Journals-Publications

Secrets Of Successful Engineering & Technology Journal Publication

2023 Upcoming International Conference

Journal publication experts are often asked how one can increase their manuscript’s chances of getting published. Having been in the academic publishing industry for years together, these experts have come to notice certain patterns of omission and constant issues. They’ve learned exactly why people read certain articles and where their critical focus often lies. They are also aware that most academics have the dual role of being both writers and reviewers.

The advice in this article here is for academics of all levels, not just emerging students. All academics are, after all, looking to find the most optimal ways to communicate their research to their target audiences. Manuscripts that eventually go on to be published successfully share certain elements that make them a pleasure to read and guide through the process – 

  • a solid argument, 
  • clear organisational logic, and 
  • an audible author’s voice, to begin with. 

The recommendations offered to academics in this article fall into three categories – 

  • before submission, 
  • the article itself, and 
  • after receiving word from the publishers. 

Prior To Submitting A Manuscript

  • Maintaining Originality While Also Being Aware Of Existing Literature Is Tricky But Vital
    • Authors should be sure to tell their readers how their articles relate to key work already published. 
    • This does not mean that they have to review every piece of previous relevant literature but show how they build on previous work to avoid accidental plagiarism.
    • When authors refer to something, they should understand its relevance to their research so they can clearly explain it to their readers. 
    • They should keep in mind that recent references highlight awareness of all current developments in the literature they are relying on. 
    • This doesn’t mean they can’t include old references. They should just state why they chose it. 
    • Authors should communicate their unique points of view to stand out. 
    • They may be building on an already existing concept, but they still need to have something new to say. 
    • Research authors should make sure they say it convincingly and fully understand and reference what happened before. 
    • It is important that authors try to connect their ideas, their research problem, and their subject to something that exists. 
    • It can be to challenge it, or it can be to confirm it. It can be re-examining it or stating why. 
    • However they want to engage with it, it’s crucial that people take that time and think about doing it. 
    • Partaking in an upcoming engineering and technology conference 2023 should prove to be incredibly useful to research authors looking to gain more valuable insights on this topic of originality and keeping tabs on current and pertinent research in their respective subdisciplines.
  • Following The Journal’s ‘Guidelines For Authors’ or ‘Guidelines For Submission’ To A Tee
    • Not a lot of research authors take this seriously enough. Each journal has specific citation guidelines and word limits that they expect authors submitting manuscripts to them to adhere to. 
    • If a journal requires authors to adhere to the MLA (Modern Language Association) 8 format, authors should make sure to follow MLA 8. 
Scopus Indexed Conference 2022
  • Submitting with another style and a note that says “this can be changed later if the paper does get accepted” indicates that the author doesn’t really see the paper as a good fit in the journal. 
    • Likewise, the solution to an article that is way over the word limit isn’t to go ahead and submit it accompanied with a note that offers the editor’ permission’ to cut it or to say that cuts will be made upon the acceptance of the manuscript. 
    • The solution is revision before submission.
  • Grammatical Inaccuracies & Typos Are A Huge No-No
    • Apparently, the most common lines of feedback that journals are dishing out these days involve the excessive presence of grammatical errors and typos in manuscripts.
    • This demonstrates that modern research authors aren’t taking their authorship as seriously as they should be. 
    • Publishing experts recommend writing as clearly as possible about complex things, letting ideas lend weight, not sentence structure. 
    • They suggest not just assuming that the journal editors will fix any mistakes they’re likely to come across. 
  • Clarity Is Crucial
    • Research authors should make their writing accessible by using plain language. 
    • Easy to read writing is also easier to understand. Authors may want to write for a global audience – so that their research reaches the widest readership.
    • They should be sure to write in a way that will be understood by any sort of reader, irrespective of their subject of interest or whether English is their first language. 
    • Research authors should write their journal articles with confidence to give their readers certainty in their research. 
    • They should make sure they have described their methodology and approach; although this may seem obvious to them, it may not be to their readers. 
    • And they shouldn’t forget to explain acronyms when they first appear in their text. 
  • The Process Of Peer Reviewing Isn’t Supposed To Be Used To Help Spot Errors & Fix Them 
    • It is a mistake for a research author to submit an article because they are stuck and really looking for comments. 
    • This is where they should share drafts with friends or trusted colleagues. 
    • It’s not the editor’s or peer reviewers’ job to offer suggestions on how to improve an article. 
    • They’re only there to make sure that nothing substandard is being published in their journal. 
    • Besides, research authors who use the peer-reviewing process for this portray themselves in a very poor light. 
  • It Is Crucial To Be Aware Of The Journal’s Readership Base
    • A good rule to keep in mind is to submit to the journals authors read and cite most often. 
    • Research authors are already participating in their ongoing conversations.
    • They will also know approximately what level of expertise and knowledge their readers are likely to have. 
    • Publishing experts find that another one of the major problems they notice in articles these days is a general confusion about the audience that they’re targeted at. 
    • The articles seem to be satisfying neither scholars, who would be irritated by the broad emphasis on seminal scholarship, nor a more heterogeneous audience that still has to go through many other voices just to identify the arguments that the author is trying to make. 
    • In short, authors should stop trying to put other people’s voices ahead of their own. 
  • Keeping The Abstract On Point
    • Authors should spend time polishing the abstract they submit with the article.
    • It should summarise – 
      • the intervention of the article, 
      • state the basic research questions, and 
      • note the central objects under study. 
    • An abstract is the very first impression of the article that anyone gets.
    • Research authors should try and make their abstracts as lively as possible. 
    • If they can’t clearly articulate their arguments and contribution to the field in the abstract, they may not have been clear enough in the article either.
    • Researchers can learn crucial tricks for nailing their abstracts by registering for and participating in a high-level 2023 international conference. 

The Manuscript

  • Understanding How An Article Is Rated
    • Journal editors ask peer-reviewers to consider the following criteria in their assessments of manuscripts that are submitted to their journals – 
      • soundness of scholarship, 
      • quality of style, and 
      • the consistency of argument. 
    • Research authors should ask themselves about these categories before submitting their manuscripts. 
    • They should evaluate their manuscripts and be as honest with themselves as possible. 
  • Encouraging Readers To Think
    • According to many publication experts, research authors should really let readers of their articles see how much their text or questions interests them.
    • They should consider – 
      • What is paradoxical? 
      • What’s confusing? 
      • What’s surprising? 
    • Along the same lines, these experts also can’t stress the importance of the question “so what?” enough. 
    • Life is short, so why should readers spend an hour reading a given article.
    • Readers want to know the answer in the first paragraphs. 
  • A Well-Written Manuscript Has A Well-Placed Hook Within It
    • Publishing experts often write this statement in decision letters when they return articles to authors with requests urging them to make their introductions more immediately engaging and demonstrate urgency right from the start.
    • Research authors should ask essential questions from the start. Is it imperative that people read their work? 
    • If so, why at this present time? Epigraphs are a research author’s good friends. 
    • Authors should take some time in the first few pages to highlight their contribution to the subject or field. 
    • They should note that lack of knowledge or the fact that no one has done what they’ve done, which is what they have, is never going to be a valid enough reason.
  • The Organisational Logic In A Research Article Has To Be Precise. 
    • Publication experts also stress the importance of establishing a sense of trust in the project that it’s not just the big, bold argument, claim or question that the article affirms, but also and immediately, at the start, a clear roadmap. 
    • If written in a way that isn’t simply a catalogue of what’s to come, the map can give rise to the wonderful sense of “aha!, I see the logic from where we are going. 
    • Let’s go!” in readers. To learn about how to get the organisational logic in a research paper right, research authors might benefit from attending an upcoming conference in 2023. 
  • Writing To The Target Audience
    • The next thing authors need to consider when writing their articles is their target audience. Interdisciplinary work, by definition, must imagine and build its own audience. 
    • Research authors should imagine an audience when preparing their manuscripts. 
    • They should go back to thinking about their audience – 
      • Are they experts in their discipline who will easily follow the technical language, or are they a lay audience who need ideas presented in a simpler way?
      • Are they writing for a more general audience or for experts in the same field as them? The journal they have chosen will give them more information about the type of audience that will read their work. Authors should focus on their main message to keep their readers’ attention. The lack of concentration is a common problem and can hinder effective communication. The strongest articles usually have a point to make. They make this point forcefully, back it up with evidence, and position it in the field.
  • Address Readers Clearly
    • Although an original article is not a place for an in-depth literature review, it is a good place to demonstrate ongoing conversations an author is engaging in or studies they are building on. 
    • It should be a tight page or three, not half the article. 
    • Publishing experts suggest that journal editors look for a confident sense of engagement and note that in the most successful articles they’ve read, they feel the excitement of joining this conversation and potentially steer it in a new direction. 
    • At the same time, this previous conversation should not overshadow the voice of the author. 
    • Self-confidence does not mean posturing or arrogance. It means they believe they have something important to add.
  • Authors Should Clarify Their Citation Practices 
    • Here, research authors should ask three important questions – 
      • Who speaks for whom? 
      • Who is listening? 
      • Who benefits?
    • Publication experts say that the willingness to cite research is probably most important in their evaluation of articles. 
    • If research papers are forays into ongoing conversations in the field, what voices are being heard? 
    • In this regard, citing minority voices is key. Research authors should consider a variety of viewpoints and not just name the usual suspects.
  • Research Authors Should Stop Putting Other People’s Voices Ahead Of Their Own
    • Authors should avoid name-dropping, especially theorists. 
    • If the work of a prominent scientist is at the heart of their argument, they can bring it up by all means. 
    • But they shouldn’t just select a term that the prominent author (whose name they are dropping) has coined without discussing where they coined the term, how they use it, and for what purpose. 
    • Is it really worth the space to use the term? If so, great. Authors should ask themselves if their voices can be heard in the cacophony of theorists they’re citing. 
  • Critical engagement Is Key 
    • The first thing a lot of journal editors do when evaluating a new submission is to check the works cited and enquire of the author about –
      • how they’ve followed up on existing research, 
      • how up-to-date it is and historically deep their references are, 
      • the extent of their research, and 
      • how they have nurtured a range of viewpoints (counter-arguments, existing criticisms). 
    • Then they read to see how in-depth their interaction with the exchange is.
  • Encouraging Discourse Is Important
    • It is the writer’s job to guide the reader through the implications of the passage/case in question and to connect it to the developing argument.
    • Authors shouldn’t be afraid to slow down and dig deep into the primary or secondary material. Their original voice will come through here.
  • A Good Manuscript Never Tries Harder Than It Has To
    • An author’s article is not their essay synopsis or a preview of their next book.
    • Significant contributions to scholarship can be small and still have an impact.
    • It’s good to tackle their subject and not solve everything. Polite does not mean closed. 
    • Additionally, a good article is one that advances the reader’s understanding.
    • Really, that’s what research publication is all about – advancing understanding. 
    • It can be incremental. This is how knowledge is mobilised in the long term.
  • Writing & Publishing With Legacy In Mind
    • Conclusions aren’t just summaries. At the end of an article, authors need to make sure their readers leave with a take-home message or point or question. 
    • What brief notes would they take if they were reading their own article? 
    • Again, the key here is to be incredibly honest with oneself. 
    • Partaking in the best international Scopus conferences will help tremendously in finding out more about why writing a research manuscript with one’s legacy in mind is so important and how to do so. 
    • Authors can peruse this list of Scopus conferences 2023 to find events of interest to them and register for them immediately. 

Post Receiving Feedback

  • Dealing With Article Rejection
    • The majority of articles receive a review and resubmission (RR) or rejection decision. 
    • This doesn’t mean that an author was refused; it’s only their paper that was.
    • Authors who go really far in their careers remain professional in such situations and never take rejection personally. 
    • They simply take it on the chin and move on to bigger and better things. 
  • Dealing With Detailed Feedback From Peer Reviewers
    • Contrary to popular belief about the dreaded peer review feedback, the vast majority of peer review reports are sent with the intention of advancing research. 
    • A lot of publication experts wish more people could see the effort and generous spirit that many of their colleagues put into their reports, reports that are often seen only by the editor and author. 
    • Sharing that bounty is actually the best part of being a publisher.
    • Notwithstanding this point, not all peer reviewers are like this. 
    • If an author thinks that the peer-reviewing committee has not received their article well or is being unfair, they shouldn’t hesitate to ask not to send it back to them.
  • Looking At Criticism As Constructive Feedback
    • Reviewers’ reports include just suggestions for the author. They aren’t non-negotiable instructions. 
    • Peer reviewers are well-qualified experts, sure, but they’ve spent hours with the work that authors have spent months or years on. 
    • Mainly, they point out places of confusion, contradiction, omission, or points that need clarification or elaboration. 
    • Authors shouldn’t completely rewrite their manuscripts based on the feedback given in a single report and, in the process, lose their own voice. 
    • Their names are on the article, not the names of the anonymous reviewers. Authors should stick to their guns in cases where they feel like the corrections suggested would derail their objective. 
    • When resubmitting, if RR, many publication experts recommend that authors include a letter to the editor noting the changes they’ve made, listing the suggestions they took, and explaining which ones they chose not to commit to and why.
  • Thoroughly Digesting The Peer Reviewers’ Feedback
    • If a reviewer suggests reading something, authors should read it. 
    • The recommendation signals that they think they are missing a key part of the conversation. 
    • Authors must read these recommendations carefully and pay attention to them. 
    • If this is not acceptable, they should let the editor know in the revisions explanation letter. 
    • More articles are rejected in the second round by the original reader with the comment “the author didn’t even bother to follow my recommendations and the errors are still there” than with any other comment.
  • Remaining Optimistic
    • All research work, authorship, and publishing are works in progress. 
    • If an author’s article is accepted, they still need to work with the editor to polish and tighten it. 
    • It will take many hours. If it’s RR, then they should take a deep breath and sink into intercourse. 
    • If rejected, they should read the reports and try to find valuable suggestions for improvement before submitting them elsewhere. 
    • At the beginning of many research professionals’ careers, they tend to put their articles in a drawer after scathing decisions. 
    • These articles remain unpublished for long periods of time, and more often than not, these authors begin regretting not pursuing publication further. 
    • If an author’s article is rejected, they should take it as a sign that the article is not ready yet and not give up.

Download the IFERP App for more insightful blogs such as this one that are sure to have you well on your way to becoming a globally renowned research author.