How to Get Published in Materials Science Journal

8/4/2019 How to Get Published in Materials Science Journal

1/42

Overview

u m ng a ape

Scientific Publishing 1An Editors Perspective


2/42

Overview

u m ng a ape



3/42

The First Address: Home-Page



4/42

A Good Paper

A good paper in JMPT makes a contribution to knowledge by

in a way that will be useful to others in future.

The knowled e ma be coded as an e uation or formulatedin some concise statements, and must always be supportedby experimental or theoretical evidence that allows the

reader to judge its value.Opinions are of very little value in a journal paper: claiming

a a new eory s goo or success u s unconv nc ng;however, providing evidence that allows a sceptical reader to

.

Please refer to the Editorial 2009



5/42

Type of Papers

Standard Research Paper: There is no page limitation.. ,

technical notes are not accepted.

Review Pa ers: Are written in uite a different wa and willbe structured by the subject being discussed. A good reviewis not just a catalogue, but adds value to the readers by

demonstrating a structure for knowledge in the area beingdescribed that allows clear evaluation of where work has

,clearly exist, and where different approaches have been

develo ed a review should contrast them clearl and withfairness.



6/42

Submission of a Paper

Cover letter

eywor s a agor es Please refer to the Editorial 2010

Gra hical Abstract

Paper

Figures & Tables



7/42

Cover Letter - 1



8/42

Cover Letter - 2

Authors Names (hidden)



9/42

Typical Paper Layout



10/42

Content of a Standard Paper (1)

Typical Length of a manuscript:

2535 ms-pages is the ideal length for a submitted manuscript,including ESSENTIAL data only.

Title page

Keywords

Introduction & Literature Surve 2 4 ms a es

Methods (Proposal & Test) 510 ms pagesResults and Discussion 510 ms pages

Conclusions 1 2 ms pages

Acknowledgments 13 sentences

References 2040 papers

Tables 1 3


Figures 610 ms: Microsoft-Word


11/42


Introduction. The introduction establishes the need for the research work. Whatwould we like to be able to do in practice that we dont know how to do atresent?

Reviewers Comments:

This research is not important transferable knowledge

Anal sis of existin work. This section has two ur oses: to summarize

previous work in the area (what knowledge exists in the area and is relevant tothe need of section 1), and to demonstrate that a gap in the knowledge exists(precisely what is the gap between the defined need and existing literature thatthis a er will attem t to fill?Reviewers Comments:

The claimed knowledge gap does not exist it has already been

filled You have failed to connect the stated need to previous work You havent understood the existing work that you have quoted The a er onl resents established textbook knowled e


The evaluation of the previous work is not fair


12/42


Proposal. A postulated model, theory, technological innovation, experiment,operating method or framework of analysis that will in some way contribute tofillin the a . The a er then tests the h othesis that the ro osal fills the aidentified in section 2. The importance of treating the paper as a test of thishypothesis is that provided the proposal is novel and credible, the paper is

valuable regardless of whether the hypothesis turns out to be true or false both , .Reviewers Comments:

The proposal is arbitrary ,

are untested or which are un-testable You have over-simplified The proposal clearly wont work

The proposal is wrong the derivation contains an error .



13/42


Design of test and implementation. Given the above hypothesis, what is the

How can the hypothesis be proved or disproved? Typically this is achieved bycomparison with experimental data, or with existing models, but it is important

that the chosen test would be seen as valid even by someone initially sceptical.

Reviewers Comments:

The test does not prove anything

The test is over simplified The test is false the outcome will not prove anything because it



14/42


Results and evaluation. The results should be presented as clearly andobjectively as possible supported by a careful evaluation. The evaluation shouldbe written in such a wa that an informed reader seein the same results woulddraw the same conclusions and should not claim good agreement unless thishas been explicitly shown and the limits of the test are carefully defined.

Reviewers Comments: e resu s are oo spec c an app y on y o one s ua on Your interpretation of the results is wrong You claim more than you have proved

Discussion and conclusions. To what extent does the proposal close the gapidentified in section 2? Based on the experience of evaluating the proposal

,investigating? What are the wider implications of the work: does this investigationsuggest the use of other solutions to this problem? Are there other problems for

which this solution might also be useful? Based on the work described in this,Reviewers Comments:

The work is incomplete you havent gone far enough


You have missed the implications of your evaluation


15/42


Acknowledgments:

Ensures those who helped in the research are

recognised.

Be brief and include individuals who have assisted with your study,including:

Financial supportersProofreadersTypistsSuppliers who may have provided materials free of charge, etc.



16/42


Abstract. Although the abstract appears first to the reader, it

summary of the entire paper. The best way to construct an

abstract is with a one sentence summary of each of theabove six sections.

The editor reads firstly the abstract and.

his/her decisions are shaped at thiss age regar ng nv ng rev ewers ornot.



17/42

Style-1

Avoid Doubts, Demagogy and Exaggeration:

Para ra hs be innin another furthermore etc. are worr in to the reader the

suggest that you havent anticipated the structure of the section.

Typical demagogical expressions are: as it can be seen clearly in Fig. 3,analyzing the

curves given in Fig. 3, etc.

Avoid exaggerations such as it is extremely important, very difficult, etc.

Aim to be concise.

Citations:

The correct way to cite previous work includes some description of what the authors

did, and what the conclusion was. References in papers work best when the reference

s use as e su ec o e sen ence. s o a mos no va ue o quo e re erences n a

list precisely because this fails to give any indication of what each of the authors did,

and how their conclusions differ.



18/42

Style-2

Objectivity:

Peo le readin a ers have read a lot of them before dont hiloso hise dont

attempt to show that your work has great significance outside of the context in which

you pursued it) or claim that is more significant than it is.

The most common failing in academic writing is claiming that the paper is more

significant than it is. Be precise in describing the conclusions that may safely be drawn

insignificant. Leave it to the reader to assess the quality of your contribution you dont

need to sell it.

Figures:

Figures should be simple, clear and of an excellent quality

Charts should be with sufficiently large fonts and appropriate line thicknesses

No photographs of people or standard machines


Figures captures must contain all necessary information


19/42

Style-3

You should use English throughout the,


Rebecca Wilson, 2011


20/42

Overview

u m ng a ape



21/42

Actions of Editor-in-Chief

Preview papers

Select reviewers or sub ect editor

Evaluate reviewers comments

Initiate paper revisions

-

review)Give final decision for publication



22/42

Editorial BoardEditors-in-Chief:J.M. Allwood, University of Cambridge, UKA.E. Tekkaya, TU Dortmund, Germany

Editorial Board:T. Altan, Columbus, OH, USAY. Altintas, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

Subject Editors: T.H.C. Childs (University of Leeds, UK, on

machining) J.-F. Li, Tsin hua Universit , China, on

. , ,A. Bhaduri, Tamilnadu, IndiaA.R. Boccaccini, Erlangen, Germany

K. Bouzakis,Thessaloniki, Greececeramics, glass, composites, rapidprototyping, surface coating,)

C.H. Caceres, (University of Queensland,Australia, on casting and heat treatment)

. , ,C. Chua, Nanyang, SingaporeP. Groche, Darmstadt, GermanyG. Hirt, Aachen, GermanyI.M. Hutchin s, Cambrid e, UKJ.E. Indacochea, Chicago, IL, USA

A.I. Isayev, Akron, OH, USAW.B. Lee, Kowloon Hong KongP.A.F. Martins, Lisboa, PortugalP. Montmitonnet, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, FranceK. Osakada, Huogo, JapanK. Padmanabhan, Chennai, India

M. Pietrzyk, Krakw, PolandPlease refer to the Editorial 2011 . . , ,M. Sutcliffe, Cambridge, UKM. Torralba, Legans, SpainH. Utsunomiya, Suita-Shi, Japan


. , ,K. Weinert, Dortmund, Germany

D. Yang, Daejeon, South Korea


23/42

Editorial Process

Pre-Review by Editor to assess if it:

gives a clear and credible review of previous work

describes work that has reached a 'research threshold'

meet the style requirements of the "Guide for Authors"

- -

The paper presents original workThe methodology is scientifically sound, does not over-claim the

,objectively supports the conclusions

The paper references appropriate previous work accurately

Based on the reviewers comments, the editors will either accept thepaper, ask the authors to revise it within 4 weeks, or reject it. The


.


24/42

Categorical Decisions

Pre-Review Reject topics: Numerical analysis by commercial code with no experimental

verification

Application of classical statistical, neural network / artificial,

black-box with no new process knowledge

No direct relation to processing of components

Purely material science

Purely design

Purel chemical

Purely numerical

Production system approach papers

ev ewer e ect on pre erences:

If possible not from the same country, institution, project-team


If possible 1 or 2 alternative reviewers


25/42

Exclusions

accept papers in the following areas:

mu a on w no exper men a ver ca on an or w cgives no new insight into the process.

literature. Examples include the fabrication of materials,chemical experiments and studies of material composition.

The analysis of material properties or product performancewithout reference to the processing which caused them.

which treat the process as a black box.



26/42

Overview

u m ng a ape



27/42

Reviewers GuideMost of your efforts as a reviewer will be to act as coach to the authors to help them toimprove the description or content of their work. We would like to ask you to write yourreview in the spirit of offering sound advice to the authors based on evidence not opinion oremo on.

Expected Comments:

1. Introduction . Does the introduction establish a clear need for research work?

2. Analysis of existing work. Does the paper give a satisfactory summary ofexisting work in the area and demonstrate that a knowledge gap exists relative tothe need established in section 1?

3. Proposal. Does the paper make a clear proposal of new transferableknowledge?

4. Design of test and implementation. Does the paper describe an appropriate

5. Results and evaluation. Are the results presented clearly and objectively and arethey supported by careful evaluation.

. scuss on an conc us ons. o e au ors correc y apprec a e e va ue otheir work and its implications for others?

Abstract. Is the abstract a clear summary of the paper?


yp ca y a rev ewer s report w e etween a a an one page o s ng e space text.


28/42

Response to Comments - 1



29/42




30/42




31/42




32/42




33/42

Overview

u m ng a ape



34/42

Issues with Originality

Fabrication

Falsification

Plagiarism Pla iarism takes man forms from assin off anothers a er as

the authors own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial partsof anothers paper (without attribution), to claiming results from

These three are the most common forms of ethical misconductthat the scientific community is challenged with


El i P bli hi E hi


35/42

Elsevier Publishing Ethics

Originality of research work underlying the paper and of

Appropriate citation (crediting of work of

others/ ermissioned materials and lacement of work intocontext

Disclosure of an erceived or otential conflict of interest

(that might call into question the objectivity of the work or itsconclusions)

Identification of all authors (meaningful contribution toresearch, its objectives and conclusions, and the writing of

Papers should not be submitted to more than one journal


Pl i i M l i l P bli i


36/42

Plagiarism, Multiple Publication

Originality and Plagiarism ,

paper as the authors own paper, to copying or paraphrasing

substantial parts of anothers paper (without attribution), toclaiming results from research conducted by others

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

Manuscripts that describe essentially the same researchs ou no e pu s e n more an one ourna orprimary publication

,in another journal a previously published paper


T l f El i


37/42

Tools of Elsevier

Legal Guide to Plagiarism (for editors) (available on elsevier.com)http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/editorsinfo.editors/ethicshelpdesk(note link may change)

Agreement amongst STM publishers over correcting the record of . .

co/2006-documents-statements-public-correspondence/stm%20guideline%20record%20of%20sci.doc

Ethics operating manual created for editors

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/editorsinfo.editors/sopethics (notelink may change)

Industry pilot project CrossCheck (working with iParadigms)http://www.crossref.org/01company/pr/press080107.htm

Elsevier Careers Opportunity in China


os t on: u s ng ontent oor nator .t an e sev er.com

O i


38/42

Overview

u m ng a ape


I t F t (D fi iti )


39/42

Impact Factor (Definition)

ear ear ng year

n y source ems(articles and reviews)

o a ems

(regardless of type)

Citations to nonsource items (editorials, letters, news

items, book reviews, abstracts, etc) may inflate the IF


Impact Factors by Disciplines


40/42

Impact Factors by Disciplines

Neuroscience

Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology

Multidisciplinary

Medicine

Pharmacology, Toxicology & Pharmaceutics

Chemistry

Immunology & Microbiology

Agricultural & Biological Sciences

Environmental Science

Chemical Engineering

Physics & Astronomy

Materials Science

Earth & Planetary Science

syc o ogy

Computer Science

Energy

Health Professions

Nursing

Mathematics

Engineering

Veterinary

Scientific Publishing 40An Editors PerspectiveArts & Humanities

Business, Management & Accounting

Social Sciences

,

Evolution of Citations


41/42

Evolution of Citations

Impact Factor

s

Reviews

itatio

C

Articles

Notes

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20


h Factor


42/42

h-Factor

h

h .


How to Get Published in Materials Science Journal

Documents

Transcript of How to Get Published in Materials Science Journal