of 85/85
Hokkaido University 2 March 2016 Trevor Lane, PhD Kate Harris, PhD Author Success Workshop: Effectively Communicating Your Research

160302 Edanz Hokkaido Day2 Afternoon

  • View
    224

  • Download
    7

Embed Size (px)

Text of 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: 69826994.

    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

  • Customer Service Publication ethics

    A company is funding your research

    Avoiding conflicts of interest

    What should you do?

    State the companys role in the study design State the companys role in data analysis State the companys 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

  • Customer Service Publication ethics

    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

  • Customer Service Publication ethics

    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

    Dont 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!

  • Customer Service Publication ethics

    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

  • Customer Service Publication ethics

    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

  • Customer Service Publication ethics

    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 Xs method,; In Xs 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$10003000)

  • 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 Bealls 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

    Journals aims & scope, IF, and publication frequency

    Author guidelines Journal website

    Similar abstracts

  • Please see Activity 2 in your Workbook

    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

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    Communicating with journals

    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 journals readers

    Cover letter to the editor

    Editors name Manuscript title

    Article type

    Declarations on publication ethics Suggested reviewers Contact information

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    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)

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    Communicating with journals Cover letter to the editor

    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

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    Communicating with journals Cover letter to the editor

    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 journals readership (para 4)

    Target your journal keywords from the Aims and Scope

    Conclusion

    Relevance

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    Communicating with journals Cover letter to the editor

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

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    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 (25250 words)? Include statement in Abstract? Can sometimes be followed by full paper

    Fast tracke.g., peer review in 25 weeks, but limitations on word count/figures

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    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

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    Communicating with journals

    Recommending reviewers

    Where to find them?

    From your reading/references, networking at conferences

    How senior? Aim for mid-level researchers

    Who to avoid? Collaborators (past 5 years),

    researchers from your university

    International list: 1 or 2 from Asia, 1 or 2 from Europe, and 1 or 2 from North America

    Choose reviewers who have published in your target journal

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    Communicating with journals

    Be careful who you recommend!

  • Please see Activity 3 in your Workbook

    Activity 3: Cover letters

  • Navigating peer review

    Section 4

  • Customer Service Peer review Peer review process

    Submission Peer

    review Revision Publication

    ~1 week 46 weeks 08 weeks ?

    How can I make the process quicker?

    312 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

  • Customer Service Peer review

    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

  • Customer Service Peer review

    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

  • Customer Service Peer review Decision letter 2

    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

  • Customer Service Peer review Decision letter 2

    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 reviewers 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 Reviewers 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 1218).

    Agreement

    Revisions Location

    Why agree

  • Customer Service Peer review

    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 26).

    Disagree with evidence

    Revisions

    Location

    Reviewer response letter

  • Customer Service Peer review

    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

  • Customer Service Peer review

    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

  • Please see Activity 4 in your Workbook

    Activity 4: Peer review

  • Promote your research after publication

    Section 5

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    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

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    Publicize your work

    Presenting after you publish

    Advantages

    Actively promote your article

    Advice on future directions

    Networking with researchers/media

    Networking with journal editors

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    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

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    Publicize your work Your multiple audiences

    Everyone evaluates your studyand 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!

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    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!

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    Publicize your work Match your audience

    Writing for the public

    Hard news

    Newsworthiness: why care? PITCH

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

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    Publicize your work Match your audience

    Writing for the public

    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

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    Publicize your work Match your audience

    Writing for the public

    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

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    Publicize your work Match your audience

    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-

  • Coverage and Staffing Plan

    Publicize your work Match your audience

    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

  • Please see Activity 5 in your Workbook

    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]