2013 CEEB Workshop 1: How to pitch a story

Workshop delivered by Dr. Andrew Hendry at the 2013 CEEB retreat on pitching your story for journal publication.

Transcript

1. How  to  pitch  a  story  
2. Summary   1.  TITLE:  short  and  general.   2.  INTRO:  Don’t  use  motherhood  statements   3.  INTRO:  Don’t  state  your  system  in  the  first  paragraph   4.  INTRO:  Don’t  just  cite  papers  on  your  own  study  system/ species.     5.  INTRO:  Don’t  undersell   6.  INTRO:  Don’t  oversell   7.  INTRO:  QuesMons/alternaMves  are  oNen  bePer  than   predicMons.   8.  RESULTS/DISCUSSION:  organize  around  your  predicMons/ quesMons/alternaMves.     9.  FIGURES:  directly  address  the  predicMons/quesMons/ alternaMves  –  or  show  other  strong  trends/effects.      
3. The  role  of  departmental  retreats  in   fostering  profitable  interacMon   The  CEEB  retreat  at  MSH  2013   A  mulMyear  test  for  whether  departmental  ecology  and   evoluMon  retreats  increase  the  number  of  collaboraMve   grants  and  papers  relaMve  to  departments  without   retreats,  with  a  consideraMon  of  addiMonal  contribuMng   factors  including  alchohol  consumpMon  and  cost     The  role  of  departmental   retreats  in  fostering  profitable   interacMon:  CEEB  MSH  2013  
4. The  first  three  paragraphs   Something   everyone   cares  about   The  silver   bullet   Threatening   werewolf  
5. The  first  three  paragraphs   Departmental  retreats  are  nearly  universal  and  are  intended  to   foster  interacMon  and  collaboraMon  among  faculty,  staff,  and   students.  They  ….  OTHER  BASIC  STUFF  ABOUT  RETREATS  OVER   SEVERAL  SENTENCES.     Establishing   generality   Introducing   a  problem   to  solve   Despite  the  near  universality  of  retreats  and  frequent   encouragement,  inducements,  and  appeals  to  aPend  them,  their   success  in  fostering  interacMon  has  never  been  formally  tested.   MORE  ABOUT  WHY    FORMAL  TEST  IS  IMPORTANT.  In  the  present   paper,  we  provide  an  analysis  of  the  effecMveness  of  retreats  in   increasing  interacMon.     An  appropriate  test  for  the  effecMveness  of  retreats  would  involve   an  isolated  locaMon,  replicaMon  (across  years  or  departments),   controls  (departments  without  retreats),  and  a  before  versus  aNer   objecMve  measure  of  profitable  interacMon  (joint  grants  and   publicaMons).  MORE  ABOUT  WHY  THESE  ARE  IMPORTANT.  We   implement  all  of  these  elements  for  the  CEEB  retreat  held  at  MSH.   Establishing   value  to   your  design  
6. The  first  three  paragraphs   Departmental  retreats  are  nearly  universal  and  are  intended  to   foster  interacMon  and  collaboraMon  among  faculty,  staff,  and   students.  They  ….  OTHER  BASIC  STUFF  ABOUT  RETREATS  OVER   SEVERAL  SENTENCES.     Establishing   generality   An  important  quesMon  in  universiMes  is  the  value  of   departmental  retreats.   The  CEEB  faculty  retreat  has  been  held  for  10  years  in   hopes  of  increasing  department  interacMon  but  its   effecMveness  has  never  been  assessed.  
7. The  first  three  paragraphs   Introducing   a  problem   to  solve   Despite  the  near  universality  of  retreats  and  frequent   encouragement,  inducements,  and  appeals  to  aPend  them,  their   success  in  fostering  interacMon  has  never  been  formally  tested.   MORE  ABOUT  WHY    FORMAL  TEST  IS  IMPORTANT.  In  the  present   paper,  we  provide  an  analysis  of  the  effecMveness  of  retreats  in   increasing  interacMon.     Departmental  retreats  could  increase  departmental   and  university  rankings  because  BLAH  BLAH  BLAH   McGill  University  and  the  Department  of  Biology  have  received   severe  pay  cuts  and  so  it  is  important  to  know  if  the  direct  costs   of  a  retreat  are  offset  by  the  indirect  benefits    
8. The  first  three  paragraphs   Departmental  retreats  are  nearly  universal  and  are  intended  to   foster  interacMon  and  collaboraMon  among  faculty,  staff,  and   students.  They  ….  OTHER  BASIC  STUFF  ABOUT  RETREATS  OVER   SEVERAL  SENTENCES.     Establishing   generality   Introducing   a  problem   to  solve   Despite  the  near  universality  of  retreats  and  frequent   encouragement,  inducements,  and  appeals  to  aPend  them,  their   success  in  fostering  interacMon  has  never  been  formally  tested.   MORE  ABOUT  WHY    FORMAL  TEST  IS  IMPORTANT.  In  the  present   paper,  we  provide  an  analysis  of  the  effecMveness  of  retreats  in   increasing  interacMon.     An  appropriate  test  for  the  effecMveness  of  retreats  would  involve   an  isolated  locaMon,  replicaMon  (across  years  or  departments),   controls  (departments  without  retreats),  and  a  before  versus  aNer   objecMve  measure  of  profitable  interacMon  (joint  grants  and   publicaMons).  MORE  ABOUT  WHY  THESE  ARE  IMPORTANT.  We   implement  all  of  these  elements  for  the  CEEB  retreat  held  at  MSH.   Establishing   value  to   your  design  
9. The  next  three  paragraphs   (“Study  system”  subheading)   General   background   More   specific   background   Even  more   specific   background   McGill  is  …  CEEB  is  …   Background  on  CEEB  retreat  history  –  variaMon   among  years,  etc.     More  specifics  about  how  the  retreat  works  in  real  Mme    
10. The  last  paragraph   Restate  what   you    will  do   generally   State  what   you  will  do   specifically   PredicMons/ quesMons/   alternaMves   We  analyze  the  effecMveness  of  the  CEEB  retreat  in  fostering   interacMon  in  a  controlled  and  replicated  before  versus  aNer   comparison.     We  analyze  the  number  of  collaboraMve  grants  and  papers   iniMated  in  the  three  months  before  versus  three  months   aNer  the  CEEB  retreat  in  each  of  10  years,  with  a   comparison  to  the  MAC  campus,  which  does  not  retreat.     If  the  CEEB  retreat  fosters  interacMons  in  a  profitable  way,   we  expect  that    the  number  of  collaboraMve  grants   iniMated  will  increase  immediately  aNer  the  retreat  and   that  the  number  of  collaboraMve  papers  will  too.  
11. PredicMons/ quesMons/   alternaMves   If  the  CEEB  retreat  fosters  interacMons  in  a  profitable  way,   we  expect  that    the  number  of  collaboraMve  grants   iniMated  will  increase  immediately  aNer  the  retreat  and   that  the  number  of  collaboraMve  papers  will  too.   We  predicted  that  the  CEEB  retreat  would  increase  the  number   of  collaboraMve  proposals  and  papers.     PosiMve  interacMons  →  increased  proposals  and  papers   NegaMve  interacMons  →  decreased  proposals  and  papers   No  effects  or  offsemng  →  no  effect  on  proposals  and  papers   We  asked  whether  or  not  retreats  increase  the  number  of   collaboraMve  proposals  and  papers.     The  last  paragraph   If – Then approaches often work well
12. Results   1.  The  results  and  (especially)  the  discussion  should  both  (ideally)   be  organized  around  your  predicMons/quesMons/alternaMves.     Results   1.  General  stuff  (no  subheading)   2.  Do  retreats  increase  collaboraMve  grant  applicaMons?   3.  Do  retreats  increase  collaboraMve  paper  submissions?    
13. Results   1.  The  results  and  (especially)  the  discussion  should  both  (ideally)   be  organized  around  your  predicMons/quesMons/alternaMves.     2.  Figures  should  directly  address  the  predicMons/quesMons/ alternaMves  –  or  show  other  strong  trends/effects.  These  figures   should  be  beauMful  –  go  to  the  other  workshop  for  more  info.   0   2   4   6   8   10   CEEB   MAC   Before   ANer   CollaboraMve  grants   0   2   4   6   8   10   CEEB   MAC   Before   ANer   CollaboraMve  papers  
14. Results   1.  The  results  and  (especially)  the  discussion  should  both  (ideally)   be  organized  around  your  predicMons/quesMons/alternaMves.     2.  Figures  should  directly  address  the  predicMons/quesMons/ alternaMves  –  or  show  other  strong  trends/effects.  These  figures   should  be  beauMful  –  go  to  the  other  workshop  for  more  info.   3.  If  you  show  other  things  (not  outlined  in  the  intro)  –  only  show   strong  effects.  All  other  effects  just  sit  in  Tables.   CollaboraMons     (ANer  -­‐  before)   Whisky  (ml/person)  
15. Discussion   1.  The  results  and  (especially)  the  discussion  should  both  (ideally)   be  organized  around  your  predicMons/quesMons/alternaMves.     Discussion   1.  Remind  reader  of  the  quesMon  and  provide  very  general   summary  of  results   2.  The  quesMons    a)  Do  retreats  increase  collaboraMve  grant  applicaMons?    b)  Do  retreats  increase  collaboraMve  paper  submissions?    c)  Other  interesMng  effects  –  if  any   3.  ImplicaMons:  return  to  first  three  paragraph  of  the  discussion    
17. Summary   1.  TITLE:  short  and  general.   2.  INTRO:  Don’t  use  motherhood  statements   3.  INTRO:  Don’t  state  your  system  in  the  first  paragraph   4.  INTRO:  Don’t  just  cite  papers  on  your  own  study  system/ species.     5.  INTRO:  Don’t  undersell   6.  INTRO:  Don’t  oversell   7.  INTRO:  QuesMons/alternaMves  are  oNen  bePer  than   predicMons.   8.  RESULTS/DISCUSSION:  organize  around  your  predicMons/ quesMons/alternaMves.     9.  FIGURES:  directly  address  the  predicMons/quesMons/ alternaMves  –  or  show  other  strong  trends/effects.