To ‘clarify’ the

To observe in academic writing

To provide , and
to maximize your chances of publication
To to go beyond
publishing
Follow-up: I’m always available to help
To get you , i.e. to get
you writing
 in University
Published in various
international peer-reviewed journals and proceedings

Fellow: 3
Members: 16

17 International Journals
More than 50 International Journals
13 PhD, 15 Masters
However, , and the
 Analysis
Solid Logical Present
accurately/
evidence analysis argument
concisely

- Mainly to
and
 Are you working on a ?
Have you which
?
Are you with
?
Do you have ?
Have you ?
If so, you have the
 ACADEMIC PUBLICATION
IN TOP TIERED JOURNALS
Types of journals
Indexed Journal ( - higher priority)
Open
Other journals (Non-indexed)
Conference proceedings (Indexed / Non-indexed)
What are top-tiered journals?
• Or Impact Factor
• Provide a way to
to other
journals in the same field
• High Impact Journal
• Q1 (First Quartile) , Q2 (2nd Quartile),
Q3 (3rd Quartile), Q4 (Quartile)
• Quality of
– decide on
• Decide on
from that journal if your
not
 It is not (only) the Impact Factor, it is (mainly) the right audience!

Consult the Journal homepage to learn:

– Aims and scope
– Accepted types of articles
– Readership
– Current hot topics
• go through the abstracts of recent publications
• TIP: Articles in your references will likely lead you to the right
journal.
DO NOT gamble by submitting your manuscript
to more than one journal at a time.
19
Apply the to your manuscript, even to the
(text layout, paper citation, nomenclature, figures and table,
etc.). It will , and the editor’s.
All editors on poorly prepared manuscripts.
American Journal Experts (www.journalexperts.com)
Proofreading service (http://www.proof-reading-service.com/)
Asia Science Editing (www.asiascienceediting.com)
Diacritech Language Editing Services
(www.languageedit.com)
Edanz Editing (www.edanzediting.nl)
International Science Editing
(www.internationalscienceediting.com)
ScienceDocs Editing Services (www.sciencedocs.com)
SPI Publisher Services (www.prof-editing.com)
http://admin-
apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?wsid=X1ItRyzU52iq4cK2CA7&ssid=&SID=X1ItRyzU52iq4cK2CA7
• SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) , is a measure of the scientific
prestige of scholarly sources: value of weighted citations per
document. A source transfers its own 'prestige', or status, to
another source through the act of citing it.
• A citation from a source with a relatively high SJR is
worth more than a citation from a source with a lower
SJR.
• Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) measures
contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the
total number of citations in a subject field.
• The impact of a single citation is given higher value in
subject areas where citations are less likely, and vice
versa.
www.scimagojr.com
Journal Impact Factor
SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper)
Immediacy Index
Cited Half Life
5 Year Journal Impact Factor
Aims and scope Prestige

Publishing frequency Cost

Target audience Publication type

Open access or
subscriber

Which factor is most important to you?

Edanz Group | 24
How new are my results compared with those
already published?
New findings

Incremental Conceptual
advances advances

Low to medium Medium to high

impact factor impact factor
“The following problems appear much too frequently”
Submission of papers which are clearly
the paper according to the Guide for
Authors

Inadequate
Inadequate
Resubmission of rejected manuscripts
Is the manuscript sufficiently novel?
Is the manuscript of broad enough interest?

Novelty Aims and Scope

Significance Impact Factor
 – what’s new about subject, treatment or
results?
to and extension of
– are conclusions valid and
objective?
of writing – does it
communicate well?
of argument
implications (the ‘so what?’
factors!)
/Global focus
Regency and
Adherence to the of the
journal
A , and a
Have you done and ?
Is there in your work?
Is the to a ?
Have you to any
?
 Research
Papers

Research
Letters
Notes

Types of
Journal
Articles

Review Supplemental
Articles Articles

Miniature
Articles
Length of the manuscript:
25- 30 pages is the ideal length for a submitted
manuscript, including ESSENTIAL data only.
 Title page
 Abstract 1 paragraph
 Introduction 1.5-2 pages
 Methods 2-4 pages
 Results and Discussion 10-12 pages
 Conclusions 1-2 pages
 Figures 6-8 (Max.12)
 Tables 1-3 (Max. 6)
 References 20-50 papers

Letters or short communications have a stricter

limitation of the length. For example, 3000 words
with no more than 5 illustrations.
Source: www.pri.univie.ac.at/~derntl/papers/meth-se.pdf
Woolley K L , Barron J P Chest 2009;135:573-577
©2009 by American College of Chest Physicians
•Exciting the reviewer’s
mind is far more important
then exciting the reader’s
mind.

•It is likely that no one will

ever read your paper more
thoroughly than the
reviewer.

•Suggest referees that

appreciate your work
www.weirdscience.ca
 from journal to journal
Peer review is the
other on and of
manuscript for publication in the journal
Today, most journals reject some paper (on basis
of ).
Usually (per manuscript)
Aim for within 2-10 weeks
Submission and review for most journals (via EES)
Authors can of their manuscript online

Editor assigns article to (at least) and

based on recommendations of

| 37
Submit to the (scope, speed and
prestige)
Submit only to one journal
Check the ! (http://www.proof-reading-service.com/)
to the
Pay attention to (GfAs)
Be !
Ethical Issues
Style and language
Structure of paper
Components of paper
Article submission/journal selection
Publisher’s process/peer review
Write in manner
Do from
(plagiarism) (check using www.turnitin.com )
Prepare according to
the journal’s ‘ ’
Check references (use www.scopus.com;
www.sciencedirect.com ), Endnote; Mendeley;
other systems
For practical advice, e-mail:
authorsupport@elsevier.com

| 40
Identify a few but be
Follow the – , , ,
, etc
Find out where to (editor, online submission e.g.
Scholar One/Editorial manager).
which can be found in a copy of the
journal/series or the publisher’s web site
Send an outline or abstract and ask if this looks suitable and interesting
(or how it could be made so)
Read at least
– opportunity to speak directly to the editor,
convince them of the importance of your manuscript to the journal
 No permitted
Appropriate identification of /
researchers
Appropriate identification of co-authors
Include involved
Obtain before
submitting paper
Must be
not a
(not interpretations)

NOTE: Industry wide software “ ” being rolled

out to detect plagiarism, or dual submissions.

| 42
Scientific misconduct
Falsification of results

Publication misconduct
Plagiarism
Different forms / severities
The paper must be original to the authors
Duplicate submission
Duplicate publication
Appropriate acknowledgement of prior research and
researchers
Appropriate identification of all co-authors
Conflict of interest

43
The article of which the authors committed plagiarism: it won’t be
removed from ScienceDirect. Everybody who downloads it will see
the reason of retraction…
44
Elsevier is participating in 2 plagiarism
detection schemes:
Turnitin (aimed at universities)
Ithenticate (aimed at publishers and
corporations)

Manuscripts are checked against a database

of 20 million peer reviewed articles which
have been donated by 50+ publishers,
including Elsevier. Al post-1009 Elsevier
journal content is now included and the
pre-1995 is being steadily added week-by-
week

45
The general structure of a full article
Title
Abstract Make them easy for indexing and
Keywords searching! (informative, attractive, effective)
Main text (IMRAD)
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results Journal space is precious. Make your article
 And as brief as possible
 Discussions
Conclusions
Acknowledgement
Reference
Supplementary materials
Highlights
Novelty
May be mandatory for your journal
3-5 bullets that convey the core findings of the
article
Maximum 85 characters (including spaces) per
bullet point
An experimental investigation was performed to
characterize the hydrogen combustion.
The experimental test-rig results comprised the traces
for the in-cylinder pressure.
The combustion characteristics deteriorated due to the
lack of mixture stratification.
Retarding ignition timing is crucial to avoid abnormal
combustion in a richer mixture.
• May be mandatory for your journal
• Summarize article content in a concise, pictorial
form
Should be

Should in describing the study

the investigation

Should be ,

in title carefully for clarity and accuracy

Avoid

Avoid
Choosing the
.
Scientists do science because they it. However,
they usually for their
 as a reward.

Deciding , who should be in

the & the order in which authors
stand on the paper .
Affiliation: Give the when writing the
.
E-mail address is also very useful (increasingly required by
journals)
Sometimes Phone and Fax number also important
Write out first names or only use initials?
of the journal you propose to publish in.
Full name is of advantage if
There is and
You are a field. Specially
important if you are the , so that your work isn’t cited.
Good Abstract
State the objectives/ purposes of study (C)
Scope of the research/ significance of study
Describe the methodology used (C)
Summarize most important results (c)
Practical implications, and recommendation
Avoid acronyms and mathematical symbols

Write a very strong abstract !

Keep the abstract

Not include

A clear abstract will if your work is considered

further

Length limits are strict: (100-200 words)

Only include that are

contained in the main paper

Avoid include

Avoid material
Do not include any
, paragraphs.

Write in the

Answer the following :

• What was done?
• Why was it done?
• How was it done?
• What was found?
• What is the significance of the findings?
Missing

Missing

Missing

Missing
A structured abstract – in 250 words or less (no more than 100 in any
one section)
Purpose – Reasons/aims of paper
Design – Methodology/’how it was done’/scope of study
Findings – Discussion/results
Research limitations/Implications (if applicable) – Exclusions/next steps
Practical implications (if applicable) – Applications to practice/’So what?’
[NEW] Social implications (if applicable) – Impact on society/policy
Originality/value – Who would benefit from this and what is new about it?
Keywords – mainly used for indexing
 It is the label of your manuscript. Avoid words with a
broad meaning.
E.g., the word “soil” in “Soil Biology & Biochemistry”
should not be selected as a keyword.

 Only abbreviations in the field are

eligible (e.g., DNA).

 Check the ! (for Example, “Wear”

journal.
 Introduction

Literature Review Problem statement

Objectives

Experimentation Methodology Simulation

Results & Discussion

Conclusion
Clearly state the:
Problem
Background that
for conducting the research
Summarize to
State how from published work
Identify the
Explain , if any, you are

Briefly , ,
; general experimental design
or method
Don’t try to show readers that you have

LOGICAL
FRAMEWORK
Vague

Vague

Vague

Does of the study

Does of the study

Scopes is

(common in the social

sciences studies)
•What is in the immediate area of concern?
•What are the that help explain the fact?
•What are the or the ?
•What are ?

•How do what we know?

have been used to study the event?
•What are the ?

•Where are there or other in our knowledge and understanding?

•What views ?
•What ?
•Why the research problem?

•What be expected to make to the knowledge base?

What do you in the area concerned?

What are the ?

Are there
?

What views ?

What

the research problem?

Lacking of

at the existing research that is

to study

Do what has already been done

Do between the
different works

Do not shown how

to the current study
Do in the literature

the
knowledge base?

Argues about the

topic.

Do not provide
.

from the literature

review.
 • Equipment, materials and method

• Assumption, mathematical tools and method

• Inputs (B.C and I.C.) , computational tools and method

Explain what is

Give that the reader can reproduce

For well-known methods:

For methods but not well known:

For methods that yourself develop:

Should be written in

May include tables and figures—

(adopted form)
• Tables of

How will you demonstrate that your

is
,
Documents in your study

Summarize in your what you did

Describe in were obtained so that a peer can
repeat procedure
It should be

For materials considered following

• Exact technical specification
• Quantities
• Preparation method and source

For industrial products, unless the nature of the product

differ from one to another company
Use

Try to of the section consistent with the result

Methodology need to be . More
details is required for

Remember that this section

. It should

Statistical analysis must be pertain and thorough

enough

,
should be reported in order
 in scientific paper unless
they are needed to
or summation of the data

then present them in the

and/or descriptions of the

and

Present the converted data, and

. The
, .
Avoid /

Discuss how data

with previous work

Do in the results section

The most common mistakes in this section are the inclusion of

Only those
should be

If data do , it can
be stated in a

Write . Scientific papers should enable

and not present

Select from the collection, present

them only once in either .
 16
K-promoted Pd/Al2O3
calcined
12 uncalcined

rate (a.u.)
16 8
K-promoted Pd/MgO
calcined

12 uncalcined

4
rate (a.u.)

0
4 0 1 2 3 4
K - promoter added (wt%)
0
0 1 2 3 4
K - promoter added (wt%)
 Depth Gravel Sand Mud

5m 3,42% 81.41% 15,17%

50 m 2,5% 58.42% 39.08%
100 m 0,0% 32.5% 67.5%

Revision of the table

Water depth (m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Mud (%)

5 3.4 81.4 15.2

50 2.5 58.4 39.1
100 0 32.5 67.5
What ?
What is an ?
What are the of
the study in ?
Why might we have ?
What ?
What and

What ?
Answer

Give

Establish

Explain
• Comparison are made between current and previous findings

for unexpected
findings

Does

that is
An example:
In conclusion, our results obtained
with mice increase the knowledge on Contribution to the
CPF-induced adverse effects, up to particular area
now limited to rats. They seem to
suggest that not all the CPF effects
measured in rats and the related
doses can be directly extrapolated to
mice, which seem to be more
susceptible at least to acute Practical
treatment. Even though many significance
questions still remain open, our
findings show that the mouse could
be considered a suitable
experimental model for future studies
on the toxic action of Future work clearly
organophosphorus pesticides stated
focused on mechanisms, long term
and age-related effects.
 the

Summary of

Future research (
)
Conclusions are of the study

It is of the conclusions that

you have made

It helps to organize these as

Ordered from

All conclusions should be

• Define all symbols, specialized terms or
abbreviation used.

• Introduce the symbols, specialized terms or

abbreviation a long phrase that we are going to
use many times

• Give full name the first time you use it (only for
the first time)
• Should consider to acknowledge
, such
as , ,
,
, ,
etc.
Relevant and recent
Be highly selective
Read the references
Do not misquote
Use correct style for journal
Use for references
Proofreading All authors should participate
Grammar and spelling errors
Consistent verb tense
Vocabulary
Tighten the sentences
spell-check
Punctuation
typos
• Technical terms
• Scientific symbols
• Reaction scheme
• Chemical structures/names
• references
• Read
• Create a document

– Separate

and

• Acknowledgements

• Authors/Corresponding Author
– Which order!!!
– Student, Post-doc and Supervisor??
Cover letter – your to the Editor
directly
Do not , or
, but mention to the
journal. This is also the
, for instance if you
to be reviewed by certain reviewers.

Many editors won’t reject a manuscript only because the

cover letter is bad. However, a may
accelerate of your paper.
Kelner K. Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.caredit.a0700046
LOGICAL STEPS FOR
TECHNICAL PAPER
LOGICAL STEPS FOR
TECHNICAL PAPER
As far as … is concerned  As for
At the present time  At present, or now
By means of  By
In order to  To
In view of the fact that  Since; because
Red in colour  Red
Small in size  Small
Until such time as  Until
Adequate enough  Adequate
Research work  Research, or work
Schematic diagram  Scheme, or diagram
...
Which procedure do you prefer?
1. Send out a sloppily prepared manuscript  get
rejected after 4-6 months  send out again only a few
days later  get rejected again  …  sink into
despair
2. Take 3-4 months to prepare the manuscript  get the
first decision after 4 months  revise carefully within
time limitation … accepted

You are your manuscript to a scientific

journal, not it out . Please your
own !
So after a long period of hard working, you
have decided to submit an academic paper …

And wait ….
NOTIFICATION OF SUBMITTED
PAPER

Why?
Why?
Why? …
 and listen carefully!
Most editors will give detailed comments about a
rejected paper. Take a deep breath, and listen to what
is being said
!
Try to improve the paper, and re-submit elsewhere. Do
your homework and target your paper as closely as
possible
!
At least 70% of papers in Science and Technology don’t
get published. Everybody has been rejected at least
once
!
A ion is good news! It really is
You are now in the . Nearly
every published paper is at least once
Even if the
or , they aren’t
Does of journal or conference.
Does to the
knowledge of the field.
Lacking of .
Solving .
Does .
Originality.
of research problems.
Research contents are weak
Literature review is .
problems.
are problematic.
Insufficient .
of the results.
of the results.
The paper is .
Does for
presentation.
Incentive to improve your work
Valuable feedback
Good experience of how the system works
Don’t be in the 16% who gave up
A request for revision is good news! It really is

You are now in the publishing cycle. Nearly every published

paper is revised at least once
Don’t panic!
Even if the comments are sharp or discouraging, they aren’t
personal
 Acknowledge the editor and set a revision deadline
 If you disagree, explain why to the editor

 Clarify understanding if in doubt –

‘This is what I understand the comments to mean…’
 Consult with colleagues or co-authors and tend to the points as
requested
 Meet the revision deadline

 Attach a covering letter which identifies, point by point, how revision

requests have been met (or if not, why not)
 For example “The change will not improve the article because…”
 How to respond to a review

This and next slides taken from “How to write a world-class paper?
Personal experiences by Prof. Dr. Rik Leemans, Environmental
Systems Analysis Group (Editor-in-chief Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 107
 Congratulations!!
Following a lot of hard work and at least one
revision your paper has been accepted.

“In all the years I have been an editor I have

not accepted a single paper on first
submission.”
Typical editor comment
Common Drawbacks in Writing
Papers
:
Plagiarism
Any text in the paper.
Tables, figures.
Zero tolerance.

Is this paper look similar to your previous one?

Copy-and-paste.
and .
checking tools.
Common Drawbacks in Writing
Papers

Write paper for you only!

have known everything you know.
Lacking of context
Lacking of or crowded with them.
Lacking or unfairly diminish others
work.
Purely descriptive
, , just “we
did this, we did that…”
Common Drawbacks in Writing
Papers

in parts.
Include long contents.
.
Incomprehensible writing
Many .
usage.
more than text.
Common Drawbacks in Writing
Papers

is a discipline!
Writing paper with
.
Write long and complex sentences
– Keep it short and simple
Context repetition
ourselves.
in a paragraph
Common Drawbacks in Writing
Papers

Academic writing is a discipline!

vs. voice
Social Science research tends to use more active
voice while formal English tends to use passive.

Over-sell/over-generalize words (e.g “paradigm”)

Buzz words (cool but shallow).
Controversy words.
 Response to Reviewers
Don’t:
Use or .
Use against another.
I am right because !
Say things like “we agree” or “this is excellent ..” if
you are going to change the paper as suggested
by reviewers.

“See my response to comment X above..”

to other journals.
 Response to Reviewers
Do:
Give thanks to the .
by
the editor and reviewers.
and
in a !
and
.
and
on time.
Short words
Short sentences
Short paragraphs
No jargon
No abbreviations
Prefer Anglo Saxon over the Latin
Prefer nouns and verbs to adjectives and
adverbs
Cut all duplicities/falseness/double standard
Avoid figures of speech and idioms
Prefer active to passive
Prefer the concrete to the abstract
Don’t hassle/harass
Be relaxed / comfortable
Don’t be too talkative /informal
Don’t be satisfied with yourself
Be careful with slang /jargon /dialect
Use the scalpel not the sword
Add a dash of colour, just a dash
Motivation
 Motivation

May 8, 2004 120-84

 Questions?

Thanks!

Email: mustafizur@ump.edu.my