2 October 2014, Penang Malaysia

BOBLME-2014-Governance-04

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal and development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The BOBLME Project encourages the use of this report for study, research, news reporting, criticism or review. Selected passages, tables or diagrams may be reproduced for such purposes provided acknowledgment of the source is included. Major extracts or the entire document may not be reproduced by any process without the written permission of the BOBLME Project Regional Coordinator. BOBLME contract: CST-RAPRD 573/8/2014 For bibliographic purposes, please reference this publication as: BOBLME (2014) Report of the BOBLME Communications workshop on scientific writing, 29 September - 2 October 2014, Penang Malaysia BOBLME-2014-Governance-04

ii

Scientific writing workshop

29 September to 2 October 2014

Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang

iii

Report of the BOBLME Communications workshop on scientific writing

ii

Table of contents

1. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

3. Objective ......................................................................................................................................... 1

4. Course feedback .............................................................................................................................. 2

5. Course evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 4

Appendix I List of participants helpers and affiliations................................................................. 6

Appendix II Agenda ........................................................................................................................ 7

Appendix III Participants, buddies & mentors .............................................................................. 10

Appendix IV Course evaluation form ............................................................................................ 11

Appendix V Tabulation of workshop evaluation results .............................................................. 13

Appendix VI Feedback comments ................................................................................................. 14

Appendix VII List of participants with photographs ....................................................................... 16

Appendix VIII Participant’s handout ............................................................................................... 26


1

1. Background

The Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem (BOBLME) has been supporting communications workshops since July 2010. Unlike most earlier workshops, with applicants from the eight countries surrounding the the Bay of Bengal, this course was co-sponsored and hosted by the Fisheries Malaysia and Universiti Sains Malaysia. The workshop was aimed at early-career Malaysian marine scientists. Twenty one (21) were selected. Twenty (20) of the selected participants from twelve (12) organisations attended and were joined by three (3) additional student helpers from USM (Appendix III & Appendix VII)

2. Introduction

The workshop was held in the Meeting Room of the School of Biological Sciences of the Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia. Dr Aileen Tan Shau Hwai (USM) and Mr Ismail Ishak (Malaysian Fisheries), who is the BOBLME National Coordinator for Malaysia, opened the workshop. The workshop was designed and facilitated by Dr Peter Rothlisberg (Australia) with the assistance of four in-region Mentors: Dr Sevvandi Jayakody (Sri Lanka); Dr E. Vivekananadan (India); Dr.W.M.H. Kelum Wijenayeke (Sri Lanka); Dr Aileen Tan Shau Hwai (Malaysia).

3. Objective

The objective of the workshop was to provide training to enhance effective communication of the results of participant’s research projects to the broader scientific community through refereed publications in the national and international literature.

Approach

The course was designed to be an interactive – ‘learn-by-doing’ – workshop. Each day of the 4-day workshop was divided into short lectures (25%) and practical exercises (75%) with the ultimate aim to produce a DRAFT scientific manuscript by the end of the workshop (Appendix II. Course Outline (Agenda)). Participants were paired with a peer – a ‘Buddy’ – to provide feedback on various stages of the development of their manuscript.


2

Further, participants were assigned to a Mentor for feedback and advice throughout the workshop (See Appendix III. Participants, Buddies & Mentors). The Student:Mentor ratio was 5 or 6:1 which allowed for a high degree of interaction.

The Workshop was very ably supported by members of Dr Tan’s laboratory and technical support from Mr Adrian Kessler (Appendix I).

4. Course feedback

At the completion of the participants were asked to fill in a Feedback Form to gauge satisfaction with and suitability of workshop elements, along with suggestions or changes to future workshops (Appendix IV. Feedback Form).

A summary of the numerical feedback received (See Appendix V. Numerical Analysis) and written comments (Appendix VI. Comments) is provided. All 23 participants returned the form.

Overall the feedback was very positive. All participants either ‘Strongly agreed’ or ‘Agreed’ to most components (Appendix V. Numerical Analysis). Two respondents ‘Disagreed’ with time allocation (see further comments later in report). All respondents would recommend the course to a colleague.


3

Twenty one (21) of the 23 respondents ranked the workshop elements 1 to 8, with 1 being the most valuable element (Appendix V. Numerical Analysis). One respondent (4) ranked them all 1; and No. 22 only used 1’s and 2’s therefore they were removed from the analysis. For the remaining 21, Storyboard & Outline was deemed the most valuable element – 13 out of 21 placed it top; second, or third. Introduction & Discussion was the next most highly ranked elements and 11 participants wanted more of this element. Surprisingly Title & Abstract was the next most valuable. This was the most interactive of the elements and was aided by a suggestion by Sevvandi in which almost all of the participants typed in and displaying their titles which led to more discussion. Concept planning was the next most highly rated – this was a relatively low ranking compared to precious workshops. Figures & Tables and Target journal were close and next priority. Submission & Revision and Authorship & Acknowledgement were deemed the least valuable. In spite of the relatively low ranking these last two elements also brought out quite a bit of discussion.

Participants were also asked for written feedback – fourteen (14) provided comments. The feedback was quite diverse from recommending manuscripts be prepared in advance [thereby not getting the advantage of the workshop – PCR] to wanting more help with data analysis (see Appendix VI for a transcription of comments). More or less time [including less time for eating!!] for various elements was also mentioned. There is always a balance about how long a workshop should be; how long participants will maintain the energy and enthusiasm; and how much work should be done before and/or after the workshop.

We emphasised at the workshop that a polished draft manuscript, ready for submission, was not the expected workshop output. We expect a draft suitable for discussing with co-authors and supervisors when back at home base. The workshop draft would include all the organizational principles and elements learned at the workshop and a clear path towards publication, including time allocations for work to be done. Further, participants were given a lunchtime tutorial on Presentation Principles, in order to prepare them for the Presentation Workshop in one month’s time (24-27 November 2014).


4

5. Course evaluation

Participants to this workshop were hard working and willing to engage individually with Buddies and Mentors. However, there was very limited feedback and constructive criticism amongst the wider group of Participants. This needs to be rectified at the next workshop by assigning specific interactive roles, rather than calling for volunteers. We also used small group sessions (Mentor and five to six Mentees) to discuss the Five Critical Questions and enhance feedback across participants. The Mentors felt this was very positive.

The command of the English language was also variable (see Appendix VI for examples). English has become the ‘universal’ language of science and would have to be the language of papers submitted to the international literature and presentations at international conferences. During the ‘2-minute drill’ speakers were continually counselled to slow down and try much harder to pronounce the English as carefully as possible. This will obviously be a focus at the Presentation Workshop in November.

At the conclusion, participants were presented with a Handout of key slides from the workshop lectures (Appendix VIII) and a Certificate of Participation signed by Drs Tan Shau Hwai, and Rothlisberg and Mr Ishak. They also received a copy of David Lindsay’s book Scientific Writing = Thinking in Words provided by Dr Chris O’Brien Regional Director BOBLME.


5

Staff that assisted with the workshop were given a Certificate of Appreciation; and the Facilitator and Mentors were given both a certificate and a boxed plaque of appreciation from USM.


6

Appendix I List of participants helpers and affiliations No Name Institute email

1 Cherrie Teh Chiew Peng USM [email protected]

2 Amelia Ng Phei Fang [email protected]

3 Chin Chee Keong [email protected]

4 Nur Aqilah Muhamad Darif

[email protected]

5 Amirul Aizal Abdul Aziz [email protected]

6 Intan Nurlemsha Binti Baharom

FRI Penang [email protected]/ [email protected]

7 Siti Hawa Mohamad Ali NAFISH [email protected]

8 Mohd Syafiq Mohammad Ridzuan

[email protected]

9 Kho Li Yung FRI Terengganu [email protected]

10 Teoh Pik Neng FRI Kedah [email protected]

11 Mohd Tamimi Ali Ahmad SEAFDEC/MFRDMD, Chendering Terengganu

[email protected]

12 Annie Nunis Billy FRI Terengganu [email protected]

13 Mohammad Rahimi Dollah

DOE [email protected]

14 Noran Alwakhir bin Sharaani

Jabatan Mineral dan Geosains Malaysia

[email protected]

15 Izarenah Md. Repin JTLM [email protected]

16 Bahrinah Bahrin JTLM

17 Aziani Ahmad Uveersiti Teknologi Mara (Perlis)

[email protected]

18 Roziawati Razali UM (Bachok) [email protected]

19 Zulfa Hanan Ashaari UPM [email protected]

20 Zufarzaana Zulkeflee [email protected]

21 Nooraini Ilias Helpers (USM) [email protected]

22 Balasubaramaniam K.

23 Poi Khoy Yen [email protected]

24 Geraldine O. Chang [email protected]

25 Reza

26 Ng Bee Wah [email protected]

27 Adrian Kessler Technical Support (USM)

mailto:[email protected]

























7

Appendix II Agenda

Scientific Writing Workshop 29 September to 2 October 2014

School of Biological Sciences, USM, Penang, Malaysia

Agenda Day 1 (29 September 2014) 09:00 Set up workstations and coffee/tea Welcome and Introduction (PR) Concept planning and the original contribution (PR) Individual work on Concept Plan & 2-minute drill – review by Buddy and Mentor Lunch 2-minute drill presentations Science of Scientific Writing (PR) Story Board and Outlines (PR) Individual work on Story Board and Outlines


8

Day 2 (30 September 2014) Selection of Target Journal and Paper Type (PR) Select journal Evaluate against Critical Questions (PR) Review Concept, Storyboard and Outlines, Journal – 5 Critical questions – Buddy & Mentor Lunch The Introduction (PR) Figures – their design to enhance the narrative (PR) Continue fleshing out Outline and start building the Manuscript with Target Journal in mind Day 3 (1 October 2014) Review of Outline, Introduction, Figures and Target Journal – Buddy and Mentor Discussion and Conclusions (PR) Start drafting Discussion and Conclusions Lunch – Tutorial: From written papers to oral presentations (PR) Individual work on the Manuscript Review of Introduction and Conclusions – Buddy and Mentor Individual work on the Manuscript


9

Day 4 (2 October 2014) The Title and Abstract – the most read part of any paper (PR) Individual work on the Title and Abstract Review Title and Abstract – Mentor Lunch Authorship/Acknowledgement (PR) Individual work on Authorship/Acknowledgements and a list of outstanding work What to do with my paper now (PR)

• managing the editorial process, review and revisions • follow up work

Individual work on the Manuscript Review of draft Manuscript – Mentor Revision of Manuscript Workshop appraisal and feedback Finish


10

Appendix III Participants, buddies & mentors

No. Participant Buddy Mentor

1 Cherrie Teh Chiew Peng Amelia Ng Sevvandi

2 Amelia Ng Phei Fang Cherrie The Vivek

3 Chin Chee Keong Roziawati Aileen

4 Nur Aqilah Muhamad Darif Amirul Kelum

5 Amirul Aizal Abdul Aziz Nur Agilah Kelum

6 Poi Khoy Yen Poi/Reza/Bee Sevvandi

7 Reza Poi/Reza/Bee Kelum

8 Ng Bee Wah Poi/Reza/Bee Vivek

9 Intan Nurlemsha Annie Nunis Billy Vivek

10 Siti Hawa Kho Li Yung Aileen

11 Mohd Syafiq Aziani Kelum

12 Kho Li Yung (Kelly) Siti Hawa Aileen

13 Teoh Pik Neng Mohd Tamimi Vivek

14 Mohd Tamimi Ali Ahmad Tio Pik Neng Aileen

15 Annie Nunis Billy Intan Nurlemsa Sevvandi

16 Mohammad Rahimi Noran Alwakhir Sevvandi

17 Noran Alwakhir Mohd Rahimi Vivek

18 Izarenah Md. Repin Bahriinden Bahrin Aileen

19 Bahrinah Bahrin Izarenah Md. Repin Kelum

20 Aziani Ahmad Mohd Syafiq Sevvandi

21 Roziawati Razali Chin Chee Keong Vivek

22 Zulfa Hanan Ashaari Zufarzaana Kelum

23 Zufarzaana Zulkeflee Zulfa Hanan Ash Sevvandi

Facilitator

Dr Peter Rothlisberg

Mentors

Dr Kelum Wijenayke

Dr Sevvandi Jayakody

Dr Vivekanandan Elayaperumal

Dr Aileen Tan Shau Hwai

Dr Sazlina Salleh (Observer)


11

Appendix IV Course evaluation form

Feedback form

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

The writing workshop was well organized.

The writing workshop met my expectations / needs.

The writing workshop has assisted me in my writing skills and in the preparation of papers and articles.

Instructions and examples were clear and understandable.

The format of the workshop was relevant and well organized.

The time allocation for the workshop components was appropriate.

Would you recommend this workshop to your colleagues?

Yes No

Which component of the workshop did you find most valuable. Please rank, with 1 being the most valuable – use every number (1-8) only once.

Concept Planning – focusing the manuscript

Structure, Storyboard, Outline

Target Journal

Introduction, Discussion and Conclusions

Figures – their design to enhance the narrative

The Title & Abstract

Authorship & Acknowledgement

Submission, Revision & Follow-up


12

Which session would you have liked to have had more time for?

Which session would you have liked to have had less time for?

Additional comments or suggestions about this workshop.

Name: (Optional)……………………………………………………………


13

Appendix V Tabulation of workshop evaluation results

BOBLME-USM Scientific Writing Workshop 29 September to 2 October 2014 -- Numerical Evaluation

Student number

Concept Planning

Storyboard & Outline

Target journal

Introduction Discussion & Conclusion

Figures & Tables

Title & Abstract

Authorship & Acknowl'ment

Submission & Revision

Strongly agree Agree Disagree

Strongly Disagree

R'mend Yes No

1 5 3 4 1 6 2 8 7 5 1 1

2 1 2 3 5 6 4 7 8 6 1

3 3 1 8 2 7 5 6 4 1 4 1 1

4 5 1

5 7 1 3 6 5 2 8 4 6 1

6 8 7 3 1 4 2 5 6 5 1 1

7 6 1 2 3 5 4 7 8 5 1 1

8 6 1 7 3 4 2 8 5 2 4 1

9 4 1 5 2 7 3 6 8 2 4 1

10 7 1 6 2 4 3 5 8 6 1

11 3 1 8 4 6 2 7 5 3 2 1 1

12 1 2 6 4 5 3 7 8 5 1 1

13 4 3 6 1 2 5 7 8 6 1

14 4 5 6 1 7 2 8 3 6 1

15 7 1 4 2 6 3 8 5 2 4 1

16 2 1 6 3 4 5 8 7 1 5 1

17 6 3 4 1 5 2 7 8 1 5 1

18 2 1 5 3 4 6 7 8 5 1

19 4 5 6 1 2 3 8 7 6 1

20 2 1 4 3 5 6 8 7 3 3 1

21 2 6 5 7 8 1 3 4 3 3 1

22 4 2 1

23 1 4 8 5 3 2 6 7 2 4 1

Mean 85 51 109 60 105 67 144 135 74 60 2 0 23 0

Rank 4 1 6 2 5 3 8 7

Wanted More 1 1 11 1 2

Less 2 1 1 1 2 1 1


14

Appendix VI Feedback comments

Participant 2. – It will be good if the participants has draft paper to join this workshop. So that they can actually find out the mistake and do correction accordingly. And it allow the participants to discuss further with the facilitators and mentors. Participant 3. – Should have the participants to ready with basic draft prior to the workshop so that can have time to refine the work. As the writing process particularly discussion part is rather tough in short time. Love the storyline part which helps to refine our ideas. The mentors are really helpful. Participant 4. – In the next session, I would like to learn how the Lecturer prossess [sic] my data into a tools of analysis and used it to interprate [sic]/elaborate in Discussion. Because in the earlier I thought we want to learn how to analysis [sic] the data and finally make a good paper. Participant 5. – Really thank you to all mentors who puts [sic] their valuable time on our work. Many thanks. Really thanks to Dr Sevvandi who help me in analyze my data. Thanks to my mentor Dr Vivek who work hard on my write up. Thank you. Participant 7. – Great workshop. Might need more lock-up time for writing to get a more complete draft. Participant 8. – Very valuable exposures. Very hard for me to be in this field. But I’ll try. Participant 9. – Add number of mentors. 1 mentor for 2-3 members to be more focus. Participant 10. – Organizing committee doing great job to look into our needs. Really comfortable and well taken care of well done. Congratulations. Peter is very attentive to our individual work. Peter also walk his talk so we could see that he present himself and the workshop material really well. Also appreciate that we have ample time to work on our own paper. Length of input by Peter is very reasonable. LESS IS MORE. Participant 11. – Very good speaker…thank you!!


15

Participant 14. – I would like to suggest the participants received copy of handout on talks given. Well organised workshop, very useful especially for young researcher. Participant 17. – I appreciate this workshop very much as we had learned so much knowledge in writing a paper. Thanks a lot to all of the mentors who had put so much effort in teaching us. Participant 18. – Overall it is a useful workshop. But it be better if it were conducted in a less condensed way. Participant 20. – I think this is a very good workshop. Very useful for those who don’t have any/less experiences in writing. But, it may be a bit too basic for those who have experience in the writing scientific paper. Anyway, well done. I wish all of you good luck and bright future. Take care. Participant 23. – Well done and very beneficial.


16

Appendix VII List of participants with photographs Agency Name Telephone number Email Photo

JABATAN PERIKANAN

1 FRI Batu Maung, P.Pinang Intan Nurlemsha Baharom +6012-7186517

Fax : +604-6262210

[email protected]

[email protected]

2 NAFISH Batu Maung, P.Pinang Siti Hawa Mohamad Ali

+6019-8769058

[email protected]

3 NAFISH Batu Maung, P.Pinang Mohd Syafiq Mohammad

Ridzuan

+6017-4680853 [email protected]






17

4 FRI Tanjung Demong, Besut

Terengganu

Kho Li Yung +6013-8511281 [email protected]

5 FRI Pulau Sayak, Kota Kuala

Muda Kedah

Teoh Pik Neng

+604-4376091

+604-4374021

Fax : +604-4374470

[email protected]

6 FRI Rantau Abang, Dungun

Terengganu

Annie Nunis Billy +6012-8933967 [email protected]





18

7 SEAFDEC/MFRDMD, Chendering

Terengganu

Mohd Tamimi Ali Ahmad +60139678451

+609-617594 (General

office)

Fax : +609-617 5136 /

+609-6174042

[email protected]

GOVERNMENT AGENCY

8 Department of Environment Mohammad Rahimi Dollah +603-88712200

Fax : +603-88884070

[email protected]

9 Department of Mineral and

Geoscience

Noran Alwakhir bin

Sharaani

+6019-5777924

Fax : +605-5406100

[email protected]





19

10

Department of Marine Park

Malaysia

Izarenah Md. Repin

+6019-2321332

+603-88861414

(General office)

Fax : +603-88880489

[email protected]

11 Department of Marine Park

Malaysia

Bahrinah Bahrim +6012-8010203

[email protected]

UNIVERSITY

12 Universiti Teknologi Mara

(Perlis)

Aziani Ahmad +6019-5274345

+604-9882164

(General office)

Fax : +604-9882526

[email protected]





20

13 Universiti Malaya (Bachok) Roziawati Razali +609-7785001

Fax : +609-7785006

[email protected]

14 Universiti Sains Malaysia Cherrie Teh Chiew Peng +604-6533500 [email protected]

15 Universiti Sains Malaysia Amelia Ng Phei Fang






21

16 Universiti Sains Malaysia Amirul Aizat Abd. Aziz

+6014-9257093

[email protected]

17 Universiti Sains Malaysia Chin Chee Keong +6016-4879751

[email protected]

18 Universiti Sains Malaysia Nur Aqilah Muhammad

Darif

+604-653 6299

[email protected]




22

19 Universiti Sains Malaysia Mohammad Reza Mirzaei +604-6533500 [email protected]

20 Universiti Sains Malaysia Ng Bee Wah +604-6533500 [email protected]

21 Universiti Sains Malaysia Poi Khoy Yen +604-6533500 [email protected]


23

22

Universiti Sains Malaysia Dr Zulfa Hanan Ashaari

+6012-3419916

+603-89468024

[email protected]

[email protected]

23 Universiti Sains Malaysia Zufarzaana Zulkeflee Fax : +603-89438109 /

+603-89467468

+603-89468076

[email protected]





24

Facilitators

1. Universiti Sains Malaysia Assoc. Prof. Dr Aileen Tan

Shau Hwai


2. Universiti Sains Malaysia Dr Sazlina Salleh +604-653 4539 [email protected]

3. CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric

Research

Dr Peter Rothlisberg [email protected]


25

4. Wayamba University of Sri Lanka Dr (Ms) J.A.D.S. Sevvandi

Jayakody

[email protected]

5. Central Marine Fisheries

Research Institute, India

Prof. E. Vivekanandan [email protected]

6. Wayamba University of Sri Lanka Dr Wmh Kelum Wijenayake [email protected]


26

Appendix VIII Participant’s handout


27


28


29


30


31

Documents

2 October 2014, Penang Malaysia