160327 edanz gunma

Julian Tang, PhD Trevor Lane, PhD

Author Success Workshop:

Effectively Communicate Your Research 2

Gunma University

27 March 2016

S

Be an effective communicator

Your goal is not only to be published, but also to be widely read and highly cited

Selecting the most appropriate journal

Making the best first impression

Confidently navigating the peer review process

Effectively presenting your work

Section 1

Select the most appropriate journal

Journal selection Choose your journal early!

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

Aims and scope • Topics • Readership • Be sure to emphasize

• Learn writing style • Check relevant references • Check originality, importance & usefulness!

Journal selection Evaluating impact

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

Incremental or large advance? Low or high impact journal

Novelty

Assess your findings honestly & objectively

How broadly relevant are your findings? International or regional journal

General or specialized journal

Relevance/Application

Aims & scope, Readership

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, Copyright

Cascading review, Fast track

Journal selection

Filter/sort by: • Field of study • Impact factor • Indexed in SCI • Open access • Publishing frequency

Journal’s aims & scope, impact factor,

publication frequency, open access/

subscription/hybrid

• Author guidelines • Journal website

Similar abstracts

Journal Selector www.edanzediting.co.jp/journal_selector

Insert your proposed abstract/title or keywords into text box

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 expensive and low quality

• Not all OA journals charge a fee

• Many research grants and universities pay for OA fees

• Journals may offer waiver for authors who cannot afford it

• OA journals are peer reviewed

• Impact factors may be lower partly because they are newer

Journal selection 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 be of low quality • Beware of spam e-mails!

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

https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/

Journal selection

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

Journal selection

THINK Trusted and appropriate?

SUBMIT Only if OK

thinkchecksubmit.org

CHECK Do you know the journal?

Trustworthy journals

Journal selection

Sequential submissions

Author Editor Reviewer 1 wk

4 wks 2 wks

Total ~2 months

3 journals = over 6 months!

Journal selection

Multiple submissions

Author Editor2 Reviewer2

3 journals = ~2 months!

Editor1 Reviewer1

Editor3 Reviewer3

You can submit your manuscript to only one journal at a time

Journal selection

Why is it unethical?

Wastes editors’ time & resources

• After first acceptance, have to withdraw submission from the others

• Damages your reputation with publishers

Duplicate publication • It will be noticed in the field; copyright problems • One or both articles may be retracted • Wastes time and damages your reputation with both

the publisher and your peers

Journal selection

You can submit to another journal only if:

You have been rejected by the first journal You have formally withdrawn the submission

When can you submit to another journal?

Journal selection Can you publish a paper translated into English?

What do you need to do?

1. Obtain permission from the first publisher

2. Tell journal editor of English journal: – You already obtained permission to re-publish – Why necessary to publish in English

3. Cite the original publication

Note: many journal editors will not be interested in publishing non-original articles

Journal selection

Salami publishing

Don’t slice your research to increase your

publication output!

One study

4 publications

Why unethical? Readers will not have access to all the relevant information to

critically evaluate the study

One larger paper will have more impact in the field and more citations!

Please see Activity 1 in your Workbook

Activity 1: Journal Selection

Section 2

Make the best first impression

Coverage and Staffing Plan

Communicating with journals

First impression for journal editors

Timeliness, Uniqueness, Relevance

Writing style Interesting to their readers?

Why your work is important!

Cover letters



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

Conclusion & 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

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 survival. Our study aims to address this controversy…”



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



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 the International Medical ICT Journal. This study was funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Must include:

Declarations related to publication ethics Source of funding Conflicts of interest



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 the International Medical ICT Journal. This study was funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Must include:

Declarations related to publication ethics Source of funding Conflicts of interest

Ethics

Funding

Conflicts of interest


Communicating with journals Special cover letters

Reason for Fast Track

Timeliness, broad importance for society, urgency Interest to broad community Novelty, originality, high quality Contribution to field/literature, new insights/ideas Separate letter, or statement in cover letter? Statement within article (25–250 words)? Include statement in Abstract? Can sometimes be followed by “full paper”

Fast track…e.g., peer review in 2–5 weeks, but limitations on word count/figures



Combined declaration + rapid review request

We confirm that this manuscript is original, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under consideration by another journal other than International Medical ICT Journal. Our ICT-linked algorithm is the first one to be used prognostically in oncology. No other studies have been published on ICT as a prognostic factor for postoperative survival in cancer patients undergoing curative resection.

[Details of specific features]…We thus request a “rapid review”. We believe our article would make an immediately useful contribution to the literature and to clinical practice, and to readers of International Medical ICT Journal.

Declarations related to publication ethics Reason for rapid review



Combined declaration + rapid review request

We confirm that this manuscript is original, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under consideration by another journal other than International Medical ICT Journal. Our ICT-linked algorithm is the first one to be used prognostically in oncology. No other studies have been published on ICT as a prognostic factor for postoperative survival in cancer patients undergoing curative resection.

[Details of specific features]…We thus request a “rapid review”. We believe our article would make an immediately useful contribution to the literature and to clinical practice, and to readers of International Medical ICT Journal.

Ethics

General features

Specific features & request for fast

track

Declarations related to publication ethics Reason for rapid review



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 with journals Additional information

Manuscript files, including Title page & contact details, Abstract & keywords, Cover letter, List of abbreviations

Authorship declaration; Contributorship form Conflicts of interest form; Funding disclosure Copyright transfer form Ethics declarations (ethics board approval, patient

consent); Clinical trial registration number CONSORT checklist form (or other guideline forms) Statement of prior presentation; copies of similar articles Copies of copyright permission to reproduce material

Check your journal’s guidelines

Section 3

Confidently navigate peer review

Peer review

The submission process

Accepted—publication!

Editor Author

Peer review

Reject

Results novel? Topic relevant? Clear English? Properly formatted?

Revision • New experiments • Improve readability • Add information • Revise figures

Peer review Peer review process

Submission 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 • Adhere to deadlines; ask

for extensions in advance

• Evaluation • Finding

reviewers

Peer review 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

• Transferable/Cascading: First journal passes manuscript & reviews to next one

• Portable: You submit manuscript & past reviews to next journal

• Collaborative: Reviewers (& authors) engage with other

• Post-publication: Online public review • Pre-submission: Reviews passed to editor

Peer review What reviewers are looking for

The science

The manuscript

Relevant hypothesis Good study 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!

Innovation & Importance, Information, Interest, Influence =

IMPACT

Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review Decision letter

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

Peer review: Accept / Accept with minor revisions / Revise & resubmit / “Reject” • Hard rejection

o Flaw in design or methods, ethics o Major misinterpretation, lack of evidence

• Soft rejection o Incomplete reporting or overgeneralization o Additional analyses needed o Presentation problem

Interpret the decision letter carefully (& after a break)

Peer review Decision letter

Ideas are not logically organized; Poor presentation Purpose and relevance are unclear Cited studies are not up-to-date Topics in the Results/Discussion are not in the Introduction Methods are unclear (variables, missing data); Ethics Wrong (statistical) tests; statistical vs clinical significance Unclear statistics: Power, Need exact P values, 95% CI,

Association ≠ Causation, Confounders, Fishing expeditions Not discussed: Negative results, limitations, implications Discussion has repeated results or new results Conclusions too general, confident, precise; not supported

Common reviewer complaints

Peer review Decision letter 1

10 January 2015

Dear Dr. Wong,

Manuscript ID JOS-11-7739: “Prediction of the largest peak nonlinear response of biomechanical structures under bi-directional excitation”

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

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

Peer review

The Reviewer comments are not entirely negative.

It is not possible to consider your manuscript in its current form.

I hope the information provided will be helpful to revise your manuscript in the future.

I regret that the outcome has not been favorable at this time.

Editor may be interested in your work

Peer review

We cannot publish your manuscript

Your study does not contain novel results that merit publication in our journal.

We appreciate your interest in our journal. However, we will not further consider your manuscript for publication.

We wish you luck in publishing your results elsewhere.

Editor is not interested in your work


10 January 2015

Dear Dr. Wong,

Manuscript ID JOS-11-7739: “Prediction of the largest peak nonlinear response of biomechanical structures under bi-directional excitation”

Your manuscript has been reviewed, and we believe that after revision your manuscript may become suitable for publication in Acta Biomechanica Res. The reviewer concerns are included at the bottom of this letter.

You can submit a revised manuscript that takes into consideration these comments. You will also need to include a detailed commentary of the changes made. Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission may be subject to re-review by the reviewers before a decision is made.

To revise your manuscript, log into https://www.editorialmanager.com/JABR/ 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


…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 ABR, 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 and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

How to respond

Due date for resubmission

Peer review Reviewer response letter

Fernando L. Cônsoli Editor-in-Chief Neotropical Entomology 2 September 2015 Dear Dr Cônsoli, Re: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. WJS-07-5739 Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled “Population dynamics of Drosophilids in response to humidity and temperature,” which we would like to resubmit for consideration for publication in Neotropical Entomology. The reviewer’s comments were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments. Revisions in the manuscript are shown as highlighted text. In accordance with the first comment, the title has been revised and the entire manuscript has undergone substantial English editing. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in Neotropical Entomology.

Address editor personally

Manuscript ID number

Thank reviewers

Highlight major changes

Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review 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

Peer review 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

Peer review

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

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

Reviewer response letter

Peer review

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

Peer review

Reviewer comment: Currently, the authors’ conclusion is based on multiple imputation calculations for 50 proteins but with incomplete expression data. They should do additional imputations after comparing 500 proteins based on a prior case-control study.

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

Peer review

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

Activity 2

Please see Activity 2 in your workbook

Section 4

Effectively present your work

Presentations When should you

present your work?

Before you publish

After you publish

Conferences, Seminars, Lab Meetings, Journal Clubs

Conferences, Seminars, Press Conferences, Media Enquiries, Media Interviews,

Social Media, Open Days, Public Education

Presentations Advantages of presenting

Before publishing

Identify new trends Meet similar researchers

Get advice Identify problems, gauge

interest

After publishing Actively promote your

article Advice on future

directions

Networking with researchers

Networking with journal editors

Poster presentations


Benefits of poster presentations

Gives you the opportunity to interact with other researchers

Allows you to share pre-published results with your peers (don’t let them read!)

Allows you to discuss one-on-one with other researchers about your study

• More interactive than oral presentations • Improve discussing your research in English • Help build international collaborations


Logo Short Descriptive Title of Your Research

Authors and Affiliations

Introduction

Acknowledgements

Methods

Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Fig. 3 Fig. 4

Poor poster layout

Results Discussion

Model


Logo Short Descriptive Title of Your Research

Authors and Affiliations

Introduction

Acknowledgements

Results

Methods References

Discussion Results

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 3 Fig. 6

Model

Aims

Good poster layout

Poster presentations Poster formatting

Colors

• 2–3 colors maximum, 300 dpi CMYK • Light background with dark letters

• Title: 85 pt • Authors: 50 pt • Headings: 36–44 pt • Text: 24–34 pt

• Read from 1.5 m • Use sans serif font

(e.g., Arial; not serif)

Font

Poster presentations Preparing your poster

Important points to include

Not necessary

Brief introduction General methodology Main results (specific

methods/findings in legends)

Brief discussion Put conclusion at eye

level!

Abstract Detailed methods Many references

Prefer pictures and bullets to text!

Poster presentations Example poster

Clear title

Concise Introduction

Schematics

Graphical Methods

Large figures with clear

figure legends

Bullet point Conclusion with model

Contact info

Oral presentations

Oral presentations Beginning

Brief introduction

Background information

Aims of your study

Use pictures and diagrams

Oral presentations Middle

Methods

Flow chart or schematic

Figures

Important results, organized clearly

Oral presentations End

Conclusions

Summary and implications

Future directions

How is this being further developed?

Oral presentations Slide layout

Font

• Sans serif (e.g., Arial, not serif) • 40 pt for titles • 30+ pt for major points • 24+ pt for minor points

Layout

• Limit 8 lines of text per slide • Use bullet points, not sentences • Organize and align clearly • 72 ppi, RGB

Well-designed slides show that you care about the presentation

Oral presentations Bullet points

You should never write complete sentences like this on your slides. Therefore, try to use bullet points instead to communicate

your ideas to your audience. Bullet points are also a great way to list the main points for your audience on the slide. However,

it can also be boring for them as well. If this happens, you can quickly lose the attention of your audience. As we discussed

earlier, once you lose the attention of your audience, your presentation is essentially over and you have not communicated the

significance or relevance of your work to them. Another problem with bullet points is that it might suggest hierarchy in the

list that you are sharing with your audience, which can be misleading for your audience. They may assume that the first point

is more important that the last point, when this may not necessarily be the case. Lastly, having one large block of text to read

takes more time for your audience and can be more difficult, especially for non-native English attendees.

Oral presentations Bullet points

Advantages

• Are easier to read than sentences • Are a good way to list information

Disadvantages

• Can be boring – Can lose your audience’s attention

• Can suggest hierarchy • Can still be difficult to read

• Sentence fragments

• Parallel grammar

• 2 levels of bullets

• 26/32 point font; bold

• Color

Oral presentations

Don’t let the audience read ahead

Focus the attention of your audience

Animate simply: appear, fade, wipe

Don’t distract from your information!

Animation & graphics

Contrasting colors, easy to read

Simple and organized

For information, not decoration

For pictures, use compressed images

Presentation skills

Presentation skills Before you present…

Most important thing you can do…

Practice

Learn your presentation, don’t read it

Don’t memorize, these are your ideas

Practice alone and with others, record yourself

Practice builds confidence!

Presentation skills

Presentation tips – Appear confident

Non-verbal

Use hand gestures

Make eye contact Always face

your audience

Smile!

Stand upright

Don’t be stiff, move naturally

Presentation skills

Presentation tips – Speaking style

Verbal

Avoid filler words

Pause for emphasis

Speak slowly

Show enthusiasm

Vary tone and pitch

Don’t talk to the screen

Presentation skills

Start positive and get their attention early

Never read your title slide

Start with what is important about your talk

Say what the implications are Keep your audience in mind! For long talks: make an Agenda or Goals list

(sets direction; activates prior knowledge)

Never apologize for your English or for being nervous!

Presentation skills Start positive

Introduction

Thank the organizers

Opening comments

Start your presentation

“I would like to thank [organizer] for kindly inviting me here today.”

“I’m very happy to be able to speak to you today.”

“Today, I would like to talk about...”

Presentation skills Develop your story

Body of presentation

Introduce the sections

Start the sections

Summarize each section

“This is how I will discuss...” “As you can see, my presentation

is divided into four sections.”

“First, I would like to discuss...” “In this section, I will show that…”

“I’d like to summarize the main findings from this section.”

“…So that’s what we found when...”

• It is well known that… • It has been reported

that… • It has been found that… • In this method, it is

important to note that…

Presentation skills

Figures – Guide the audience

Describing data/figures

Introduce the figures

Talk about the data

Focus on important information

“Now, I’d like to show you data from our recent experiments.”

“What we did here was…”

“Here, you can see...” “The top graph shows…”

“Here’s…”, “On this axis is...”

“I’d like to draw your attention to...” “There are three things to note…”

• It can be seen that… • It is clear from these

experiments that… • It seems that… • It was found that…

Presentation skills

Finishing your presentation

Conclusions

Conclusion & Implications/Future

Thank people

“In conclusion, the main findings of this study are...”

Thank the audience: “Thank you for your attention today.”

Acknowledge assistance: “I’d like to thank the people who

were involved in this project.”

“I’d now be happy to answer any questions that you may have.”

Invite questions

• It can be concluded that…

• It can be implied that… • It is expected that…

Presentation skills Answering questions

1. Thank the audience member

2. Understand the question

3. Repeat/rephrase the question

4. Answer the question (be concise!)

5. Ensure you have answered the question

6. Thank the audience member again

Gives you time to think

of the answer!

S

Be an effective communicator

Your goal is not only to be published, but also to be widely read and highly cited

Selecting the most appropriate journal

Making the best first impression

Confidently navigating the peer review process

Effectively presenting your work

Thank you!

Any questions?

Follow us on Twitter

@EdanzEditing

Like us on Facebook

facebook.com/EdanzEditing

Download and further reading edanzediting.co.jp/gunma1603

Julian Tang: [email protected] Trevor Lane: [email protected]