 in your workbook

Section 2


Manuscripts with impact The ‘write’ order

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

Manuscripts with impact

Title/Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Title/Abstract

Methods

Results

Discussion

Introduction

Abstract /Title

write

The ‘write’ order

Manuscripts with impact 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

Manuscripts with impact Writing the Introduction

Currently, the standard procedure used to evaluate hepatic steatosis is the histopathological examination of cross-liver sections… …this is an invasive practice that presents inherent risks... Therefore, it is essential to establish new non-invasive approaches to accurately determine hepatic fat concentration…

Aims

The purpose of our prospective study…was to evaluate the potential of multi-echo MRI to quantitate the hepatic triglyceride concentration.

Problem

Jiménez-Agüero et al. BMC Med. 2014; 12:137.

The aims should directly address the problem


Study design

Methods



How the study was done

• Processes, treatments, measurements, follow-up

• 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

What did you do?

Methods

Manuscripts with impact 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

Manuscripts with impact 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

What did you find?


Drug A reduced tumor volume by 32.7%, increased blood pressure by 12.3%, and increased the patient’s weight by 7.3 kg. Drug B reduced tumor volume by 22.3%, increased blood pressure by 15.6%, and increased the patient’s weight by 2.4 kg. Drug C reduced tumor volume by 38.1%, increased blood pressure by 6.9%, and increased the patient’s weight by 9.2 kg.

Describe relationships among your results


Patients treated with Drug C showed the greatest reduction in tumor volume (28.1%) compared with those treated with Drug A (32.7%) or Drug B (22.3%). Drug C also had the lowest increase in blood pressure (6.9%) compared with that seen after treatment with Drug A (12.3%) or Drug B (15.65). However, patients treated with Drug C had the highest weight gain among the three groups (Drug A, 7.3 kg; Drug B, 2.4 kg; Drug C, 9.2 kg).

Describe relationships among your results

Manuscripts with impact 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?

Manuscripts with impact 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?

Manuscripts with impact 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

Activity 2

Please see Activity 2 in your workbook

Section 3


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 “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


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


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

Customer Service Marketing your work Unstructured abstract

Modified from: Cannegieter et al. Blood. 2015; 125: 229‒235.

Numerous systemic treatment options exist for patients with mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS); however, the comparative efficacy of these treatments is unclear. We performed a retrospective analysis of our cutaneous lymphoma database to evaluate the treatment efficacy of 198 MF/SS patients undergoing systemic therapies. The primary end point was time to next treatment (TTNT). Patients with advanced-stage disease made up 53%. The median follow-up time from diagnosis for all alive patients was 4.9 years (range 0.3‒39.6), with a median survival of 11.4 years. Patients received a median of 3 lines of therapy (range 1‒13), resulting in 709 treatment episodes. Twenty-eight treatment modalities were analyzed. We found that the median TTNT for single- or multiagent chemotherapy was only 3.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.2‒5.1), with few durable remissions. α-interferon gave a median TTNT of 8.7 months (95% CI 6.0-18.0), and histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) gave a median TTNT of 4.5 months (95% CI 4.0‒6.1). When compared directly with chemotherapy, interferon and HDACi both had greater TTNT (P < .00001 and P = .01, respectively). In conclusion, this study confirms that all chemotherapy regimens assessed have very modest efficacy; we recommend their use be restricted until other options are exhausted.

Customer Service Marketing your work

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?

Unstructured abstract


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

Ethics Declarations, Recommended reviewers, Author’s contact information


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

Customer Service Marketing your work Cover letter to the editor

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

Declarations related to publication ethics Source of funding Conflicts of interest

Ethics

Funding

Conflicts of interest

Customer Service Marketing your work Cover letter to the editor

This study is the first to demonstrate that the preoperative mGPS, a simple clinical tool, is a useful prognostic factor for postoperative survival in breast cancer patients undergoing curative resection for liver metastases. This information is immediately clinically applicable for surgeons and medical oncologists treating such patients. As a premier journal covering breast cancer treatment, we believe that Breast Cancer Research and Treatment is the perfect platform from which to share our results with all those concerned with breast cancer.

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

Target your journal – keywords from the Aims and Scope

Relevance

Conclusion/importance

Section 4


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

Reviewer complaints

Common complaints – Introduction

Ideas are not logically organized

Important topics in the Introduction are not mentioned again in the Results/Discussion

Important topics in the Results/Discussion are not mentioned in the Introduction

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

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

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!


Reviewer complaints

Unexpected/negative results not explained

Limitations not discussed

The results are repeated in the Discussion

Conclusions are overgeneralizedons are overgeneralized

Reporting transparency

Establish credibility

Summarize/interpret results

Common complaints – Discussion

Based on presented findings

Section 5



S

Overview

• エダンズのご紹介

• 英文校正・投稿注力サービス

• 近畿大学医学部様向け特別ご提案

• まとめ

北麻美子

エダンズグループジャパン法人チームセールスマネジャー

Succeeding with Edanz エダンズの紹介

国際ジャーナルでの論文採用率を高めます

150,000

80

Succeeding with Edanz エダンズの紹介

BioMed Central社の白書より（2014年11月）


S

エディターの条件

母国語が英語

研究経験

出版実績

専門分野に関する深い知識

高い校正能力と言語能力

エダンズの専門家


S

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

エダンズの専門家


S

近畿大学医学部様への研究サポート

近畿大学医学系研究者から発信される国際論文の質と量を高める

論文出版までの全プロセスにおけるサポート

エダンズの高品質サービスを、簡単に、お得な価格でご提供


S

1. 英文校正サービス • 英文校正 • ２回目の校正 • 再校正 • Point-by-Point チェック＋校正

エダンズのサービス

2. 投稿注力サービス • 目標ジャーナルの選択

• 事前査読

• カバーレターの作成

• 査読者の推薦

• アブストラクトの作成

• カスタムサービス (e.g., リライティング, リフォーマッティング)


S 採用！



S

1. 英文校正

英文校正:

誤った文法を訂正し、科学的な表現の明確性、適切性を高める研究の新規性、有用性をより明確にする目標ジャーナルの投稿規定に沿っているかを確認し、異なる場合はコメントを残す

2回の校正で、著者とエディターの認識を揃え明確性を高める



S

1. 英文校正

再校正:

査読後に修正した原稿に対する英文校正

Point-by-Pointチェック＋校正:

査読後の原稿修正および回答レターのドラフトに対するサービス

論文の修正内容と回答レターの内容が一致しているか、また査読者の各コメントに対応しているかを確認

回答レターおよび修正原稿の英文校正



S

2. 投稿注力サービス

事前査読:

投稿前に、専門家がプレ査読を行い、研究の内容にまで踏み込み原稿を批判的に精査する

目標ジャーナル投稿前に、論文の質をさらに高めるアドバイスを得る

リジェクトされた原稿に関して、修正のためのアドバイスを得る



S

2. 投稿注力サービス

カバーレターの作成:

研究の有用性・新規性を説明した、説得力のあるカバーレターを作成する

査読者の推薦: 論文に好意的なふさわしい査読者を4名まで選出



近畿大学医学部専用ご依頼プラットフォーム

edanzediting.co.jp/kinki_medicine/


• 全サービス10%割引

• クリニシャン・投稿サポートパッケージ ①英文校正 ②事前査読

③査読者の推薦 ④カバーレターの作成各１回ずつご利用可 99,000円（税別・通常価格の15%割引）

近畿大学医学部様特別ご提案

必ず専用ご依頼プラットフォームからお申込みください。作業完了後の請求はすべて（株）近大アシストから行われますの

で、近大アシストにお支払ください。

Succeeding with Edanz 学術セミナー・ワークショップ

インタラクティブ性を重視カスタマイズが可能経験を積んだ講師陣

セミナー開催実績ご紹介 : www.edanzediting.co.jp/past_events

【主なトピック】論文執筆・ジャーナル投稿プレゼンテーション・スキル論文読解法研究倫理論文プロモーションなど

Researchers face challenges on the path to publication success

Preparation

Journal Selection

Writing

Submission

Peer Review

Publication Success

• Read/manage references

• Write outline • Authorship • Peer feedback • Present at

conferences

• Assess research impact

• Compare journals/ publishers

• (Pre-) Submission strategy

• Write/edit in English without plagiarism

• Writing process • Title & Abstract • Follow journal

& reporting guidelines

• Publication ethics

• Display items, supplemental material

• Ethics declarations

• Cover letter • Select reviewers • Navigate

submission systems

• Navigate review process

• Understand editor & reviewers

• Revise paper • Respond to

reviewers, point by point

• Resubmit or submit elsewhere

• Archive/share • Promote work

to (non)-academic community

• Next project/ budget/grant

• Collaborators • Track citations

and altmetrics • Patenting • Update CV

Edanz supports researchers throughout their career

Preparation

Journal Selection

Writing

Submission

Peer Review

Publication Success

• Training in reading papers, ethics, writing, presenting

• Expert Scientific Review

• Expert Scientific Review

• Journal Selection & submission strategy

• Training in ethics, writing, presenting

• Editing • Reformatting • Abstract

Development • Guided

rewriting

• Training in ethics, writing, presenting

• Editing • Cover Letter

Development • Reviewer Rec-

ommendation

• Training in navigating peer review

• Review Editing • Point-by-point

checking • Response

Letter Development

• Reformatting

• Press release, news writing

• Media training

• Training for early career researchers

• Training in writing grant proposals

• Grant proposal editing

S

Be an effective communicator

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






Thank you!

Any questions?

Follow us on Twitter

@EdanzEditing

近畿大学医学部・大学院医学研究科専用ご依頼プラットフォーム

edanzediting.co.jp/kinki_medicine/

Download and further reading edanzediting.co.jp/kinki1511

Trevor Lane: [email protected] Eri Kinoshita: [email protected]

Mamiko Kita: [email protected]

Like us on Facebook

facebook.com/EdanzEditing

Education

151109 Edanz Kinki