20151002 Edanz Shinshu

Shinshu University2 October 2015

Submitting your research manuscript to a journal

Trevor Lane, PhD; Kate Harris, PhDSenior Editors

Seminar series

June 18 Writing & manuscript structureJune 27 Making effective presentations

October 2 Abstracts & manuscript submissionOctober 3 Presentation skills & practice

Today’s seminar

June 18 Writing & manuscript structureJune 27 Making effective presentations

October 2 Abstracts & manuscript submissionOctober 3 Presentation skills & practice

Be an effective communicator

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

Make a good first impression Choose the best journal Write clearly and concisely

Section 1

Titles and abstracts

Manuscriptstructure What’s your message?

Where to start?

Your findings are why you want to publish your work

Form the basis of your manuscript

First step is to logically organize

your findings

Figure 1

Figure 2

Table 1

Figure 3

Logical flow (chronology, least to most

important, general to specific,

whole+parts)

Is anything missing?

?Additional analyses?

Manuscriptstructure 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 fieldIntroduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Solution

Situation/Problem

Evaluation/Comment

Manuscriptstructure 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 main idea/s 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 wordsComplex word orderAbbreviations“New” or “novel”


InterrogativeCan 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


Unstructured

Structured

Graphical

Video

Defined sections, mainly in clinical abstracts

Undefined sections, across disciplines

Schematic or model, physical sciences

Video-based abstract, not often used

Abstract

Manuscriptstructure Graphical abstracts

Visually demonstrate key features of the study Help readers quickly identify suitable articles

Carbon-layer protected cuprous oxide nanowire arrays for efficient water reduction

Zhang et al. ACS Nano. 2013; 7: 1709–1717.

In this work, we propose a solution-based carbon precursor coating and subsequent carbonization strategy to form a thin protective carbon layer on unstable semiconductor nanostructures as a solution to the commonly occurring photocorrosion problem of many semiconductors. A proof-of-concept is provided by using glucose as the carbon precursor to form a protective carbon coating onto cuprous oxide (Cu2O) nanowire arrays which were synthesized from copper mesh. The carbon-layer-protected Cu2O nanowire arrays exhibited remarkably improved photostability as well as considerably enhanced photocurrent density. The Cu2O nanowire arrays coated with a carbon layer of 20 nm thickness were found to give an optimal water splitting performance, producing a photocurrent density of −3.95 mA cm – 2 and an optimal photocathode efficiency of 0.56% under illumination of AM 1.5G (100 mW cm–2). This is the highest value ever reported for a Cu2O-based electrode coated with a metal/co-catalyst-free protective layer. The photostability, measured as the percentage of the photocurrent density at the end of 20 min measurement period relative to that at the beginning of the measurement, improved from 12.6% on the bare, nonprotected Cu2O nanowire arrays to 80.7% on the continuous carbon coating protected ones, more than a 6-fold increase. We believe that the facile strategy presented in this work is a general approach that can address the stability issue of many nonstable photoelectrodes and thus has the potential to make a meaningful contribution in the general field of energy conversion.

Manuscriptstructure Graphical abstracts

Visually demonstrate key features of the study

Help readers quickly identify suitable articlesTargeting the lymphatics using dendritic polymers

Kaminskas and Porter. Adv Drug Delivery Rev. 2011; 63: 890–900.

http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/graphical-abstract

Manuscriptstructure Structured abstracts

Aim Objective, hypothesis

Results Most important findings

Conclusion Relevance, implications

Methods Techniques, measurements

No references, unusual abbreviations, figures/tables

Abstract

Context Background, problem

Manuscriptstructure Unstructured abstracts

In the Tahe oilfield in China, heavy oil is commonly lifted using the light oil blending technology. However, due to the lack of light oil, the production of heavy oil has been seriously limited. Here, we aimed to reduce light oil usage and maintain heavy oil production using a new compound technology of light oil blending and electric heating. We developed a pressure and temperature coupling model based on mass, momentum and energy conservation. The heat-transfer parameters and pressure drop are calculated by using the Hasan – Kabir and Hagedorn – Brown methods, respectively. This model also considers the effects of blending light and heavy oils as well as heating the electric rods. Our calculations demonstrate that electric heating coupled with light oil blending is much more effective than either alone. In conclusion, our study shows that the amount of light oil used can be reduced by combining the electric heating technology. This novel method should improve heavy oil production in regions lacking light oil.

Modified from: Zhu et al. J Petrol Explor Prod Technol. 2014; DOI: 10.1007/s13202-014-0126-x.


ConclusionIn conclusion, our study shows that the amount of light oil used can be reduced by combining the electric heating technology. This novel method should improve heavy oil production in regions lacking light oil.

Results

We developed a pressure and temperature coupling model based on mass, momentum and energy conservation. The heat-transfer parameters and pressure drop are calculated by using the Hasan–Kabir and Hagedorn–Brown methods, respectively. This model also considers the effects of blending light and heavy oils as well as heating the electric rods. Our calculations demonstrate that electric heating coupled with light oil blending is much more effective than either alone.

Aims/methods

Here, we aimed to reduce light oil usage and maintain heavy oil production using a new compound technology of light oil blending and electric heating.

ContextIn the Tahe oilfield in China, heavy oil is commonly lifted using the light oil blending technology. However, due to the lack of light oil, the production of heavy oil has been seriously limited.


Implications


In the Tahe oilfield in China, heavy oil is commonly lifted using the light oil blending technology. However, due to the lack of light oil, the production of heavy oil has been seriously limited. Here, we aimed to reduce light oil usage and maintain heavy oil production using a new compound technology of light oil blending and electric heating. We developed a pressure and temperature coupling model based on mass, momentum and energy conservation. The heat-transfer parameters and pressure drop are calculated by using the Hasan–Kabir and Hagedorn – Brown methods, respectively. This model also considers the effects of blending light and heavy oils as well as heating the electric rods. Our calculations demonstrate that electric heating coupled with light oil blending is much more effective than either alone. In conclusion, our study shows that the amount of light oil used can be reduced by combining the electric heating technology. This novel method should improve heavy oil production in regions lacking light oil.


Why study needs to be done

Aims and methods to address problem

What you found

How study contributes to the field

Manuscriptstructure Drafting the manuscript

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

Manuscriptstructure

Title/Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Title/Abstract

Methods

Results

Discussion

Introduction

Abstract /Title

write

Title/Abstract

Intro: Aim

Figures/Results {Methods}

Discussion: Conclusion

[Intro / IMRaD]

read

Drafting the manuscript

Activity 1

Please see Activity 1 in your workbook

Journal selection

Section 2

Journal selection Publication success = Academic success

S

Publication Metrics and Success on the Academic Job Marketvan Dijk et al. Current Biology. 2014; 24: R516-R517.

• >25,000 researchers in PubMed• Which factors positively correlate with

academic success?

• Number of publications• Impact factor of the journal• Number of citations• University ranking• Male vs Female

Journal selectionWhat editors want (1)

State conflicts of interest

No plagiarism or redundancy

Clear author contributions

No fabrication or falsification

Always follow ethics guidelines

Study design/data analysis, Writing, Approval, Responsibility

Possible financial, personal bias

Committee on Publication Ethics, COPEGood Publication Practice 3, GPP3

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors , ICMJE)

Journal selectionWhat editors want (2)

Declare in your cover letter…

Not submitted to other journals

Funding, donations

All authors agree and contributed

Original and unpublished

State potential conflicts of interest Research ethics

Journal selection

Increaseimpact

High qualityresearch

Logically organized,Engages journal’s

readership

Original and novel research

Well-designed study,Well reported,

TransparentNews value, importance

What editors want (3)

High scientific & technical quality, sound

research/publication ethics

Clear, real-world, practical relevance

Journal selection Choose your journal first!

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

Aims/scope statement• Topics• Readership• Be sure to emphasize

• Check relevant references• Check originality, importance & usefulness• Check human clinical trials are registered

Journal selectionEvaluating impact

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

Incremental or large advance?Low or high impact journal

Novelty

Assess your findings honestly & objectively

Identify new material to be used as a photocatalyst• Medium to high impact factor journalImprove the photocatalytic efficiency of an existing material• Low to medium impact factor journal

Journal selectionEvaluating impact

Assess your findings honestly & objectively

How broadly relevant are your findings?International or regional journal

General or specialized journal

Relevance/Application

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

Fast track

Which factors are important for you?

Journal selection Journal Selectorwww.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector

Insert your proposed abstractor keywords

Journal selection

Matching journals

Journal Selectorwww.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector

Filter by:• Field of study• Impact factor• Open access• Publishing

frequency

Journal’s aims & scope, IF,

and publication frequency

Journal selection Journal Selectorwww.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector

• Author guidelines• Journal website

Are they currently publishing similar articles?

Have you cited relevant ones?

Similar published articles

Activity 2


Section 3

Communicating your research with editors

Coverage and Staffing PlanCover LettersCommunicating

your research 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


your research 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)


your research Open access myths

Open access (OA) is too expensive

• Not all OA journals charge a publication fee

• Many research grants (59%) and universities (24%)

pay for OA fees (only 12% of authors paid)*

• May offer waiver for authors who cannot afford it

*SOAP survey: http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260


your research

The quality of OA journals is not good

OA journals have the same peer review process as subscription-based journals

Impact factors are lower partly because they are

newer• Less visibility in the field• Fewer citations possible

Open access myths


your research Predatory journals

Some OA 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 have low quality• Beware of spam e-mails!

If you are ever unsure, please check Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers

http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/06/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2013/


your research

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


your research

THINK Trusted and appropriate?

SUBMIT Only if OK

thinkchecksubmit.org

CHECK Do you know the journal?

Trustworthy journals


your research

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

Declarations on publication ethics Suggested reviewers Contact information


your research Cover letter to the editor

However, …an alternative approach… …a challenge…a need for clarification… …a problem/weakness with……has not been dealt with… …remains unstudied…requires clarification …is not sufficiently (+ adjective)

…is ineffective/inaccurate/inadequate/inconclusive/incorrect

Few studies have… There is an urgent need to…There is growing concern that… Little evidence is available on…It is necessary to… Little work has been done on…

Key phrases: Problem statement (para 2)


your research 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 ScopeConclusion

Relevance


your researchRecommending

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


your researchBe careful who you

recommend!

Section 4

Communicating your research with reviewers and others


your research Peer review process

~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

• Evaluation• Finding

reviewers


your researchWhat 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!


your research Peer review

Blinded/masked?

Other models

• 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• Portable/Transferable/Cascading:

Manuscript & reviews passed along• Collaborative: Reviewers (& authors)

engage with other• Post-publication: Online public review• Pre-submission: Reviews passed to editor• Optional: Authors organize pre-

submission review w./w.o. formal peer review


your researchPeer review is a positive process

• Experts give their advice on how you can improve your study and your manuscript

• Peer review ensures that only papers that are relevant for the field and conducted well are published

• Not only helps you improve the quality of your paper, but also helps to advance the field


your research Find & organize the queries

Reviewer comment: The authors looked for polymorphisms in the promoter region of the gene; however, they didn't evaluate the untranslated regions. That is one of my concerns about this methodology.

Rephrased question: Why didn ’ t the authors evaluate polymorphisms in the untranslated regions of the gene?

Organize revisions by IMRaD and by reviewer!


your research 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); Ethics Wrong (statistical) tests; statistical vs clinical significance Unclear statistics: Power, Need exact P values, 95% CI,

Association ≠ Causation, Confounders, Fishing expeditions Not discussed: Negative results, limitations, implications Discussion has repeated results; Conclusions too general Cited studies are not up-to-date

Common reviewer complaints



“Slush pile” desk review: Rejection (not novel, no focus or rationale, wrong scope or format) / Resubmit

Peer review: Accept / Accept with minor or language revisions / Revise & resubmit / “Reject”

Hard rejection (“decline the manuscript for publication”) Flaw in design or methods, ethics Major misinterpretation, lack of evidence

Soft rejection (“cannot consider it further at this point”) Incomplete reporting or overgeneralization Additional analyses needed Presentation problem

Interpret the decision letter carefully (& after a break)



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



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



How to respond

Due date for resubmission

…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.


your research Reviewer response letter

Respond to every reviewer comment

Easy for editor & reviewers to

see changes

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

Use a different color font

Highlight the text

Strikethrough font for deletions



Fernando L. CônsoliEditor-in-ChiefNeotropical Entomology

2 September 2013

Dear Dr Cônsoli,

Re: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. WJS-07-5739

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled “Population dynamics of Drosophilids in response to humidity and temperature,” which we would like to resubmit for consideration for publication in Neotropical Entomology.

The reviewer’s comments were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments.

Revisions in the manuscript are shown as highlighted text. In accordance with the first comment, the title has been revised and the entire manuscript has undergone substantial English editing. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in Neotropical Entomology.

Address editor personally

Manuscript ID number

Thank reviewers

Highlight major changes



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

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

Agreement

RevisionsLocation

Why agree


your research

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

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

Reviewer response letter


your research

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

Response: Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the “ Pack model ” [Pack et al., 2015]. Hence, we have explained the use of this function and the Pack model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2–6).

Evidence

RevisionsLocation

Reviewer response letter

Agree or disagree with evidence


your research

Reviewer comment: Currently, the authors ’ conclusion that this gene is involved in heart development is not completely validated by their in vitro analyses. They should do additional in vivo experiments using a genetic mouse model to show that heart development is regulated by this gene.

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


your research

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


your research 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


your research 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!

• Conferences• Web, email• Social media• Media• Newsletters• Reports


your researchCommunicating with different audiences

Pre- and post-publication impact

IMRaD research article

(journals, posters, slides)

Hard news

(press

releases)

Hard news, delayed

lede

Hard news + kicker

Soft news +

explana-tions + kicker

Full feature + kicker

(news-letters)

Hard news, delayed lede + kicker

Soft news + explana-

tions

(news releases)

Only after journal publication!

Activity 3


Be an effective communicator

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

Make a good first impression Choose the best journal Write clearly and concisely

Thank you!

Any questions?

Download and further readingedanzediting.co.jp/shinshu151002

Follow us on Twitter@EdanzEditing

Like us on Facebookfacebook.com/EdanzEditing

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

Education

20151002 Edanz Shinshu