1. Parte 4

2. Peer Review Section 6 Download at: http://www.edanzediting.com/sa2015

3. Peer review Accepted— publication! Editor Manuscript Peer review Revision Reject Results novel? Topic relevant? Journal requirements met? New experiments Improve readability Add information Submission process frames El proceso de presentación de manuscritos

4. Peer review Peer review improves your manuscript Few papers are accepted without revision Rejection and revision are integral Peer review should be a positive process La revisión por pares mejora su manuscrito

5. Peer review What reviewers are looking for The science The manuscript Relevant hypothesis Good experimental design Appropriate methodology Good data analysis Valid conclusions Relevant hypothesis Good experimental design Appropriate methodology Good data analysis Valid conclusions Logical flow of information Manuscript structure and formatting Appropriate references High readability Logical flow of information Manuscript structure and formatting Appropriate references High readability Abstract and Introduction Methods Results and Figures Discussion Un manuscrito puede ser rechazado si la investigación científica no es de buena calidad

6. Peer review Response letter Respond to every reviewer comment Easy to see changes Refer to line and page numbers Use a different color font Highlight the text Revision No ignore los comentarios con los que no esté de acuerdo

7. Peer review Writing a response letter Marc Lippman, MD Editor-in-Chief Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3 September 2013 Dear Dr Lippman, Re: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. WJS-07-5739 Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled “Evaluation of the Glasgow prognostic score in patients undergoing curative resection for breast cancer liver metastases,” which we would like to resubmit for consideration for publication in the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 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 underlined 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 the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. Address editor personally Manuscript ID number Thank reviewers Highlight major changes Al escribir la carta de respuesta a los revisores, diríjase al editor directamente, agradezca a los revisores, enfatice cambios mayores

8. Peer review Agreeing with reviewers 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).

9. 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 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). Agreeing with reviewers Agreement

10. 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 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). Agreeing with reviewers Agreement Revisions

11. 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 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). Agreeing with reviewers Agreement Revisions Location

12. Peer review Disagreeing with reviewers 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: 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 Smith model [Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2–6).

13. 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 to 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 Smith model [Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2–6). Evidence Disagreeing with reviewers

14. 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 to 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 Smith model [Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2–6). Revisions Evidence Disagreeing with reviewers

15. 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 to 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 Smith model [Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2–6). Revisions Location Evidence Disagreeing with reviewers

16. Peer review “Unfair” reviewer comments Reviewer comment: Currently, the authors’ conclusion that this gene is involved in heart development is not completely validated by their in vitro analyses. They should do additional in vivo experiments using a genetic mouse model to show that heart development is regulated by this gene. Reasons why reviewers might make these comments  Current results are not appropriate for the impact factor of the journal  Reviewer is being “unfair” Reasons why reviewers might make these comments  Current results are not appropriate for the impact factor of the journal  Reviewer is being “unfair” Resultados no son apropiados para el factor de impacto de la revista o el revisor fue injusto

17. Peer review If rejected, what should you do? Option 1: New submission to the same journal  Fully revise manuscript  Prepare point-by-point responses  Include the original manuscript ID number Option 1: New submission to the same journal  Fully revise manuscript  Prepare point-by-point responses  Include the original manuscript ID number Option 2: New submission to a different journal  Revise manuscript  Reformat according to the author guidelines Option 2: New submission to a different journal  Revise manuscript  Reformat according to the author guidelines Si el manuscrito fue rechazado, se puede presentar nuevamente a la misma revista o presentarse a una nueva revista

18. If accepted, what’s next?  Promote your work on social networks Twitter, LinkedIn, Research Gate  Respond to post-publication comments  Present your work at conferences Promote your publication Allows you to discuss your work personally with your peers Get feedback about your work and future directions Si el manuscrito fue aceptado, promueva su trabajo en redes sociales, responda a comentarios sobre su publicación, presente sus hallazgos en conferencias

19. Be an effective communicator S Your goal is not only to be published, but also to be widely read/cited Write effectively Choose the best journal to reach your target audience Logically present your research in your manuscript Convey the significance of your work to journal editors Properly revise your manuscript after peer review Write effectively Choose the best journal to reach your target audience Logically present your research in your manuscript Convey the significance of your work to journal editors Properly revise your manuscript after peer review

20. S What we do Language editing for the academic publishing industry Support individual authors Work with authors, universities and institutes Collaborate with publishers Support individual authors Work with authors, universities and institutes Collaborate with publishers We prepare manuscripts to pass through submission and peer review

21. S How are we different? Native English speakers Research experience Publishing experience In-depth knowledge of the manuscript’s content High language and editorial skills Native English speakers Research experience Publishing experience In-depth knowledge of the manuscript’s content High language and editorial skills Our experts

22. S Daniel wheeler 2009 - DM Critical Care and Anaesthesiology, University of Oxford 2006 - PhD Neurobiology, University of Cambridge 1994 - BM BCh Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford Lecturer and honorary consultant anaesthetist at the University of Cambridge Member of the Royal College of Physicians since 1997 Published over 40 scientific papers Ludovic Croxford 2000 - PhD Medical Immunology, University College London 1994 - BSc Biochemistry and Toxicology, University of Surrey Multi-disciplinary immunologist with research experience in a wide range of fields, especially neuroimmunology, autoimmunity and oncology Published over 40 peer-reviewed papers, reviews and book chapters in journals including Nature, Nature Immunology and Nature Medicine

23. S Our publisher partnerships

24. S 1.Assess which services you need 2.Use our order webform www.edanzediting.com/order 3.Send us all the appropriate files 1.Assess which services you need 2.Use our order webform www.edanzediting.com/order 3.Send us all the appropriate files Using our services

25. S Our services 1. Language editing Language edit Second edit Review edit Point by point edit 2. Content services Journal selection Expert scientific review Cover letter development Reviewer recommendation Abstract development Custom services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting)

26. S Which service, when? Manuscript preparation Final pre-submission checks Submission to journal Revise after peer review Resubmit to journal Language editing Expert Scientific Review Journal Selection Reviewer Recommendation Cover letter Development Point by Point review

27. Thank you! Any questions? Follow us on Twitter @EdanzEditing Like us on Facebook facebook.com/EdanzEditing Download and further reading http://www.edanzediting.com/sa2015 global@edanzediting.com