It can be extremely frustrating - not to mention time-consuming - formatting papers to meet journal requirements. That's why we provide free templates to help you make sense of the author instructions and speed up the submission process. Please let us know if you need a specific template creating for you.

Image processing and conversion can be equally frustrating, especially when you are doing it for the first time. We thought it might be useful to pass on some of the resources and techniques we use when preparing images for journals. Here, we deal with the commonest scenario we encounter when preparing images for biomedical journals - converting image files into high-resolution TIFFs (usually of minimum 300 dpi resolution).

The usual method involves two steps: converting the (non-TIFF) image into a PDF, then converting the PDF into a TIFF file. Check the journal's author instructions first though, since some journals accept PDF files.

Step 1: Convert to PDF

You can convert your file into a PDF by either "printing" as a PDF (select "print to PDF" in the "print" dialogue box) or by "saving as" a PDF (go to "File" >> "Save As, then in the pull down “Format” or “Save as type” menu select “PDF").

Step 2: Convert PDF into TIFF

If you use an Apple computer, there is a very easy way to do this:

1. Simply open up your PDF in Preview and select "Export…" from the file menu.
2. In the "Format" dropdown at the bottom of the dialogue box, select "TIFF".
3. Many journals (especially PLoS family) prefer you to use LZW compression, so select "LZW" from the "Compression" dropdown.
4. Set the resolution to 300 pixels/inch and "Save".

If you use standalone graphics editing software, such as the excellent open-source program GIMP, then:

1. Open the PDF in your graphics software (GIMP will allow you to set the resolution on import, so set it to 300 pixel/inch at this stage).
2. Crop and re-size the image if necessary.
3. Save the file using LZW compression: in GIMP, use “Export” and select TIFF as the format with LZW compression; in Photoshop, select “LZW compression” and “Discard Layers, and Save a Copy.”

If you are having problems or need advice, why not drop us a line. We are always happy to help.

Tags: Technical Editing, Manuscript editing, Image Processing, TIFF file, Apple, Preview

Those of you who regularly follow us will know that we feel very strongly about reducing barriers to scientific publishing. Manuscript preparation (author) guidelines vary wildly between different journals, from the sublime (see Cancer Medicine’s guidelines here, which only demand ‘a clear, generic and readable layout’) to the ridiculous (PLOS One being a notable culprit). We had considered naming the best and shaming the worst but decided against it - there are many sensible reasons for prescriptive manuscript preparation, not least to raise scientific standards (such as with guideline-driven statistical or clinical trial reporting) and improve accountability and transparency (such as full reporting of conflicts of interest or ethical statements). Not all journals have the editorial budgets they would like, and it is perhaps inevitable that some of the editorial burden is passed on to authors. Some are unnecessarily onerous, but we’ll leave that for another day.

However, complex author instructions remain a barrier, particularly if English is not your first language. Even well-seasoned scientists will have their papers returned from editorial offices from time to time for technical reasons. We therefore thought that, instead of complaining, we could be more solution-focussed and do something positive. That is why we have started to prepare a collection of free MS Word templates to help authors prepare their manuscripts for their target journal. We know that Thomson Reuters provide similar templates on their Endnote website, but these are very basic and many have not been updated for several years.

Our templates are journal specific and aim to contain all the required manuscript information under the correct section headings. Any additional information, such as conflicts of interest statements, are pre-filled at the correct point in the document. We have included example references (formatted using Endnote) in each file and provided links to Endnote style files - and a reminder that the wonderful Mendeley is a great free alternative for citation management. Additional web links are embedded in the templates where we believe them to be useful. These templates are free to use and share, but not for commercial purposes please.

This is a start and not a finish and if there is a template you would like to see, please just contact us using the request form - we will try to get that made as quickly as possible and post it for all to share. If there are errors or omissions, please just let us know. If you have a template you would like to share, you can upload it and let us know using the same form.

We hope that you find these useful - please spread the word via the usual social media channels (Facebook and LinkedIn) if you do or click here to tweet - our hashtag for this is #simplifyscience






comments powered by Disqus

Tags: Nextgenediting, Templates, PLOS One, Publishing, #simplifyscience, Manuscript editing, Endnote, Mendeley, free resources

Yesterday saw the UK launch of Horizon 2020, the European Union’s largest ever Research and Innovation programme.

Nearly €80 billion has been earmarked for innovative science in Europe over the next seven years. Horizon 2020 is subdivided into three main ‘pillars’: 1) Excellence in Science, 2) Industrial Leadership, and 3) Social Challenges, each containing a number of subdivisions and calls. The programme offers several opportunities for individuals of any nationality who wish to undertake research in one of the 28 EU member states or associated countries. As with the outgoing FP7 programme, many of the calls are consortium-based applications that require at least three partners and benefit from an emphasis on commercial/industrial participation.

EU Research Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn has promised a streamlined process and that “loads of red tape” has been cut out. Those familiar with FP7 might be a little sceptical - the scale and complexity of these applications is daunting and Horizon 2020 is no different. Harmonising work packages written by different individuals and groups is not straightforward and communicating the overall vision can be a challenge, even when English is your first language. Specialist third-party input and critical appraisal of your application can really give you a competitive advantage.

Nextgenediting can help. We will make your application stand out against the competition. As well as making sure that the individual components of your Horizon 2020 application are perfectly edited, your specialist editor will also focus on integrating the work packages and make sure that together they achieve the desired impact - a major scoring criterion for framework programmes. We will provide individual feedback, comments, and suggestions for improvement. We will work collaboratively with you until the moment your application is submitted.

Given that we pride ourselves on scientific excellence - a core aim of Horizon 2020 - we are genuinely excited about helping individuals and teams achieve funding success.

If you are an individual looking for funding and want to work in the EU you might be interested in exploring the funding opportunities provided by the European Research Council (calls now open for starting, consolidator, and PoC grants) and the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA). Our clinician scientist colleagues may be interested in the calls on Personalising Health and Care.

For more information or a quotation, please contact us or submit your application via our manuscript submission page.






comments powered by Disqus

Tags: Grant Applications, Nextgenediting, Manuscript editing, Horizon 2020, Grant editing

We’ve already written about why we think hiring the services of our editors represents excellent value for money, especially when you take your own (very valuable) time into account. Nevertheless, we know that taking the plunge and sending us your paper can be a bit of a leap into the unknown, especially for people who haven’t used this type of service before. Will they be any good? How long will they spend on my paper? Will I be pleased with the results? How can I trust them? There are some pointers here to help you come to a decision, courtesy of Nature, and you can read about what we’re doing to deliver the best possible service here.

However, we also thought it might be useful to share some of our own data with you, generated from real papers that our customers have sent to us. We decided to audit fifty manuscripts submitted to us for editing in early 2013 in order to paint a picture of what you can expect from us.

This is “Nextgenediting by numbers*”:

Total number of words: 195 684
Average number of corrections per manuscript: 1042
Average number of words written as comments by our editors: 428
Average number of formatting changes per manuscript: 102
Average time taken editing each line: 32 seconds
Highest impact factor journal: 25**
Average impact factor of intended journal: 3.2
Lowest impact factor journal: 1.3**
Number of authors failing to get published: 0***

* fifty consecutive manuscripts submitted to Nextgenediting for full editing.
** Verified published by Pubmed citation.
*** At time of writing, and according to available data and feedback from clients.

Thirty-two seconds spent editing each line of text (of approximately 10 words). Thirty-two seconds of expert scientist or clinician reading your carefully crafted words, and then sculpting them some more. That’s quite a long time. Take a look for yourself by playing this video:



Of course, these data are not without their limitations - variability between editors, variability in the quality of submitted work, and the limitations of the tracking data generated by MS Word, to name a few. The acid test is whether our customers are happy. So let’s give you one or two more numbers:

53% of those papers were from repeat customers. And 20% of those customers have submitted three or more papers for editing. That’s how pleased they are, and you can read some of their reviews here.

We know you won’t be disappointed if you choose Nextgenediting. Submit your manuscript now.






comments powered by Disqus

Tags: Value for money, Cost, Manuscript editing, Nextgenediting, Audit, Data

There are a seemingly endless number of hurdles one has to jump over in order to get your scientific or medical manuscript published. One of the most frustrating can be conforming to journal style. This usually means wading through pages of author instructions, re-writing and re-structuring the paper to meet strict ‘in-house’ requirements, formatting figures, and changing the reference style. While some of this burden used to be shouldered by the journal itself (hence justifying the exorbitant publishing fees), there seems to be a shift to ‘passing the buck’ to the author/scientist/general dog’s body (see here). This is epitomised by the editorial policy at PLOS One, where the copyediting is the responsibility of the author in its entirety.

So is all this editing worth it?

Well, a Cochrane review on the subject suggests the answer is ‘yes’. You can read the whole document here, but it is a dry and slightly laborious read so we’ll summarise it for you:

- peer review and journal editing improve the ‘readability’ of manuscripts
- detailed author instructions improve a paper
- structured abstracts can improve a paper
- technical editing improves the accuracy of references

The magnitude of benefit of ‘technical editing’ (i.e. those steps that occur from acceptance through to publication) are relatively small, mind you. This comes as no surprise to us. In our experience that isn’t where most authors’ manuscripts fall short of excellent. That is not why they are failing to get accepted. Technical flaws are easy to fix (and we can do it for you, see here).

No, it is those elements which are slightly harder to quantify which make or break a paper (particularly in higher impact or general journals). Are the hypothesis and aims clearly stated? Is the most significant result presented with clarity, or is it obfuscated by unnecessary detail? Is there unnecessary use of confusing jargon? Is there repetition both within and between sections? Is the discussion overly long and is this due to over-interpretation of results (usually a problem in short descriptive clinical papers)?

That is why Nextgenediting offers more than just copyediting. Copyediting is just the basics, as far as we’re concerned. Our concept is that we should firstly understand your science (by using expert editors), and only then will we be able to perform the type of structural and conceptual changes which are required to perfect your work. Sometimes that’ll be collaborative (you know the most about your work), but that’s we’re here to read and re-read until we’ve sculpted your words into something better than they were before.

So yes, technical editing is worth it, but be aware you will get so much more from our services. We know you won’t be disappointed.






comments powered by Disqus

Tags: Manuscript editing, Technical Editing, PLOS One

As if thinking up ideas, writing grants, planning experiments, hiring staff, performing experiments, suffering the lows of failed experiments, relishing the highs of successful experiments, interpreting data, giving talks, going to conferences, being criticised, being commended, writing grants (did I mention that?), writing papers, supervising, teaching, marking, lecturing, course planning, peer reviewing, journal editing, and (if you are clinically trained) treating patients weren’t enough!

Breathe.

These days, particularly with some of the open access journals, if you want to publish you now have to be copy editor, graphic designer, computer geek, desktop publisher, artist, statistician, and expert in ethics and governance. The English must be perfect, the grammar impeccable, and perhaps most importantly, you must be able to communicate the importance of all your hard work.

Breathe.

You need to be fluent in Photoshop, Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Adobe Acrobat, SPSS, Endnote, and Reference Manager. Depending on what you’re doing, you might need to be able to code in R or use LaTeX. You need to navigate author guidelines, file submission systems, and image and table formatting guidelines. Get it wrong and - ping! - the manuscript comes straight back.

All a bit of a heartsink, right?

Of course that’s where we come in and say, “Well, Nextgenediting can do all of that for you”. And that’s right, we can, but if you are not familiar with using professional science editing services, you may have doubts about how much time you can save, and how much the service costs. With tightening budgets and a cold funding climate, forking out a few hundred pounds can seem a little steep.

So what is the real cost of professional science editing?

Well, let’s look first at what the actual cost of editing is as a proportion of total publication costs (i.e. not including research costs). In the table below there are some indicative examples of publishing costs for a few standard research articles to typical journals. The cost of professional editing is presented as a percentage of total publishing cost. A few assumptions have been made: you are publishing colour figures, you have selected open access publishing, and you have submitted your article to one other journal (where it was rejected - a sad but real fact for most authors). Your time is worth about £30/$50 an hour, and you have spent 12 hours preparing the first submission, and 4 hours on the second. All prices are GBP, and there are 1.6 USD to the pound.



So what are the messages here?

Firstly, professional editing is on average only 10% (range 3.4%-17.9%) of the total cost of publishing. Just publishing. As a proportion of the total value of the research, it is likely to be a tiny, tiny fraction of that, for most biomedical subjects.

Think of what you get for that, with Nextgenediting at least (see our prices and payment options here). Collaborative editing, so that your science is presented in the best possible way: logical flow, clear statement of aims and hypothesis, contextual improvements in your writing. Perfect spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Your manuscript has its hand held through to acceptance, however many re-edits that requires. You don’t have to worry about journal formatting, because we do that for you.

But the column to really study is the cost of professional editing vs your time. We are cheap compared to you. Editing your own work is a false economy.

Think about what that time could be spent on: writing grants, planning experiments, hiring staff, performing experiments, suffering the lows of failed experiments, relishing the highs of successful experiments, interpreting data, giving talks, going to conferences, being criticised, being commended, writing grants (did I mention that?), writing more papers, supervising, teaching, marking, lecturing, course planning, peer reviewing, journal editing, and (if you are clinically trained) treating patients.

Or, if like most of us, preparing manuscripts happens out of office hours, how about more time with the family or doing the things you enjoy doing?

Food for thought. We’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter.






comments powered by Disqus

Tags: Cost, Manuscript editing