FMS PGR Writing for Publication Writing Development Centre

FMS PGR Writing for Publication Writing Development Centre Slides will be made available @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre Explore the possibilities

Today’s session • The process of publication and the decisions to be made at each stage • The difference between writing for assessment and writing for publication • Managing writing with co-authors, editors, peer reviewers • Your questions and priorities? @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

The Cast: Who are you writing • The Publisher for? • The Reader • The Editor • Peer Reviewer 1 who thinks your work is ok, but needs some changes and doesn’t like your style • Peer Reviewer 2 who thinks your work would be publishable if you made a few (completely different and possibly unrealistic) changes • Peer Reviewer 3 who thinks your work would need a major overhaul to be publishable • The Author (you) • The Co-authors • The one who is busy and passively obstructive • The one who is overly involved but keeps changing their mind adding new ideas @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

Publication process: Where do you start? 1. You research your chosen publisher or journal – remit, genres and author requirements 2. You identify an angle which would fit their remit 3. (if a book, you write a proposal, which is peer reviewed. ) 4. You write the text (and get feedback from co-authors and colleagues) 5. You ensure it meets their author requirements 6. You submit…. (and sign any documentation) 7. You wait for the editor to reject or initiate peer review process…. 8. You respond to referees’ feedback to the editor 9. You resubmit…. (or revise and take it somewhere else) 10. You check the proofs and sign any contract 11. You wait for publication…. @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

Read Authors’ Guidelines carefully • • • Aims, scope and audience Types of submission Structure (IMRAD? ) Length Formatting (incl figures and colour) Referencing style ‘House’ style conventions Copyright if reproducing others’ figures ‘Originality’ and previously published requirements Read a couple of issues to find out what this looks like in practice, cite previous work in that journal @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

Who is your reader? Think of a piece of research you’d like to publish. • Who cares? What readerships can you identify? • What’s the point? Can you ‘sell’ it in one sentence? • Why bother? Why is your research needed? • So what? What will your research help them to know/do/explain/build on? @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

The importance of metadata Once published, the first ‘reader’ of your work will be a (database) search engine. Optimise discoverability and think about what terms your reader will be searching for: • Key words • Search terms Look at similar topics and articles on Scopus, Web of Science, Compendex, etc • check thesaurus terms, controlled vocabulary, author keywords @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

The importance of titles The second reader of your work will be skimming down a list of ‘hits’ from a database search. • Influence of aspirin on human megakaryocyte prostaglandin synthesis • Inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis as a mechanism of action of aspirin-like drugs • The effect of calcium antagonist felodipine on blood pressure and heart rate in patients with essential hypertension • Essential hypertension: the effect of calcium antagonist felodipine on blood pressure and heart rate @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

What makes a good abstract? The third reading of your work will be of the abstract alone. • A good abstract will answer four questions: • Why? The first section puts the study in the context of current knowledge and gives the purpose of the work. • How? This section explains how the research was conducted. • What? The main findings of the study are presented in brief. • So what? The abstract concludes with a brief explanation of the implications or applications of the study. • It should probably be brief and clear…. ? ! But make the most of the word count @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

During cell division, mitotic spindles are assembled by microtubule-based motor proteins(1, 2). The bipolar organization of spindles is essential for proper segregation of chromosomes, and requires plus-end-directed homotetrameric motor proteins of the widely conserved kinesin-5 (Bim. C) family (3). Hypotheses for bipolar spindle formation include the 'push−pull mitotic muscle' model, in which kinesin-5 and opposing motor proteins act between overlapping microtubules (2, 4, 5). However, the precise roles of kinesin-5 during this process are unknown. Here we show that the vertebrate kinesin-5 Eg 5 drives the sliding of microtubules depending on their relative orientation. We found in controlled in vitro assays that Eg 5 has the remarkable capability of simultaneously moving at 20 nm s-1 towards the plus-ends of each of the two microtubules it crosslinks. For anti-parallel microtubules, this results in relative sliding at 40 nm s-1, comparable to spindle pole separation rates in vivo 6. Furthermore, we found that Eg 5 can tether microtubule plus-ends, suggesting an additional microtubule-binding mode for Eg 5. Our results demonstrate how members of the kinesin-5 family are likely to function in mitosis, pushing apart interpolar microtubules as well as recruiting microtubules into bundles that are subsequently polarized by relative sliding. We anticipate our assay to be a starting point for more sophisticated in vitro models of mitotic spindles. For example, the individual and combined action of multiple mitotic @ncl_wdc motors could be tested, including minus-enddirected motors opposing Eg 5 motility. Writing Development Centre Furthermore, Eg 5 inhibition is a major target of anti-cancer drug development, and a

Advice from Nature @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

Writing for peers, not assessors You have the first paragraph from • A thesis • An article published from that thesis • What are the differences between the two? • How do these relate to the different audience and purpose they’re written for? @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

What’s the worst that can happen? "It is all done with an honest regard for scholarship, but the result of this clearly Herculean labour is a thinly disguised reworking of the original doctoral thesis on which this book is so clearly based. The structure smacks of the well-constructed thesis. Combined with endless references to the works of scholars in the field and the myriad citations in parenthesis, the authorial voice gets lost. It's a pity, because O'Brian has some appealing turns of phrase [. . . ] I wanted to hear more of the bona fide O'Brian". Review of 'Classical Masculinity and the Spectacular Body on Film: The Mighty Sons of Hercules by Daniel O'Brian - review by Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones THES 8 th Jan 2015, p. 51 @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

Writing for assessment, writing for publication: What’s the difference? Different purposes, different audiences, different genres: • You’re being peer reviewed, not assessed • The process is quality control, not developmental However: • You don’t have to be as defensive or exhaustive - you’re contributing to knowledge, not demonstrating it @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

Co-authoring 3 models: • Talk and type together • Divide up between you by sections, one person brings them together • One person writes the draft, others review Writing and ‘authorship’: what is ‘work’? • First author • Last author • Corresponding author @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

And then you submit (usually online) And then you wait…… @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

Peer review • How are referees chosen? Volunteer or be invited? Or be nominated by author? • Single- and double-blind review, open review • Usually at least 2 referees • Referees are given guidelines and criteria • They usually fill in a form with comments and recommendations • They are asked to give an overall recommendation • They are given a deadline, but…. . @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

Critical drafting @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

Getting the response from the Editor and Referees @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

Dealing with rejection Most articles will be rejected in some form: • Rejection by editor without review • Rejection by reviewers • Conditional acceptance with major revisions • Conditional acceptance with minor revisions • Acceptance without revisions (rare!) The editor should synthesise feedback for you Get a mentor or peer to ‘translate’ it for you @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

Feedback: Reasons for rejection • Serious reasons: • • Not original Not important or significant (or useful) Flawed premise/aims/question/hypothesis Flawed research design Flawed analysis Flawed conclusions Not enough context or detail • Annoying reasons: • • Doesn’t fit journal scope Not a journal article…too long Badly written and edited Doesn’t meet house style Use the Guidance for Reviewers to help read your own work critically before you submit @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

(British referees) • “I would suggest that…” IT = DO • “It would be helpful if the author…” IT = DO • “Perhaps an improvement might be…” = DO IT @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

@ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

Peer review case studies • Peer Reviewer One: says the paper needs considerable editing as it has issues with presentation – They don’t like your use of papers not yet published, find your presentation of the data a bit confusing and think that you need an additional diagram to clarify. They think your data is statistically meaningful but wonder if you’d considered a different method? Also, have you sufficiently excluded other factors from your discussion? How do your findings relate to the field of [? ? ] • Peer Reviewer Two: says this is a contribution in an important field. They want more detail on the experimental set up, and a more extensive literature review as you’ve omitted the work of important, relevant groups in this field. They have detailed questions about the conclusions you’ve drawn and want you to @ncl_wdc justify your use of a particular approach. They feel that your Writing Development Centre treatment is somewhat shallow and lacks novelty.

Case Studies What might your response be to the points made by Reviewers One and Two? • “That’s actually a good point. Thanks. ” • “Whatever. If you insist. ” • “No. ” • “Ahahahah. Nice try. Really, no”. • Which review are you more worried about? @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

Dealing with revisions The revision letter to the editor: • Thank the editor and acknowledge useful feedback • Where you agree with the suggested revisions, say where and how (and to what extent) you have addressed them point by point • Where you disagree with the suggested revisions, you can argue your case with the editor. Stay objective, rational, polite and professional. • Now is not the time to make major additions or changes • Get someone to read it before you send it…. @ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

@ncl_wdc Writing Development Centre

libhelp. ncl. ac. uk @ncl_wdc @NULibraries newcastleunilibrary Email libraryhelp@ncl. ac. u k Phone 0191 208 7944 Live 24/7 chat libhelp. ncl. ac. uk Text / SMS 0191 328 0570