Language, style and accuracy 2

Language, style and accuracy: help and advice from a language editor (2)

- エディターからの英語論文に関するアドバイス -

Oita University Warren Raye, PhD Senior Life Sciences Editor Edanz Group Japan 17 February 2012

Readability

Edanz Group Japan | 2

“only 4% of readers understand a 27-word sentence

first time”

Reader objectives

Only need to read once

Do not have to read slowly

Can understand author logic immediately

可読性

Sentence length Keep it short & simple


We examined numerous peer-reviewed journals

Easy to read articles had an average sentence

length of around 17 words

Sentences that are 1520 words

Long sentences and repetition

One sentence: one idea

１文には１つのアイデア

１文は短く簡潔に

Goals to aim for …


Maximum 25–30 words per sentence

Not more than four 30-word sentences in the

whole manuscript

Use punctuation to your advantage

periods (.) and commas (,)

Think about ‘reader expectation’ and match the

expectation with the contents

Reader expectation Example


Match the expectation with the contents

All samples were collected at the same time (10 AM) every day to prevent any effects of circadian variation and then stored after treatment at 5C until assayed.

All samples were collected at the same time (10 AM) every day to prevent any effects of circadian variation. They were then stored after treatment at 5C until assayed.

Simple language IS best

Makes YOUR science more relevant

Minimizes confusion – maximizes understanding

Science is often complex

Use simple language to help more people

understand your work

Simple is best


簡潔に書くことが大事

PREFERRED AVOID more additional enough adequate clear apparent try attempt show demonstrate try endeavor very exceedingly

Simple words Examples


簡潔な単語


In order to…

Unnecessary words Write simply

In order to determine the fractalkine expression in the aorta of ApoE −/− mice and the effect of high-dose aspirin intervention on fractalkine expression and atherosclerotic lesion formation, we studied …

To determine the fractalkine expression in the aorta of ApoE −/− mice and the effect of high-dose aspirin intervention on fractalkine expression and atherosclerotic lesion formation, we studied …

簡潔に書く


AVOID For the reason that In the first place In the not too distant future Four in number Green color Subsequent to Prior to Except in a very few instances

Unnecessary words Further examples

PREFERRED Because First Soon Four Green After Before Usually


Frequently made in the Results section Compare “like” with “like” Avoid ambiguity Use with, NOT to

The tumor excised from the pancreas was compared with the liver.

The tumor excised from the pancreas was compared with that from the liver.

Common mistakes Comparisons


Relative terms, such as more, higher and greater, require a reference for comparison

Use than or compared with

Reactions with the new thermal cycler were faster than those with the old cycler.

Reactions with the new thermal cycler were faster.

Faster than what?

Avoiding ambiguity Comparisons

Consistency


Be consistent with terms, abbreviations and

spelling throughout your manuscript

Inconsistencies can be used as a reason for

rejection

Use the ‘Find (and replace)’ function in Word

一貫性

Comparisons Between or among


Use between for comparisons of two groups

Use among for comparisons of more than two groups

… significant differences were observed in the H values among bio-, fully- and semi-synthetic molecules …

… the only difference between the original molecule and the new molecule is ...

“Between”と“ among”


‘Respectively’ is often misused by non-native

English speakers. Use ‘respectively’ only if your

sentence would be unclear without it.

Use to refer to two corresponding lists, but not

more

Respectively “Respectively”は必要時のみ使用する

15

The two values were 143.2 and 21.6, respectively.

The two values were 143.2 and 21.6.


Respectively “Respectively”の良い例、悪い例

The two tubes were labeled B and S, respectively.

The tubes containing blood and saline were labeled B and S, respectively.


Oxygen detector flow Nitrogen detector flow Hydrogen detector flow

85 mL/min 7 mL/min 4 mL/min

Oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen detector flows were set at 85, 7 and 4 mL/min, respectively.

The oxygen detector flow was set at 85 mL/min; the nitrogen detector flow was set at 7 mL/min; and, the hydrogen detector flow was set at 4 mL/min. 28 words

15 words

Respectively Example

“Respectively”の例

‘Such as’ or ‘Namely’


such as: to give examples

namely: to define

… there were other factors, such as nutrient status, primary production, microbial biomass, and coagulation processes.

… we used certified reference materials, namely C36 n-alkane and phenanthrene, obtained from …

“Such as”と“namely“

Language Colon or semi-colon


The colon “:” is used to introduce a list or a clause

that explains what precedes it.

Semicolon “;” is used to separate the items in a list

too long for commas or where commas could be

ambiguous. Use ‘and’ before the last item in the list.

There are a number of journals for surgery manuscripts: Surgery, produced by Elsevier; Journal of Surgery, produced by NMS; and the British Journal of Surgery, produced by Wiley & Sons.

コロンとセミコロン


Use a semicolon to join two sentences that are not independent

In previous sediments of all salinities, MeHg production was highest at previous sediment depths just below the oxic/anoxic transition; that is, depths where microbial sulfate reduction was present, but where sulfide, which inhibits methylation, was relatively low.

One sentence is too long; but the two sentences must be connected.

Language Colon or semi-colon コロンとセミコロン

Language UK or US spelling


Be consistent 一貫させる

Check the journal’s Guide for Authors

Generally, American journals require US spelling and British journals require British spelling, but many accept either form as long as the spelling used is consistent

fibre or fiber

centre or center

labelling or labeling

colour or color

Exceptions: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare; your references

UK英語かUS英語か？


“If you can’t explain something simply,

you don’t understand it well.”

– Albert Einstein

Write to express NOT impress

Consider your audience – their native language may not be English

Help your readers understand

Online resources


Paradigm Online Writing Assistant http://www.powa.org/

Springer Exemplar http://www.springerexemplar.com/

Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/

Purdue Online Writing Lab http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/

http://www.powa.org/



http://www.springerexemplar.com/

http://www.springerexemplar.com/

http://scholar.google.com/

http://scholar.google.com/

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/

Why are journal guidelines important?

A major difference between acceptance and

rejection

Saves your time

Time to publication is quicker

Demonstrates respect for the journal and

editors


ジャーナルガイドラインはなぜ重要か？

Journal guidelines


ジャーナルガイドライン

What to look for?

Check journal website and sample papers

Types of papers published

Word counts

Total

Each section

Order of sections

IMRaD

Variation of IMRaD


注視する点は？

References


Pay attention to the referencing style in text:

Insect hunting is an ideal way to study predatory behavior (Suzuki et al., 2005).

Insect hunting is an ideal way to study predatory behavior (Tanaka and Honda).

Insect hunting is an ideal way to study predatory behavior [1].

Insect hunting is an ideal way to study predatory behavior (1).

Insect hunting is an ideal way to study predatory behavior. [1,2]

Insect hunting is an ideal way to study predatory behavior [1–3].

Insect hunting is an ideal way to study predatory behavior.¹

Tanaka reported that insect hunting was an ideal way to study predatory

behavior (2005).

文献一覧


If you need to abbreviate, use the following resources:

BIOSIS (BIOSIS Serial Sources)

CASSI (Chemical Abstracts Service Source Index)

Index Medicus

Title: Advances in drug research Abbreviation: Adv. Drug Res.

Title: Medicine and science in sports Abbreviation: Med. Sci. Sports

Some journals limit the number of references

Check a sample paper if you are not sure of the style

Referencing styles: APA, Chicago, MLA, ACS, IEEE, Vancouver

Use reference managers such as EndNote or BibTeX

References 文献一覧

Competition for editors’ attention is very high

It may not be enough to send a cover letter to a

journal editor like this:

Cover letters


Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am sending you our manuscript entitled “Techniques to detect circoviruses in Japanese bird species” by Raye et al. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Archives of Virology. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, Warren Raye, PhD

Address to the editor personally

Provide manuscript title and publication type

Background, rationale, description of results

Explain importance of your findings

Why would they be of interest to the journal’s

target audience?

Provide corresponding author details

Your cover letter General rules


Dear Dr Lisberger,

Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled “Amyloid-like inclusions in the brains of Huntington’s disease patients”, by

McGowan et al., which we would like to submit for publication as a Research Paper in Neuroscience.

Recent immunohistochemical studies have revealed the presence of neuronal inclusions containing an N-terminal portion of

the mutant huntingtin protein and ubiquitin in the brain tissues of Huntington’s disease (HD) patients; however, the role of

these inclusions in the disease process has remained unclear. One suspected disease-causing mechanism in Huntington’s

disease and other polyglutamine disorders is the potential for the mutant protein to undergo a conformational change to a

more stable anti-parallel β-sheet structure…

To confirm if the immunohistochemically observed huntingtin- and ubiquitin-containing inclusions display amyloid features, we

performed Congo red staining and both polarizing and confocal microscopy on post-mortem human brain tissues obtained

from five HD patients, two AD patients, and two normal controls. Congo red staining revealed a small number of amyloid-like

inclusions showing green birefringence by polarized microscopy, in a variety of cortical regions.... ….detected inclusions

observed in parallel sections, suggesting that only a relatively small proportion of inclusions in HD adopt an amyloid-like

structure.

We believe our findings would appeal to a broad audience, such as the readership of Neuroscience. As a wide-reaching journal

publishing original research on all aspects of neuroscience…

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 Neuroscience. We have read and have abided by the

statement of ethical standards for manuscripts submitted to Neuroscience. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Please address all correspondence to….

Give the background to the research

What was done and what was found

Interest to journal’s readers

Conforms to journal requirements

Cover letter Example


Polite and professional

Query manuscript status

Address to the appropriate person

Quote the manuscript ID number

Officially withdraw your manuscript if response is

inadequate – VERY IMPORTANT

Submit elsewhere

AVOID harassing journal editors

Communication Journals


“… the contact details (including email addresses) of at least four potential peer reviewers for your paper. These should be experts in your field of study, who will be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript's quality. Any peer reviewers you suggest should not have recently published with any of the authors of your manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution.”

Who ARE these experts?

Read as much as possible!

Know your competitors

Provide a reason for recommending/excluding a

reviewer

Editors have the final decision on reviewer choice


Recommending reviewers

From your reading and references

Groups doing similar work, producing similar results

Possible collaborators

Networking

Meetings, conferences and congresses

People that comment positively

Aim for younger and mid-level scientists

Scientists new to a field


Potential reviewers

Exists to ensure that your paper is as

scientifically robust and complete as possible

before joining the ‘collective knowledge’ as part

of the literature

An opportunity to improve your contribution,

not an inconvenience

Open / Blind / Double blind


Peer review

Is the manuscript sufficiently novel?

Is the manuscript of broad enough interest?

Peer Review What do reviewers look for?


Novelty Significance

Aims and Scope Impact Factor

査読者が求めているもの

Acceptance Minor

revision Major

revision

Rejection Very few papers are immediately accepted without need for any revisions

Free, expert advice

Journal editor decision

Complete rejection

Acceptance

Major revisions

Minor revisions

Peer review



Reasons for rejection: the science

Research question

Methods

Statistics

Validations

Data versus conclusions


Reasons for rejection: the manuscript

Rationale and aims

Methods detail

Results format

Citations

Limitations


Reasons for rejection: other

Inappropriate journal selected: scope,

impact, audience

Inappropriate timing: too early or

late

Politely respond to ALL the reviewers’ comments

in a response letter

Make it easy to see changes

Use specific line, page and/or paragraph numbers

Different color font

Highlight the text

Revision How to respond


Conduct the additional experiments suggested

If this is impossible, you MUST explain why

You can disagree with reviewers BUT provide

evidence (cite references)

Comply with deadlines

Revision How to respond



Your response letter The preamble

Dear Dr. _____________: [address the editor by name] Thank you for your consideration of our manuscript entitled _____________ [insert manuscript title here]. We have reviewed the comments of the reviewers and have thoroughly revised the manuscript. We found the comments helpful, and believe our revised manuscript represents a significant improvement over our initial submission. In response to the reviewers’ suggestions we have … [summarize the key changes here]


Point-by-point response Agreeing

After the preamble, address every reviewer point individually 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 makes it impossible to fully interpret the data in terms of the prevailing theories. In addition, in its current form it would be difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We have reanalyzed our data using a Gaussian fitting function.


Point-by-point response Disagreement

Sometimes you will disagree with the reviewer. Keep your response polite and professional

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 that a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies. However, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al, 1998]. We have added two sentences to the manuscript (page 3, line 4) to justify the use of this function and Smith’s model.


Post-referee revisions Often, a reviewer comment that you think is incorrect will identify a part of the manuscript that requires further explanation.

Original: We then fit the data to a super-Gaussian. From this, we extracted the reaction time [Smith et al. 1998].

Revised: We then fit the data to a super-Gaussian. We elected to use this function to facilitate analysis using the Smith model [Smith et al. 1998]. According to the Smith model, the reaction time is dependent on the intensity and width of the fitted peak. Using this model, we extracted the reaction time.


“The English needs to be improved”

“Your writing is difficult to understand”

Grammar

Long, complex sentences and paragraphs

Non-native expressions

Gaps in the logic

Poor organization of the manuscript

Flow

Too much information

Understanding reviewer comments


“The authors hypothesized to look for the pharmacokinetics of

the insulin using this 4 mm needle; However they didn't do

bioequivalence analyses for glucose pharmacodynamics. That is

one of my concerns about this methodology.”

Questions from reviewers may not always be

apparent

Cosmetic changes

Understanding reviewer comments

Resources and links


http://edanzediting.co.jp/oita201202

This presentation Templates Guidelines

参考資料

Thank you Good luck!

ご清聴ありがとうございました。


Technology

Language, style and accuracy 2