20151026 Edanz Waseda 2

Effectively Communicating Your Research

Waseda University

26 October 2015

Trevor Lane Ayli Chong

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 Communicate your research to the journal

and others

Titles and abstracts

Section 1

Best first impression 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 or 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 words Complex word order Abbreviations “New” or “novel”


Interrogative Want to scale in centralized systems?

Think peer-to-peer

Indicative/ Descriptive

Network performance of multiple virtual machine live migration in

cloud federations

… + Approach (subtitle)

Xxxxxxx: real-life evaluation; Xxxxxxx: a software engineering

perspective

Assertive/ Declarative

Health literacy does not narrow the education-based e-health gap /

Education-based e-health gap not narrowed by health literacy

Title

Modified from: J Internet Serv Appl; J Med Internet Res


Unstructured

Structured

Graphical

Video

Defined sections, mainly in medical abstracts

Undefined sections, across disciplines

Schematic or model, physical sciences

Video-based abstract, not often used

Abstract

Best first impression 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.



Triple Modular Redundancy verification via heuristic netlist analysis

Beltrame. Peer J Comp Sci. 2015;1:e21.

Triple Modular Redundancy (TMR) is a common technique to protect memory elements for digital processing systems subject to radiation effects (such as in space, high-altitude, or near nuclear sources). This paper presents an approach to verify the correct implementation of TMR for the memory elements of a given netlist (i.e., a digital circuit specification) using heuristic analysis. The purpose is detecting any issues that might incur during the use of automatic tools for TMR insertion, optimization, place and route, etc. Our analysis does not require a testbench and can perform full, exhaustive coverage within less than an hour even for large designs. This is achieved by applying a divide et impera approach, splitting the circuit into smaller submodules without loss of generality, instead of applying formal verification to the whole netlist at once. The methodology has been applied to a production netlist of the LEON2-FT processor that had reported errors during radiation testing, successfully showing a number of unprotected memory elements, namely 351 flip-flops.



Targeting the lymphatics using dendritic polymers

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

Best first impression 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

Best first impression Unstructured abstracts

Usability is a core construct of website evaluation and inherently defined as interactive. Yet, when analysing first impressions of websites, expected usability, i.e., before use, is of interest. Here we investigate to what extent ratings of expected usability are related to (a) experienced usability, i.e., ratings after use, and (b) objective usability measures, i.e., task performance. 57 participants submitted expected usability ratings after the presentation of website screenshots in three viewing-time conditions (50, 500, and 10,000 ms) and after an interactive task (experienced usability). Additionally, objective usability measures (task completion and duration) and subjective aesthetics evaluations were recorded for each website. The results at both the group and individual level show that expected usability ratings are not significantly related either to experienced usability or objective usability measures. Instead, they are highly correlated with aesthetics ratings. Taken together, our results highlight the need for interaction in empirical website usability testing, even when exploring very early usability impressions. In particular, user ratings of expected usability may not be a valid proxy for objective usability or for experienced website usability.

Modified from: Thielsch et al. Peer J Comp Sci. 2015;1:e19.


Conclusion Taken together, our results highlight the need for interaction in empirical website usability testing, even when exploring very early usability impressions. In particular, user ratings of expected usability may not be a valid proxy for objective usability or for experienced website usability.

Results The results at both the group and individual level show that expected usability ratings are not significantly related either to experienced usability or objective usability measures. Instead, they are highly correlated with aesthetics ratings.

Aim Here we investigate to what extent ratings of expected usability are related to (a) experienced usability, and (b) objective usability measures.

Context Usability is a core construct of website evaluation and inherently defined as interactive. Yet, when analysing first impressions of websites, expected usability, i.e., before use, is of interest.

Implications Modified from: Thielsch et al. Peer J Comp Sci. 2015;1:e19.

Methods 57 participants submitted expected usability ratings after the presentation of website screenshots in three viewing-time conditions (50, 500, and 10,000 ms) and after an interactive task (experienced usability)….


Usability is a core construct of website evaluation and inherently defined as interactive. Yet, when analysing first impressions of websites, expected usability, i.e., before use, is of interest. Here we investigate to what extent ratings of expected usability are related to (a) experienced usability, i.e., ratings after use, and (b) objective usability measures, i.e., task performance. 57 participants submitted expected usability ratings after the presentation of website screenshots in three viewing-time conditions (50, 500, and 10,000 ms) and after an interactive task (experienced usability). Additionally, objective usability measures (task completion and duration) and subjective aesthetics evaluations were recorded for each website. The results at both the group and individual level show that expected usability ratings are not significantly related either to experienced usability or objective usability measures. Instead, they are highly correlated with aesthetics ratings. Taken together, our results highlight the need for interaction in empirical website usability testing, even when exploring very early usability impressions.

Why the study needs to be done

Aim to address problem and what you did

What you found

How your study contributes to the field

Modified from: Thielsch et al. Peer J Comp Sci. 2015;1:e19.


Search Engine Optimization

Identify 7–8 keywords (use standard terms*, but include synonyms)

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

*Standard terms from PsycINFO, BIOSIS, ChemWeb, ERIC Thesaurus, GeoRef, MeSH, etc

Title and abstract activity

Please see Activity 4 in your Workbook

Journal selection

Section 2

Journal selection Evaluating 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

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

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 Publication models

Subscription-based

• Mostly free for the author • Reader has to pay

Open access • Free for the reader • Author usually has to pay

Hybrid • Subscription-based journal • Has open access options

Journal selection Open access models

Green

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

• May allow final version to be archived

• May have embargo period before self-archiving is allowed

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

pay (e.g., US$1000–3000)

Journal selection Open access myths

Open access (OA) is 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

Journal selection

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

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

Insert your proposed abstract or keywords

Journal selection

Matching journals

Journal Selector www.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector

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

frequency

Journal’s aims & scope, IF,

and publication frequency

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

• Author guidelines • Journal website

Are they currently publishing similar articles?

Have you cited relevant ones?

Similar published articles

Journal selection activity


Communicating your research with editors

Section 3

Coverage and Staffing Plan

Communicating with journals 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 have low quality • Beware of spam e-mails!

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

http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/02/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2015/


Communicating with journals

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



THINK Trusted and appropriate?

SUBMIT Only if OK

thinkchecksubmit.org

CHECK Do you know the journal?

Trustworthy 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 journal’s readers

Cover letter to the editor

Editor’s name Manuscript title

Article type

Declarations on publication ethics Suggested reviewers Contact information


Communicating with journals Cover letter to the editor

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

Key phrases: Problem statement (para 2)


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 journal’s readership (para 4)

Target your journal – keywords from the Aims and Scope

Conclusion

Relevance


Communicating with journals Additional points

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 shown that PMS2 mutations cause Lynch Syndrome (ten Broeke et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:319). However, it still remains unclear…”

Highlight current controversies

“Currently, there is disagreement on the effect of substrate rigidity on stem cell differentiation. Our study aims to address this controversy with a novel…”



Recommending reviewers

Where to find them?

From your reading/references, networking at conferences

How senior? Aim for mid-level researchers

Who to avoid? Collaborators (past 5 years),

researchers from your university

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

Choose reviewers who have published in your target journal



Be careful who you recommend!

Communicating your research with reviewers and others

Section 4


Communicating with journals Peer review process

Submission to Editor

Peer review

Revision Publication

~1 week 4–6 weeks 0–8 weeks ?

How can I make the process quicker?

3–12 months

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

• Fully revise manuscript • Respond to all comments • Keep to deadlines / ask

for extensions early

• Evaluation • Finding 2– 3

reviewers



What reviewers are looking for

The science

The manuscript

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

Logical flow of information Manuscript structure and formatting Appropriate references High readability

Peer review is a positive process!


Communicating with journals Peer review

Blinded/ masked?

Other models

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

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



Peer 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



Find & organize the queries

Reviewer comment: The authors searched databases 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!


Communicating with journals 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 or unclear statistics 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) / Resubmit (needs language edit)

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: “Does use of laptops in postgraduate courses degrade overall performance?”

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

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 our Journal. 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: “Does use of laptops in postgraduate courses degrade overall performance?”

Your manuscript has been reviewed, and we believe that after revision your manuscript may become suitable for publication in the International Communications Journal. The reviewer concerns are included at the bottom of this letter. Please note the comments on revising the title and seeking the services of a professional editing company.

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/ICJ 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 ICJ, 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 International Communications Journal and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.


Communicating with journals Reviewer response letter

Respond to every reviewer comment

Easy for editor & reviewers to

see changes

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

Use a different color font

Highlight the text

Strikethrough font for deletions



Fernando P. Pang Editor-in-Chief International Communications Journal 2 September 2013 Dear Dr Pang, Re: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. JOS-11-7739 Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally titled “Use of laptops in postgraduate courses degrades overall performance,” which we would like to resubmit for consideration for publication in the International Communications Journal. 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 the International Communications Journal.

Address editor personally

Manuscript ID number

Thank reviewers

Highlight major changes



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

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

Agreement

Revisions Location

Why agree



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

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

Reviewer response letter



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

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

Evidence

Revisions Location

Reviewer response letter

Agree or disagree with evidence



Reviewer comment: Currently, the authors’ conclusion using a bioinformatics approach that this gene is involved in heart development is not completely validated by their statistical analyses. They should do in vitro and in vivo experiments using a 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



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


Communicating with journals 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


Communicating with journals 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!


Communicating with journals Match your audience

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/web releases)

Only after journal publication!

Peer review activity


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 Communicate your research to the journal

and others

Thank you!

Any questions?

Follow us on Twitter

@EdanzEditing

Like us on Facebook

facebook.com/EdanzEditing

Download and further reading edanzediting.co.jp/waseda1510

Trevor Lane: [email protected] Ayli Chong: [email protected]