20151026 edanz waseda 2
TRANSCRIPT
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
Best first impression Title and abstract
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”
Best first impression Title and abstract
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
Best first impression Title and abstract
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.
Best first impression Graphical abstracts
Visually demonstrate key features of the study Help readers quickly identify suitable articles
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.
Best first impression Graphical abstracts
Visually demonstrate key features of the study Help readers quickly identify suitable articles
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.
Best first impression Unstructured abstracts
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)….
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.
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.
Best first impression Title and abstract
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
Please see Activity 5 in your Workbook
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/
Coverage and Staffing Plan
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
THINK Trusted and appropriate?
SUBMIT Only if OK
thinkchecksubmit.org
CHECK Do you know the journal?
Trustworthy journals
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 journal’s readers
Cover letter to the editor
Editor’s 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
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
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…”
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!
Communicating your research with reviewers and others
Section 4
Coverage and Staffing Plan
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
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!
Coverage and Staffing Plan
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
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!
Coverage and Staffing Plan
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Decision letter
“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)
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Decision letter
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Decision letter
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Decision letter
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.
Coverage and Staffing Plan
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Reviewer response letter
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals 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 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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
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!
Coverage and Staffing Plan
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
Please see Activity 6 in your Workbook
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]