Transcript WRITING FOR SUCCESS

TIPS FOR JOURNAL SUCCESS
EDITOR TRAINING PROGRAM
Daniel McGowan, PhD
Scientific Director
Edanz Group Ltd
Section One: Being proactive
 What can journal editors do to ensure they
receive good quality submissions?
Section Two: Content
 Structure and content requirements for an
IMRaD paper
Section Three: Language
 Writing in English for non-native authors
Why publish?
How to identify hot topics
What journal editors want
Study design
Publication types
Special issues
Ethical issues
Appointing reviewers
Scientists and clinicians publish their research
findings and opinions to share them with the
international research community
Publication success is linked to funding success and
career advancement
Many PhD programmes require candidates to
achieve a set number of peer-reviewed publications
before the degree can be conferred
Funding
Bodies
Grant
Writing
Scientists /
Clinicians
Journal
Publication
Regularly publishing research findings ensures ongoing
grant support for new research
Comparison of the growth in the numbers of journal submissions
with the growth in the number of journals
Journal editors should want science that pushes new
boundaries and opens up new fields of research
Look for clues to anticipate the next ‘big thing’
Read the literature broadly, particularly top-tier journals
like Nature, Science and Cell, to identify ‘fashionable’
areas of research and ‘new problems’
Highlights and news articles
Look for controversies and unexplained findings —
these are fertile ground for scientific enquiry
Perform keyword database searches to determine volume
and impact of recent research in a given area
Attend international meetings for an awareness of new
directions and developments
However, greater interest means greater competition
among journal editors for the most interesting new
research
Thus, identify the main “movers” in the field and pursue
them
http://www.authormapper.com
Good quality science!
Robust to peer review
Well designed and executed original research
Findings of interest to the journal’s readership
Work in an active research area (=citations!)
Work that advances the field in some way
Compliance with ethical regulations
Clear, concise writing that conveys results and their
implications
A good study should:
Have a hypothesis or research question
Use appropriate methods and controls
Have a large enough sample size
Use appropriate statistical tests
Have no investigator or patient bias
Comply with ethical requirements
Be registered (clinical studies)
www.ich.org/LOB/media
Full-length papers
Laboratory notes
Rapid communications
Methods
Short communications
Editorials
Letters to the editor
Opinion pieces
Case reports
Review articles (often highly
Technical notes
cited)
Clearly set out the guidelines and requirements for each
publication type in your journal’s Guide for Authors
Your chance to publish a collection of articles on “the
state” of a given field
Suitable for fields that have recently seen a large
amount of activity, with exciting new findings emerging
around the same time
Need to be in touch with the researchers and know
what stage their work is at
Consider inviting a guest editorial from a senior
researcher in the field
Can lead to high citations and link your journal to that
field
Unethical behaviour by researchers can damage your
journal’s reputation
Examples of unethical behaviour:
Multiple submissions
Redundant publications
Plagiarism
Data fabrication and falsification
Improper use of human subjects and animals in research
Improper author contribution
The practice of submitting the same manuscript to more
than one journal, simultaneously
Saves author’s time but wastes editors’ time
Journal editors should talk to each other and exchange
information about suspicious papers
Appointment of the same peer reviewers possible
Consider rejection and a possible ban from your journal
Publications containing findings that have already
been published
Journal editors want original content
Ingelfinger rule (1969):
“The policy of considering a manuscript for
publication only if its substance has not been
submitted or reported elsewhere”
ICMJE Guidelines (III.D.2 Redundant Publication):
“[journal editors] do not wish to receive papers on work
that has already been reported in large part in a published
article or is contained in another paper that has been
submitted or accepted for publication elsewhere”
Exceptions include presentations at meetings and
published abstracts, and forced release of findings
Consider rejection and a possible ban from your journal
http://www.icmje.org
Plagiarism:
“the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes,
results, or words without giving appropriate credit,
including those obtained through confidential review of
others’ research proposals and manuscripts” (Federal
Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1999)
Paraphrasing acceptable if appropriate:
 Authors should use speech marks for direct quotes or use
an alternative phrasing.
 Authors should always credit the source
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.cn) can help detect
plagiarism
Fabrication:
Making up data or results and reporting them
Falsification:
Manipulation of experiments or modification of obtained
results with the result that the research is not accurately
represented in the literature
If something looks suspicious, you can request
original data and check image files for manipulation
If in doubt, DON’T PUBLISH IT!!
Ethical standards set out in the Helsinki Declaration, 1975
(revised by the WMO in 2000) — led to the establishment
of ethics committees
Guidelines aim to ensure the welfare of human and animals
subjects involved in research
Informed consent: subjects are informed of the purpose
and nature of the experiments and consent to being subject
to them
Ensure that the authors declare compliance with Helsinki
www.wma.net/e/ethicsunit/helsinki.htm
ICMJE criteria for authorship:
substantial contributions to conception and design, or
acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data
and
drafting the article or revising it critically for important
intellectual content and
final approval of the version to be published. All three of
these criteria need to be satisfied for a person to qualify for
authorship
http://www.icmje.org
Lesser contributions, which do not qualify researchers for
authorship, should be noted in the Acknowledgments
section
Many journals now request a declaration of each author’s
contribution to the research and manuscript development
Consider requesting this information with all new
submissions
Peer review exists to ensure that a paper is as scientifically
robust and complete as possible before joining the
‘collective knowledge’ as part of the literature
Reviewers must be objective and independent as well as
being experts in the field
Consider requested inclusions and exclusions carefully
and appoint a balance of appropriate experts
Inconsistencies among reports must be considered on
the basis of possible friendly or competing relationships:
if in doubt, appoint more reviewers
Consider a double-blind review process
IMRaD format
Display items
Choosing a title
Statistics
Abstract and keywords
Discussion and
Introduction
Conclusions
Materials and Methods
Results
A “hook” to attract readers — an opportunity to “sell” the
paper to readers browsing a table of contents or search
results
A poor title will cause potentially interested researchers to
overlook the study and may attract the wrong audience
By contrast, a good title will attract the relevant
researchers and increase the number of citations you receive
This is good because number of citations relates to the
impact factor a journal gets
A good title should contain the fewest possible words
that adequately describe the contents of a paper.
It should:
Convey the main findings of the research
Be specific and concise without focusing on only
part of the content
Avoid jargon, non-standard abbreviations and
unnecessary detail
Example of a poor title:
“Degeneration of neurons in the CA3 and DG following
OA administration: involvement of a MAPK-dependent
pathway in regional-specific neuronal degeneration”
More suitable alternatives:
“Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid
administration”
“MAP kinase-dependent neuronal degeneration after
okadaic acid administration”
Many researchers will only read the abstract so it has
to be able to ‘stand alone’
Must provide an accurate and sufficiently detailed
summary of the manuscript so readers can
understand:
What the authors did
Why the authors did it
What the authors found
Why these findings are useful and important
A good abstract will:
Observe the word limit
Avoid technical jargon
Avoid abbreviations unless necessary
Generally avoid references in the abstract
Your journal’s Guide for Authors should specify the
allowable length, style and abbreviations
Choosing appropriate keywords is important because
these are used for indexing purposes.
Well chosen keywords enable the manuscript to be
more easily identified and cited.
Keywords should be as specific to the manuscript as
possible, and general terms, which could apply to an
enormous number of studies, should be avoided.
Feel free to suggest better keywords to your authors if
they select poor ones
“Degeneration of neurons in the CA3 and DG following OA
administration: involvement of a MAPK-dependent
pathway in regional-specific neuronal degeneration”
Possible keywords:
okadaic acid, hippocampus, neuronal degeneration, MAP
kinase signaling, and possibly mouse (or relevant species)
Poor keywords (these are too general):
neuron, brain, OA (as an abbreviation), regional-specific
neuronal degeneration, and signaling
The introduction must provide the reader with
sufficient background information to put the work into
context
The minimum amount of background for a reader to
understand the rationale for the study is all that is
required
It should NOT contain a comprehensive literature
review of the field, but rather cite reviews that readers
can refer to if they desire further information
Technical and non-familiar terms should be clearly
defined
A good introduction should:
Present “the problem”, research question and/or
hypotheses to explain the rationale for the study
Briefly explain how this problem was addressed and
what was achieved (1–2 sentences for each)
Contain balanced, current and relevant citations
The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCT38289; reproduced with permission)
“What Was Done”
Clear subheadings for methods/materials with different
purposes
Methods described in the past tense
Novel methods must be described in sufficient detail for
a capable researcher to reproduce the experiment
described
Established methods can be referenced
Suppliers and manufacturers must be provided, including
locations if requested
Statistical methods should be described
Methods only included if the results of the described
experiments are also provided
Supplementary Methods are useful to provide more
detailed information so the printed methods section can be
kept brief
The Materials and Methods section must be precise!
The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCI37155; reproduced with permission)
“What was found”
Findings assembled in a logical order to ‘make a story’
Findings presented in subsections matching those used
in the methods section
Findings that support the hypothesis and/or refute
alternative hypotheses
Complementary evidence presented wherever possible
Results described in the past tense but figures and tables
referred to in the present tense
No discussion of the implications in the results section
Figures and tables that summarize data except where
such data can be more easily summarized in the text
No duplication of data among figures, tables and text
Results of statistics analyses (eg. p values) shown in the
text
The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCI37155; reproduced with permission)
A picture tells a thousand words
Some readers, with sufficient background already, will
‘read the paper’ by looking at the figures and reading their
legends only, drawing their own conclusions
Figures and tables are the most effective and efficient
way for authors to present their results
Provide clear guidelines on the number of allowable
display items; less important findings can be presented as
Supplementary Information
Data shown in figures and tables must be easy to
interpret — complicated data should be divided into
separate panels to ensure clarity
Redundancies between display items and text should be
avoided
Graph axes, table columns and rows and components of
diagrams should be labeled
Trendlines, scale bars and statistical significance should
be shown
Stand-alone figure legends
Tables are a great way to present large amounts of necessary
data with minimal description required
Truncation of a table in a paper published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation
(doi:10.1172/JCI37622; reproduced with permission)
The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCI37622; reproduced with permission)
General rules for the use of statistics in manuscripts
The parameters described need to be indicated, eg.
“means±S.D”
The statistical tests used to analyze data need to be
indicated
Numerator and denominator presented with percentages,
eg. “40% (100/250)”
Means and standard deviations used to report normally
distributed data
Medians and interpercentile ranges used to report
skewed data
Actual p values, eg. “p=0.0035”, better than “p<0.05”
The word “significant” should only be used when
describing statistically significant differences
The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCI38289; reproduced with permission)
What does it all mean?
A good discussion will:
Begin by restating the research question and/or any
hypotheses presented in the introduction
Summarize findings making it clear how the study has
advanced the field
Avoid making “grand statements” not supported by the data
Use past tense to describe any results (current and
published) and present tense to describe their implications
Minimise repetition with the results section — brief
descriptions of the main findings is all that is required
before describing their implications, significance and
relevance
Outline any controversies or inconsistencies — it is OK
for authors to speculate on the causes of these, but not
too wildly
Describe any limitations of the study (eg. numbers of
subjects or samples available, lack of availability of tests
for further validation)
A good final paragraph or conclusions section will:
Restate the key findings and their significance
Propose future studies that will shed further light on
the research question or the validity of the hypothesis
If findings are not preliminary, end with a strong
statement summarizing the impact of the study without
over-stating its importance
The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCI37622; reproduced with permission)
The elements of good
Punctuation
scientific writing
Traps to avoid
Articles
Hyphens
That/which
Making comparisons
Respectively
Nomenclature
Such as/namely
Keep it simple!
Well written papers attract readers and the submission
of additional well written papers
They will also be cited more than papers that are too
difficult to read
Poorly written papers are a major source of frustration
for peer reviewers, who might turn down future requests
to review a paper from journal if sent poorly written work
Consider implementing language screening protocols
and don’t send poorly written work to reviewers
Good writing possesses the following three “C”s:
Clarity
Conciseness
Correctness (accuracy)
The key is to be as brief and specific as possible
without omitting essential details
Good writing avoids the following traps:
Repetition
Redundancy
Ambiguity
Spelling and
grammatical errors
Insufficient
detail/vagueness
Inconsistency
These are common annoyances for peer
reviewers and readers
Articles (a/an/the) are adjectives that modify nouns.
Where they are used incorrectly the reader can be left
confused, or worse, make a wrong assumption
The word “the” should be used in conjunction with a
noun referring to a particular item or group of items
The word “a” should be used in conjunction with non-
specific nouns or to refer to a single item or category
Use “an” instead of “a” if the noun starts with a vowel
Example of the definite article “the” in use:
“The antibody was injected into the hippocampus…”
The definite article is required to specify a particular antibody,
presumably already referred to in the text, and body parts and
structures
Example of the indefinite article “a” in use:
“A new method of extraction was devised…”
Introduces this method to the reader so is non-specific. Once
introduced to the reader, “the new method of extraction”
should be used to refer to that method in the specific sense
Hyphenation is used to join ordinarily separate words into
compound words
Incorrect use of compound adjectives can lead to ambiguity
“calcium-induced calcium release”
has a different meaning from
“calcium induced calcium release”
“Glutamate receptors mediated synaptic plasticity…”
Tells the reader that Glu receptors are involved in the
development of synaptic plasticity
“Glutamate receptor-mediated synaptic plasticity…”
Identifies synaptic plasticity involving Glu receptors as the
subject of the sentence
NB/ nouns used within compound adjectives to modify another
noun should be used in the singular form
No hyphen is required to make a compound adjective when
the first word is an adverb ending in “ly”
“highly intense staining” = “high-intensity staining”
“highly-intense staining”
Suspended hyphens:
“pre- and post-operative care”
“anti-ubiquitin and -β-actin antibodies”
Common source of ambiguities: both introduce clauses
that modify nouns
Use “that” to introduce defining or restrictive clauses
Use “which” to introduce non-defining or non-restrictive
clauses
Because “which” is used non-restrictively, writers need to
ensure that it is absolutely clear what noun a “which” refers
to in order to avoid ambiguity
“the sections that were positive for GFP were subjected to
cell counting procedures”
Not all sections are positive for GFP; those that are become
subjected to cell counting procedures
“the sections, which were positive for GFP, were subjected to
cell counting procedures”
All sections were positive for GFP and all were subjected to
cell counting procedures; “which” clause disposable
“Data were normalised to the housekeeping gene actin,
which was used as an internal reference…”
Here, the “which” refers to actin, which is therefore the
subject of the following clause
“Data were normalised to the internal reference
housekeeping gene actin, revealing increases in the levels
of…”
To refer to the analyzed data in a subsequent clause, “which
revealed” would be inappropriate and introduce an
ambiguity
Frequently made in the results sections of papers
Compare “like” with “like”
Do not leave the reader to make an assumption
“Expression levels of p53 in smokers were compared
with non-smokers”
should actually be
“Expression levels of p53 in smokers were compared
with those in non-smokers”
Relative terms, such as more, higher and greater, require a
reference for comparison and do not make sense alone
Use with a “than” clause or a “compared with” clause
“transgenic mice showed higher levels of cortisol”
“transgenic mice showed higher levels of cortisol than
control mice”
“The levels of ubiquitinated proteins were higher in patients
than in control subjects”
The “than clause” provides a reference for the term “higher”
The comparing term, “higher” appears before the groups being
compared
“The levels of ubiquitinated proteins in patients were higher
than those in control subjects”
Here , the comparing term appears between the groups being
compared, so to compare “like with like” it is necessary to add
the term “than those”
The use of simple language is often clearer, more precise
and more concise than using more complex terms
Use as few words as possible
Delete superfluous words
Avoid circular sentences, redundancies and repetition
“In order to examine differences in protein levels, lysates
were subjected to 10% SDS-PAGE and Western blotting
using an anti-NR1 antibody, to observe the effects of
stimulation on receptor trafficking”
What can you do to check if a certain phrase is correct
or if it might be worded better?
Get help from a colleague
Google (http://www.google.cn)
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.cn)
Exemplar (http://www.springerexemplar.com)
The key to improving your journal’s impact factor
and expanding its readership:
Publish studies that follow the rules for SUCCESS
http://www.liwenbianji.cn