英文论文写作及投稿技巧章节座课件

英文论文写作及投稿技巧章节座英文论文写作及投稿技巧章节座1Journal citation reportsSelecting the right journal and picking a manuscript formatWriting the manuscriptReview criteria for research manuscriptsTalking back to reviewers:the gentle art of resubmissionJournal citation reports2英文论文写作及投稿技巧章节座课件3英文论文写作及投稿技巧章节座课件4英文论文写作及投稿技巧章节座课件5FundamentalsSELECTING THE RIGHT JOURNALTo assess authors goals and motivations for publishing their work.For example,an author in an academic tenure-track position should try to publish in journals that are respected by his or her institutions promotions and tenure committee.PICKING A MANUSCRIPT FORMAT 1.Letter to the Editor is commenting on a previously published article in the same journal,or providing information on a similar subject.2.Case Report presents a unique case or series of patient,which provides a new approach to managing a common disease,illuminates the pathophysiology of a rare disease,or teaches concepts applicable in other settings.3.Review Article attempts to summarize a defined area of knowledge,based on an exhaustive compilation and analysis of the available literature.The review should attempt to answer important questions that are not clearly answered by single studies.4.Research Article is the most common format for the presentation of research data.Differences in required formats for different journals are usually clearly explained in the Instructions for Authors”.FundamentalsSELECTING THE RIGH6英文论文写作及投稿技巧章节座课件7英文论文写作及投稿技巧章节座课件8Cover letterBriefly describing why the manuscript is important or unique and why that partiticular journal was chosen for submission To suggest 3 to 4 referees(include the mailing address,electronic address,phone,and fax numbers)and the Associate Editor they believe best qualified to review their paper.Authors may also list a non-preferred Associate Editor and non-preferred referees.To categorize the manuscript into one of the four following groups:Clinical Alimentary Tract,Clinical Liver/Pancreas/Biliary,Basic Alimentary Tract,or Basic Liver/Pancreas/Biliary.Cover letterBriefly describing9 Writing the manuscriptArrange manuscript as follows,each component beginning on a separate page:(1)title page,(2)abstract,(3)introduction,(4)materials and methods,(5)results,(6)discussion,(7)references,(8)figure legends,(9)tables.Place page number and first authors last name at top of each page.Title Page TitleInclude animal species.Use no abbreviations.Limit:120 characters.Short Titleis an abbreviated version of the title,which will appear at the top of every page.Limit:45 characters.Authors and full location of department and institution.Grant SupportList grant support and other assistance.AbbreviationsList alphabetically abbreviations not mentioned in the Style Guide,which follows the Instructions to Authors.Correspondence.Keywords:Include three to five words or short phrases,relevant to the article,that do not appear in the title or running head.Writing the manuscript10AbstractIt is usually written last because that is when a global view of the work can be achieved.It contains a brief,comprehensive summary of the contents of the manuscript to enable readers to survey the article rapidly.The best abstracts correctly reflect the purpose and scope of the manuscript,including what was done,why and how,what the results were,and what the implications of the findings are.AbstractIt is usually written11 AbstractAm.J.Physiol.An one-paragraph abstract of not more than 170 words.It must state concisely what was done and why(including species and state of anesthesia),what was found(in terms of data,if space allows),and what was concluded.Three key words for use in the reviewing process should be provided.Summary Journal of Physiology.The Summary consists of one unnumbered paragraph.It should give the background,objectives and methodological approach.Results should be presented quantitatively where appropriate,together with the statistical significance,and the conclusions indicated.References may not be cited.A limit of 250 words is recommended.It must not exceed 5%of the text(excluding references and figure legends),with an absolute maximum of one printed page.AbstractGastroenterology.Limit:250 words.1.Background&Aims2.Methods 3.Results 4.Conclusions AbstractAm.J.Physiol.12Introduction “roadmap from problem to solution”It should provide a brief overview of the scope and relevance of the study,especially with regard to what has been found in earlier studies.This section should make the background of the research clear.The writer should state the hypothesis,and the specific objectives of each experiment.Reference to the authors previous work is desirable only if it has a direct bearing on the subject of the paper;an extensive historical review is not appropriate.Introduction “roadmap from p13Materials and Methods(Experimental Procedures).How the research was conducted and how the hypothesis was tested.Describe techniques,cell/animal models used,and lists of reagents,chemicals,and equipment,as well as the names of manufacturers and suppliers,so that your study can be most easily replicated by others.The statistical methods that were used to evaluate the data.Specify that the work conformed with national/local ethics committee guidelines.All anaesthetic details,including method of killing,must be included.Methods are described once only and do not appear in the legends to figures and tables.Materials and Methods(Experim14ResultsProvide the experimental data and results as well as the particular statistical significance of the data.Quantitative observations are often better presented graphically than in tables.Analysis of variance(ANOVA),not t tests,should be used for multiple comparisons.Theory and inference must be clearly distinguished from what was observed,and should not be elaborated upon in this section.ResultsProvide the experiment15Discussion Explain your interpretation of the data,especially compared with published material cited in the References.How the results,and the interpretation of them agree or contrast with previously published work.Point out the strengths and weaknesses of the methods or results of the study and suggest possible refinements in methods for future study.Practical applications and theoretical implications of the results need to be discussed.State conclusions clearly and summarize the evidences for each conclusion.(References Acknowledgements Tables Figures and legends Supplementary material Abbreviations)Discussion16COMMENTS TO EDITORS AND TO AUTHORSCOMMENTS TO EDITORS AND TO AUT17CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS FOR EDITORSCONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS FOR EDIT18Dear ReviewerA decision of Reject has been rendered on manuscript G-00323-2002“Differential Mechanism and Site of Action of CCK on the Pancreatic Secretion and Growth in Rats.Pleasesee the reviewers comments below.Referee 1 Comments:Major Comments:1.It is unclear what this study adds to our knowledge.As the authors mention,it was previously reported that ablation of vagal nerves or atropine treatment did not prevent CCK mediated increases in pancreatic growth(Nylander et al.1997).Furthermore,direct trophic effects of CCK on pancreatic cells have been reported in vitro(this relevant literature was not cited).Thus,the current study is primarily confirmatory.2.The authors do not discuss the potential relevance of this data to humans.The lack of CCKA receptors on human pancreatic acinar cells suggests that this direct trophic mechanism is specific to rodents.Referee 2 Comments:The manuscript describes studies involved three important topics:the mechanisms and site of action of CCK on pancreatic enzyme secretion,pancreatic growth,and the role of the vagal afferent in the regulation of CCK release.The data presented in this paper demonstrated that CCK stimulates pancreatic enzyme secretion via a capsaicin-sensitive vagal afferent pathway,and CCK exerts pancreatic growth effect on the pancreas directly.However,these observations have been well demonstrated in previous publications.I am puzzled by the data presented in this paper indicating the increase of plasma CCK concentrations in the rats after perivagal capsaicin treatment.The background and the rational of this study have not been clearly described.The interpretation of the data seems muddled.The style of this manuscript,particularly in the sections of Introduction and Discussion are very informal.英文论文写作及投稿技巧章节座课件19REASONS REVIEWERS REJECT MANUSCRIPTS“Poor argumentation,”that is,failing to make a convincing case.Hypothesis not stated or inappropriate.Lack of a conceptual or theoretical framework.Inadequate,incomplete,inaccurate,or outdated review of the literature.Ignorance of the literature.Poor writing.Text difficult to follow,to understand.Lack of novelty.Misunderstanding or misapplying the data or the literature.Sample too small or biased.Overinterpretation of the results.Underinterpretation of results;ignoring results.Key points,main results dont stand out.Defective tables or figures.Incomplete,insufficient information in abstract.Title not representative of the study.REASONS REVIEWERS REJECT MANUS20On equal scientific merit,a badly written article will have less chance of being accepted.Difficult to read,to follow and to understand Too longWrong or inaccurate termsInformation in the wrong section,poor organizationUnedited,hasty writing,typographical errorsGrammatical errorsInappropriate languageAbbreviations not spelled outOn equal scientific merit,a b21REASONS REVIEWERS ACCEPT MANUSCRIPTSImportant,timely,relevant,critical,prevalent problemWell-written manuscript(clear,straightforward,easy to follow,logical),Clear rationale,Clear hypothesesThoughtful,focused,up-to-date review of the literatureWell-designed study(appropriate,rigorous,comprehensive,novel mix of designs)Sample size sufficiently large.Novel,unique approach to data analysis.Integration of multiple statistical methodsPractical,useful implicationsInterpretation took into account the limitations of the studyProblem well stated,alternative explanations presented,reflects scientific honestyREASONS REVIEWERS ACCEPT MANUS22Talking back to reviewers:the gentle art of resubmission Do not submit if you do not intend to resubmit.I never expect to be funded on the first submission of a grant.Even accomplished researchers do not get their work published on the first submission.Do they make mistakes?Do they miss important points?Do they have their own ego problems?But you are much better off assuming they are sincerely interested in helping you.When you talk back to them,do it gently.Make a list of EVERY point that the reviewers made and categorize them into those that are easily changed,those that will demand a major rethinking,those requiring major additional work,and those you disagree with.When you are ready,write an explanation of how you addressed EVERY point that the reviewers raised.For resubmission to the same journals,this explanationshould be in your letter to the editor.For those points you disagree with,give your rationale for not following the reviewers advice.If you have performed additional pilot work,be sure to include this.Reviewers like to know that you are pursuing your research and not just sitting on your hands waiting for funding.Finally,include in your response a note of gratitude for the reviewers ideas.Try to make this sincere.Talking back to reviewers:the23