Julian Tang, PhD Trevor Lane, PhD Author Success Workshop: Effectively Communicate Your Research 2 Gunma University 27 March 2016
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
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
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
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…”
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 Cover letter to the editor
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Cover letter to the editor
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Special cover letters
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
Coverage and Staffing Plan
Communicating with journals Special cover letters
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
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!
Coverage and Staffing Plan
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
Peer review Decision letter 2
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
Peer review Decision letter 2
…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
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
Poster presentations
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
Poster presentations
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]