Dr Margaret Cargill and Dr Patrick O’Connor University of Adelaide, Australia 12 August 2013

1. National Center for Nanoscience and Technology-CAS Wiley Author Workshop Strategy and steps in writing research articles for international submission Dr Margaret Cargill and Dr Patrick O’Connor University of Adelaide, Australia 12 August 2013

2. A method for developing international publication skills • Use your existing research skills on the problem of getting articles published • Analyse successful articles – and journals • Use results of applied linguistics research to highlight key points for focus • See ‘Writing scientific research articles: strategy and steps, 2nd ed.’ (M. Cargill & P. O’Connor, 2013, Wiley-Blackwell, www.writeresearch.com.au) • Develop strategies for ‘playing the game’

3. A communication matrix • Audience • Purpose • Format • Assessment

4. A process for draft production (Ch 15) • Results: a) data presentation (figures & tables); b) text • Choose target journal • [Methods] – can be written earlier or later* • Introduction, first draft • Discussion • Revise Introduction to match final story • Abstract and final title * See Chapter 7 for details

5. Gatekeeper requirements • When you submit your article to a journal, the editor and reviewers (or referees) act as ‘gatekeepers’. • i.e. they decide if your paper will be accepted or not. • Editors/reviewers are your first audience. • How does the article structure relate to what editors and referees want to publish?

6. A Collated Referee Report Form (p. 18) • Is the contribution new? • Is the contribution significant? • Is it suitable for publication in the Journal? • Do the methods and treatment of results conform to acceptable scientific standards? • Are all conclusions firmly based in the data presented? • Is the organization acceptable and the length satisfactory? • Are all illustrations, figures and tables necessary and captions adequate? • Do the title and abstract clearly indicate the content of the paper? • Are the references up to date, complete and correctly abbreviated? • Is the paper Excellent, Good or Poor?

7. Advanced Materials/Advanced Functional Materials/Small • How important are the results? • Does the data obtained by experiment or calculation verify the hypothesis and conclusions? • Is the length of the manuscript appropriate to its contents? • Should the article be accepted?

8. Where in the manuscript do you think a referee (reviewer) would look for evidence on which to base an answer to each of these criteria questions?

9. A Collated Referee Report Form (p. 18) • Is the contribution new? • Is the contribution significant? • Is it suitable for publication in the Journal? • Do the methods and treatment of results conform to acceptable scientific standards? • Are all conclusions firmly based in the data presented? • Is the organization acceptable and the length satisfactory? • Are all illustrations, figures and tables necessary and captions adequate? • Do the title and abstract clearly indicate the content of the paper? • Are the references up to date, complete and correctly abbreviated? • Is the paper Excellent, Good or Poor?

10. Introductions: in the context of AIMRaD the Introduction The Introduction is important for demonstrating that the work to be reported is both NEW and SIGNIFICANT

11. Argument ‘stages’ of an Introduction 1.Statements about the field, providing the reader with a setting or context for the problem to be reported and claiming its centrality or importance 2. More specific statements about the aspects of the problem already studied by other researchers, laying a foundation of information already known 3. Statements that indicate the need for more investigation, a gap, need for extension, or research niche for the present study 4. Statements giving the purpose or objective of the author’s study OR its main activity OR findings 5. Optional statement(s) that give a value or benefit for carrying out the study 6. A map of the rest of the article (some fields, and reviews) (Fig. 8.1, p. 44)

12. Suggested process for drafting an Introduction (after the Results ‘story’ is clear) • Begin with Stage 4: ensure all elements of ‘story’ are included • Draft Stage 3 next – the ‘gap’ or driving problem • Then think about how to begin Stage 1 – the setting/importance (think about the audience) • Next, arrange the information collected from the literature into Stage 2/3 sequences, justifying each of the story elements from Stage 4 • Consider whether a Stage 5 is needed, and if so where it should be placed. • Consider the best order to present the different ‘stages’ and sequences; try several to find the best logical flow • Then, combine the stages and add any additional sentences needed to connect them into a coherent Introduction.

13. Application to an example from Advanced Functional Materials • We use a descriptive method here – not prescriptive • You may well have different ideas from mine about the function of the sentences in the Introduction on the following slides • If so, that is a GREAT outcome – you are becoming an amateur genre analyst! • The point is to encourage you to think about the purpose and function of the sentences you write • See the website for a record of my analysis

14. Highly Conductive and Transparent PEDOT:PSS Films with a Fluorosurfactant for Stretchable and Flexible Transparent Electrodes Vosgueritchianet al., Adv. Funct. Mater. 2012, 22, 421–428 [Last paragraph] In this work, we report PEDOT:PSS films with a recordRs of 46 Ω □−1 at 82% T and 240 Ω □−1 at 97% T. The conductivity of the PEDOT:PSS film was improved using a combination of DMSO and the fluorosurfactant Zonyl-FS300 (Zonyl). In addition, the fluorosurfactant improved the wetting properties of the PEDOT:PSS solution, which enabled the facile deposition of highly conducting PEDOT:PSS films on a variety of hydrophobic substrates that would otherwise not be possible. These films were shown to be both stretchable and flexible when deposited on a buckled poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) substrate and capable of replacing ITO as the anode in devices such as organic photovoltaics (OPVs). Stage 4 Stage 5

15. Author task after Stage 4 is complete • Using Stages 1, 2 and 3, write paragraphs to convince the editor/reviewers that each part of your Stage 4 is both new and significant for the field. • When they get to your Stage 4, they should agree that each part of Stage 4 • needs to be done • is the next thing to do in order to move towards a solution of the problem you are addressing

16. [first paragraph, Vosgueritchian et al. (2012)] Next-generation optoelectronic devices, such as solar cells, electronic paper, touch screens, and displays, based on conjugated polymers, small molecules, colloidal semi-conductors, and carbon allotropes, require materials and processing techniques that are low-cost and compatible with deposition over large areas on plastic substrates.1The usefulness of these materials would be broadened by the ability to accommodate bending and tensile strain (flexibility and stretchability), which not only make them amenable to devices that require mechanical compliance, but also more durable. Solar cells and displays require at least one electrode material that must, additionally, be both highly conductive and transparent. Currently, indium tin oxide (ITO) is the material used as this transparent electrode (TE) due to its excellent optoelectronic properties, with a sheet resistance (Rs) on the order of 10 Ω per square (Ω □−1) at about 90% transparency (T).2

17. [first paragraph, cont.] However, ITO suffers from two major drawbacks that render it a non-ideal choice as a TE for next-generation devices: 1) the increasing price and scarcity of indium, which makes it difficult for its use in low-cost, large-area electronics and (2) the brittleness of ITO films, which render them unsuitable for applications that require stretchability or flexibility.3 There are several emerging materials that have shown promise for the replacement of ITO films that have the potential for large-area coverage and some degree of mechanical compliance. These materials include carbon nanotubes (CNTs),4, 5 graphene,6 metallic nanowires,7, 8 and conducting polymers.9, 10

18. [Introduction, last paragraph] In this work, we report PEDOT:PSS films with a recordRs of 46 Ω □−1 at 82% T and 240 Ω □−1 at 97% T. The conductivity of the PEDOT:PSS film was improved using a combination of DMSO and the fluorosurfactant Zonyl-FS300 (Zonyl). In addition, the fluorosurfactant improved the wetting properties of the PEDOT:PSS solution, which enabled the facile deposition of highly conducting PEDOT:PSS films on a variety of hydrophobic substrates that would otherwise not be possible. These films were shown to be both stretchable and flexible when deposited on a buckled poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) substrate and capable of replacing ITO as the anode in devices such as organic photovoltaics (OPVs). Points justified in the paragraphs on the 2 previous slides are circled

19. Responding to editors and reviewers • Book uses a similar approach to providing advice on this topic • We conducted a genre-based study of correspondence surrounding acceptance of papers • Outcome was evidence for successful strategies used by authors in responding to reviewer reports

20. Study of types of comments from reviewers and successful response options • Analysed the correspondence between Editors, Authors and Reviewers for ~200 manuscripts from 3 international journals and 20 extra papers from a range of journals • Looked at letters from editors, reviewer comments and author response • Categorised reviewer comment types and author response strategies for successful approaches (see Table 14.2, pp. 104-5)

21. Main types of comments from referees 1. The aims of the study are not clear 2. The theoretical premise or “school of thought” on which the work is based is challenged. 3. The experimental design or analysis methods are challenged 4. You are asked to supply addition data or information that would improve the paper 5. You are asked to remove information or discussion 6. The conclusions are considered incorrect, weak or too strong 7. The referee has unspecific negative comments – eg. “poorly designed”, “poorly written”, “badly organised” (Cargill & O’Connor 2013, Table 14.2)

22. Reviewer comment: The aims of the study are not clear What to do: • check the aims are clearly stated in the Introduction • check the aims are consistent with the experimental design • check that the Discussion refers back to the aims

23. Your response document to editor • Make it very easy for the editor to see what you have done • Heading: Referee 1 • Then copy all the comments, one by one, perhaps in italic type • Underneath each one, in plain type, say what you have done in response and quote the changed text or line numbers in revised version • If you have not followed the referee’s suggestion/ advice in some cases, give your reasons • Then do the same for Referee 2, etc. • A table format can be useful to lay out your responses

24. Reference Cargill, M & O’Connor, P (2013) Writing Scientific Research Articles: Strategy and Steps. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK, Wiley-Blackwell. (www.writeresearch.com.au )