Technical Editing

QuickTip #1: converting files to TIFF

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.


Open source software for scientists - our top five recommendations

As part of our drive to help reduce barriers to scientific publishing, today we would like to share Nextgenediting’s top five open source or free alternatives to commercial scientific software packages. Although the vast majority of the submissions we receive are written in Microsoft Word with citations embedded using Endnote, we also use the freely available programs listed below to help edit and prepare papers for submission. This has become even more important as we liaise with scientists from low- and middle-income countries as part of the Global Initiative, who sometimes cannot afford the (sometimes extremely) high cost of commercial software. Please let us know if you have any other recommendations or questions about the use of these packages.

1. Image processing and manipulation - GIMP (The GNU Image Manipulation Program)

GIMP is a fantastic and versatile alternative to Adobe Photoshop, feely downloadable for all platforms (Mac, Windows, Linux, and others). We find it particularly useful for image conversion in preparation for manuscript submission, especially for producing the high-resolution 300 dpi figures frequently required by the journals. Although the learning curve is relatively steep, there is comprehensive online documentation (including in multiple languages) that holds your hand through basic tasks, such as image re-sizing, cropping, and how to add text to figures. Although CMKY is not supported, we use the Separate+ plugin when conversion is necessary. Give it a try!

2. Statistical analysis - PSPP

Although SPSS is probably the dominant statistical analysis software package used in the social and life sciences, its high cost and annual license fees make it inaccessible to many researchers and students, particularly those already working in under-resourced environments. Although R is a phenomenally powerful (and free) statistical programming environment, it can be difficult to learn due to the lack of an intuitive graphical interface and need to grasp a new programming language (great in theory, just not going to happen in practice for most of us). PSPP is an open source alternative to SPSS that is certainly worth a shot. It is limited to basic analyses - descriptive statistics, linear regression, t-tests, and the like - but those familiar with the SPSS interface will have no problems using it since it is almost identical. If more people start to use it, perhaps we will see development of more complex functions.

3. Citation management - Bibus

Learning how to use citation management/bibliographic software is a must for academics. The proprietary software packages are not usually prohibitively expensive, but it would be wise to check with your institution first to see whether they have cheaper institutional licensing arrangements and training courses available. However, what about a free alternative? We recommend Bibus, a powerful reference management software package that integrates with MS Word and OpenOffice and allows online searching of PubMed via an intuitive user interface. One drawback though - while you can get Bibus to work on a Mac, it does not currently integrate with Word for Mac.

4. Typesetting and word processing - LaTeX

The scientific community is, without doubt, tied down to MS Word for document preparation and that is unlikely to change in the near future. The transition to any other word processing program can seem daunting, and most of us who have tried have generally failed. OpenOffice.org is a free alternative to MS Office and, as explained above, can be used with citation management software to good effect. However, LaTeX, another powerful ‘programming language’, might be worth exploring if you are embarking on a large document that requires a professional finish, such as a thesis. LaTeX produces documents with superior typesetting and is particularly useful if the document contains a lot of maths. It is free and easily extensible (see the Comprenhesive TeX Archive Network, CTAN). It does take some getting used to because it is not WYSIWYG, but consider it if you are about to undertake a ‘long-haul’ project. See also the great resource from the Department of Engineering at the University of Cambridge to help you get started with LaTeX.

5. Open Access (OA) article searching - CORE Research Mobile App (for iOS and Android)

Sometimes finding the data can be as difficult as processing it, especially when a lot of papers are still hidden behind paywalls. We recently found this nifty app from the UK’s Open University, which allows you to search and download freely available, full-text articles and read them on your device (in another app of your choosing, such as Kindle). The repository currently contains over 18 million open access articles. A great place to look if you need to find full text to support your research and don’t have access to journal subscriptions.

So there we are - our top five open source software packages for scientists - but please suggest your own too using the comments box below.






comments powered by Disqus

Does technical editing really improve your manuscript?

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