A quick guide for undergrads on some of the main ways scientists communicate their research to other scientists.

1. Communicating research

2. Basics of peer review

3. How Peer Review Works
Author
submission
Reject
Senior editor
Associate
Editor
ReviewersReject
Editor makes their
decision
Reject Accept

4. Original
submission
To SE for
assessment
To AE for
assessment
AE Assign
reviewers
AE makes
recommendation
To SE for decision
Reject
Recommend reject
Reject with resubmission
Revision submittedMajor revision
Minor revision
To SE for final decision
Accept Production
Resubmission
Revision submitted
Howitactuallyworks
AssitEd invites
reviewers
AE asks for re-review
AssitEd invites reviewers
AE makes recommendation

5. How to write a paper (and how you’ll read it)
• Title
• Abstract
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion

6. The title is the hook
• Brief and clear
• Summarises the main finding of the paper
• Must say what your paper is about!

7. Abstract tells you to read on… or not
• Brief background or justification
• Broad description of what you did
• Key findings.
• Final statement (a synthesis) about the
importance of the study.

8. The introduction sets the scene
• Gives the background for the paper
• Tells the reader why they should be interested
in the study
• Should be a logical train of thought leading
the reader to the conclusion that the study is
novel, exciting and worth doing.

9. Methods
• Should give enough information so the reader
can
• 1) understand how what you did answered
the questions you asked
• 2) judge whether what you did was the
correct approach

10. Methods – it’s all about the details
• Keep important details eg. number of plots,
experimental treatments, frequency of data
collection, etc.
• Leave out details that have no influence on
the measurements, results, or the way the
data is collected

11. Results
• REMEMBER THE WHY - Link results to your
research aims or hypotheses to show how the
results address the questions you raised
Key results
Novel findings that you
will discuss further
Supporting results
Lend weight/give
evidence for your
interpretation of results
and to support the
conclusions.

12. The discussion is the playground
• Discuss your results but also:
• Remember your introduction
Brings together different lines of evidence based
on your study and other published work to make
sound conclusions and propose new ideas and
hypotheses to be tested in future.

13. Your conclusion should actually conclude things
• What should the reader remember from the
paper?
• Why should they care?
• What should we do next?
The worst way to end a paper is to leave the
reader thinking: "So what?"

14. POSTERS
Putting those skills you learnt in
primary school to work!

15. Why?
• Can be seen by hundreds of people.
• Excellent way of transmitting scientific
information
• Easily portable
• Easier to read than a paper
• Much less risk of stage-fright than a talk!

16. Rules of layout (break with caution)
• Title - should be at least 2.5cm tall
• Text naturally flows right-left and top-bottom
• Don’t box off what you want to link
• Breathe! Your poster should have about 20%
empty space

17. Posters are visual representations of your work
• Beware the ‘Wall of Text’!
• Do your figures and graphics first
• Only show what adds to your
central message
• Stick to a few colours or one
colourscheme
• Circuses are distracting

18. ORAL PRESENTATIONS
You’ve got lots to say, but don’t say too much.
Opening, Main, Finish and goodbye!

19. For science!
We got some actors to teach lecturers how to
speak better.
Some of them did.
Some of them went off to do pop-sci TV

20. OPENING
Get them in the door (hook!)
Why you had to do what you did (need)
What you actually did/what you found (action)
What you’re going to say (preview)

21. OPENING
Research has shown that academics spend almost 90%
of their life attempting to communicate with others,
with at least 30% of their life spent talking at people.
Despite this, most academics lack any kind of training
in public speaking—they learn by observation, but
mostly through trial and error. We experimented with
using trained performers – specifically, actors- to
provide specialised training to see if we could enhance
their public speaking. I'm going to give you a little
background on some of the particular communication
difficulties academics have, go over what kind of
training we did and what results we had.
Hook
Need
Action
Preview

22. MAIN
Structure: think tree, not chain
1 key message
3-5 main points
3-5 sub/supporting points

23. SUBPOINT
MAIN POINT
SUBPOINT
SUBPOINT
SUBPOINT
MAIN POINT
SUBPOINT
SUBPOINT
SUBPOINT
MAIN POINT
SUBPOINT
SUBPOINT

24. Better at
speaking
Lecturers lectured
better
Some lecturers still
boring, but clearer
Not effective
in tutorials
Cost-
effective
Effect lasted >1 year
Needs more
study for long-
term effects
The “Brian Cox”
effect
Some academics left to
be media personalities
Many cited “better
money”
Is this a bad
thing?

25. FINISH YOUR TALK
• Review your key message
• Tell them when you’re done.
“Many thanks for listening. I’m happy to answer
any questions you might have”

26. Slides are not your notes
• Slides are visual aids for the audience (graphs,
figures, key points).
• Your talk and your slides should stand alone.
• A complete sentence is better than a vague
title.

27. 32% of Academics in the study joined
Am-Dram groups within 2 years
No further
involvement, 58%
Joined Amateur
Dramatics groups, 32%
Signed up with an
Extras agency, 8%
"Brian Cox" Effect, 2%

28. Social Media
Public = Professional
Professional = Self-Promotion.
Your SFW public identity should not link to
anything locked.