How to Get Published In Scientific Journals -- An example: Applied Energy Prof. J. Yan Editor-in-Chief of Applied Energy Royal Institute of Technology & Mälardalen University, Sweden August 2011 Beijing China Applied Energy Figures and Facts: • Published by Elsevier since 1975 • 12 Issues per year • Ca 50 articles per issue, 500 papers/year • Ca 150-200 submissions per month, ca 2000+/yr • SCI, Impact Factor: 3.888 (2010) • Ca 1,000,000* downloads (*predict in 2011) 2 Status & Progress of Applied Energy 2500 Published papers Submissions Downloads (X1000) 2000 1500 4.0 3.0 Impact factor 1000 2.0 500 1.0 0 0 2005 3 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* Before publishing a paper • Why publishing? • The trend of scientific publication • The process from preparation, submission, review and publication • How to get published in a scientific journal? (main topic of this lecture) 4 today & future?: APEN faces new challenges/opportunities biorefinary Clean coal author editor Eco-buildings CO2 capture and storage Smart grids Hybrid car polygeneration reviewers publisher Manuscripts Submisions Reviews Accept/reject publishing What does young generation think about publishing? 5 Content is more important than packaging ! The trend of scientific publication Each year • 3 million articles submitted • 300,000 peer reviewers • 1.5 million articles published • 30 million readers • 2 billion digital article downloads • 30 million article citations Source: Elsevier 2011 8 Source: Knowledge Networks and Nations: Royal Society 2012 http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Conten Growth of scholarly journals 25000 Active, Peer-Reviewed Journals ~3% per annum 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 <1900 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s Decade 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s >2000 “This is truly the decade of the journal and one should seek to limit their number rather than to increase them, since there can be too many periodicals.” Neues medicinisches Wochenblatt fur Aerzte (1789) 9 Source: Elsevier 2011 Trends in Country Performance • The US and Japan show a decline, US citation share dropping around 10% since 2004, Japan share dropping around 4% • China shows significant growth in all areas 10 ◦ China, Brazil, India, and France show a high growth in article output • FWRI shows a logical division between traditional markets (high FWRI) and developing markets (low FWRI) Increasing research outputs 509 Research outputs are increasing across the board, and most notably in developing countries 11 Korea China 204 Percentage Growth in Outputs 1997-2007 Source: Elsevier 2011 The publishing process and its measurements • 730,000+ article are submitted per year • received 15 million Archive and cites in 2009 • submissions originate from 230 different countries Solicit and manage submissions promote • 100,000+ customer questionnaires are Publish and returned per year Production • 2.7 million print pages per year 12 Manage • 65% of articles peer review are rejected Edit and prepare disseminate • 600 million+ downloads/year • a first decision is reached in 8.8 weeks • 17,000+ issues are published per year • 300,000+ articles are accepted for publication • articles can be online in 6 days Source: Elsevier Rejection rates per region The rejection rates are according to expectation: low in traditional markets, high in emerging markets – The rejection rate is surprisingly low in Russia. Although Elsevier publishes higher than average quality articles from Russia, they still contribute negatively to the relative IF – The US and France have below average rejection rates whereas Elsevier publishes less than average quality articles from those countries – Japan and France have a below average rejection rate, whereas its articles contribute negatively to the relative impact factor 13 Where are we now: Access by content type, global Global Study - Phase I PRELIMINARY STUDIES – NOT YET RELEASED High High importance but relatively low ease of access Low 4,109 14 respondents High Source: Elsevier 2011 APEN The editorial board Readers, Authors, Reviewers, Editors, & Publishers Process from submission to publication EES in Applied Energy  author Author on-line submission Language ? Format ? Structure ? editor reviewers Pre-screening Quick review by editor-in-chief proof (1+ w) Reviewer 1 Editor for the manuscript Reviewers 2 (1-3+ m) Reviewer 3? accepted (3+ m?) Publisher (3+ m?) Web Publication 16 (3+ m?) publisher Rejected? Revision? Printing Paper publication SCI Journal Catagories Journals in ”Energy and Fuels” Journals in ”Chemical Engineering” Citations vs. Publications (Applied Energy) Average Number of Citations (2010 IF window: articles 2008 + 2009) 10.00 Applied Energy 9.00Lebanon Austria size: number of articles in 2008 + 2009 8.00 7.00 Bahrain Ireland 6.00Lithuania Algeria India FinlandMalaysia Hong Kong Turkey Canada Sweden 5.00Senegal Germany Denmark Belgium South Portugal Africa Australia United States 4.00 Nigeria Tunisia Spain Philippines France South Korea Iran United Kingdom Egypt Netherlands ThailandJapan Italy 3.00 Jordan Slovakia Singapore Norway Taiwan Saudi Arabia Brazil Greece 2.00 Cyprus Israel Poland United Arab Emirates Switzerland 1.00 Czech Bangladesh Pakistan Kuwait Republic New Zealand 0.00 Serbia Mexico 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% China 10.0% Article Share 18 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% Who bears the burden of peer review? % of global reviews vs % global research output 35% United States Proportion of Global Reviews* 30% Ideally a country should sit on the line - its proportion of world reviews should match its proportion of world papers The proportion of global reviews completed by the US is much greater than it's proportion of global research articles (12% more) 25% 20% Average number of declines 15% 10% United Kingdom Canada Germany Japan Spain France Italy India 5% China China's contribution to global reviews is 5%. It produces 12% of the world's research articles. However, this low number is not because Chinese researchers are unwilling. 0% 0% *Based on data from Elsevier 19 5% 10% 15% 20% Proportion of Global Papers 25% (source Scopus) 30% 35% An international editor says: “The following problems appear much too frequently” • Submission of papers which are clearly out of scope • Failure to format the paper according to the Guide for Authors • Inappropriate (or no) suggested reviewers • Inadequate response to reviewers • Inadequate standard of English • Resubmission of rejected manuscripts without revision Paul Haddad, Editor, Journal of Chromatography A Source: Elsevier 2011 20 Can I publish this????? • • • • • • • Have you done something new and interesting? Have you checked the latest results in the field? Have the findings been verified? Have the appropriate controls been performed? Do your findings tell a nice story or is the story incomplete? Is the work directly related to a current hot topic? Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems? If all answers are “yes”, a good, strong manuscript is what is needed next 21 Source: Elsevier 2011 Thought Question What is it that distinguishes a very good scientific manuscript from a bad one? Why a paper is accepted or rejected ? 22 Objectives • What steps do I need to take before I write my paper? • How can I ensure I am using proper scientific language? • How do I build up my article properly? 23 文學改良芻議 -- 胡適于1917年1月1日發表于《新青年》 1.須言之有物 2.不摹仿古人 3.須講求文法 4.不作無病之呻吟 5.務去濫調套語 6.不用典 7.不講對仗 8.不避俗字俗語 24 多研究些问题少谈些主义大胆假设小心求证言必有征 How is a paper rejected? Example: reviewer’s comments on a rejected paper The paper presents an experimental study on the performance of water diesel emulsions in a direct injection diesel engine. As far as the study is concerned it adds no new data or analysis to the pre-existing body of work on this subject, it merely confirms much of what is already out there. The focus of this journal is to provide "a forum for information on innovation, research, development and demonstration in the areas of energy conversion and conservation, the optimal use of energy resources, analysis and optimization of energy processes, mitigation of environmental pollutants, and sustainable energy systems". As it presently stands, this paper does not address this rather broad aim, rather it presents without context a set of experimentally derived results. Disappointingly, the quality of the results cannot be judged because no details on methods, error (etc) are provided. Given these facts, I cannot recommend publication of the paper in Applied Energy. 25 Not new – no originality No specific & detailed results No methods provided Mistakes made by other authors       26 The CFD model is worthy of publication, however, I am not convinced that the experimental/verification results are presented to the same level as the mathematical model. Although the English is understandable it could be improved by a fluent English proof reader. Introduction - This is very long and not all relevant to this paper. There is very little detail about what is lacking in current work and what your work does to add to this. Only 2 hours to reach temperature seems rather short, I believe the standard says that temperatures should not vary by more than a certain amount in a certain time. Could you confirm that temperatures were definitely stabalised. I also thought the standard was for a 24 hour test not 12, could you confirm this also. Non-dimensionalising the temperature in Celsius does not make sense. Comparison with data - 'a reasonable agreement', this is very subjective. Some agreement looks good, some looks bad, please highlight in the text where agreement is good and objectively how good and where it is bad and objectively how bad, in terms of real temperatures. I do not think it adequate to only provide accuracy for the global average values, this is relatively easy to get right, it is more difficult to get the distribution of values correct and you have not adequately assessed this. Your results/methods shall be “verified”! Language! Non-relevant Info! Not accurate … Careless! Be objective! Process of communication Author Publisher Manuscript Reviewer 27 Editor What steps do I need to take before I write my paper? Determine if you are ready to publish You should consider publishing if you have information that advances understanding in a certain scientific field This could be in the form of: • Presenting new, original results or methods • Rationalizing, refining, or reinterpreting published results • Reviewing or summarizing a particular subject or field If you are ready to publish, a strong manuscript is what is needed next 29 Your paper is original • Journal publish the paper which has “originality” which is characterized with “innovation” • Originality means – Your idea is original – Your method is original – Your results are original • However, “originality” does not necessarily mean your work is “revolutionary” or “creation of „new theory‟” • Make sure that you are developing an original idea by performing a thorough literature review. Justification! 30 What is a strong manuscript? • Has a clear, useful, and exciting message • Presented and constructed in a logical manner • Reviewers and editors can grasp the scientific significance easily Editors and reviewers are all busy scientists – make things easy to save their time 31 What is a good manuscript? 2009 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine awarded to Elizabeth Blackburn 32 Source: Elsevier 2011 Decide which type of manuscript is most appropriate • Conference papers • Full articles/Original articles • Review papers/perspectives 33 Conference Paper • • • • Excellent for disseminating early or in-progress research findings Typically 5-10 pages, 3 figures, 15 references Draft and submit the paper to conference organisers Good way to start a scientific research career Sample full article titles: • • 34 “Global Warming Prevention Technologies in Japan” at 6th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies International Conference “Power consumption in slurry systems” at 10th European Conference on Mixing Full Article • • • • Standard for disseminating completed research findings Typically 8-10 pages, 5 figures, 25 references Draft and submit the paper to appropriate journal Good way to build a scientific research career Sample full article titles: • • • 35 “Hydrodynamic study of a liquid/solid fluidized bed under transverse electromagnetic field” “Retinoic acid regulation of the Mesp–Ripply feedback loop during vertebrate segmental patterning” “Establishing a reference range for bone turnover markers in young, healthy women” Review Paper • • • • Critical synthesis of a specific research topic Typically 10+ pages, 5+ figures, 80 references Typically solicited by journal editors Good way to consolidate a scientific research career Sample review paper titles: • • • 36 “Advances in the allogeneic transplantation for thalassemia” “Stress and how bacteria cope with death and survival” “Quantifying the transmission potential of pandemic influenza” Citation impact varies by publication type Impact Factor window Citations Reviews Notes Articles 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Years after publication 16 18 20 Choose the target journal • Choose one journal • Your references can provide candidate journals • Read recent publications in your field • Find out specific journal details Beware of Phishing: Publishers and editors rarely solicit papers from authors, and usually only as an invitation for review articles. 38 Use the journal’s “Guide for Authors” • “Guide for Authors” includes: – – – – – – 39 Types of papers accepted Editorial team contact information Graphics specifications Acceptable language Paper length Other details 40 Summary – What steps do I need to take before I write my paper? • Determine if you are ready to publish • Decide on the type of manuscript • Choose the target journal • Check the Guide for Authors 41 How can I ensure I am using proper scientific language? Thought Question • What are some characteristics of the best scientific writing you have seen? 43 Why Is Language Important? Save your editor and reviewers the trouble of guessing what you mean Complaint from an editor: “[This] paper fell well below my threshold. I refuse to spend time trying to understand what the author is trying to say. Besides, I really want to send a message that they can't submit garbage to us and expect us to fix it. My rule of thumb is that if there are more than 6 grammatical errors in the abstract, then I don't waste my time carefully reading the rest.” 44 Do Publishers Correct Language? • Yes… – Publishers often provide resources for authors who are less familiar with the conventions of international journals – Some publishers may perform technical screening prior to peer review • But… – It is the author‟s responsibility to use proper language prior to submission – Full copyediting is only done after an article is accepted 45 Scientific Language- Overview Write with clarity, objectivity, accuracy, and brevity. • Key to successful scientific writing is to be alert to common errors: – – – – Sentence construction Incorrect tenses Inaccurate grammar Mixing languages Check the Guide for Authors of the target journal for any language specifications 46 Scientific Language – Sentences A possible modification: • Write direct and short sentences “It was expected that the intravenous administration via emulsion would have a •higher Oneretention idea or piece of information per sentence is sufficient concentration. However, the experimental results suggest otherwise. The SLN entered the tumor blood vessel more easily than the emulsion. •This Avoid statements inthe one may bemultiple due to the smaller aperture of SLNsentence (46 nm) compared with the aperture of the emulsion (65 nm). An example of what NOT to do: “If it is the case, intravenous administration should result in that emulsion has higher intravenous administration retention concentration, but which is not in accordance with the result, and therefore the more rational interpretation should be that SLN with mean diameter of 46nm is greatly different from emulsion with mean diameter of 65 nm in entering tumor, namely, it is probably difficult for emulsion to enter and exit from tumor blood vessel as freely as SLN, which may be caused by the fact that the tumor blood vessel aperture is smaller.” 47 Scientific Language - Tenses • Present tense for known facts and hypotheses: “The average life of a honey bee is 6 weeks” • Past tense for experiments you have conducted: “All the honey bees were maintained in an environment with a consistent temperature of 23 degrees centigrade…” • Past tense when you describe the results of an experiment: “The average life span of bees in our contained environment was 8 weeks…” 48 Scientific Language - Grammar • Use active voice to shorten sentences – – – – Passive voice: “It has been found that there had been…” Active voice: “We found that…” Passive voice: “carbon dioxide was consumed by the plant…” Active voice: “…the plant consumed carbon dioxide..” • Avoid abbreviations: “it‟s”, “weren‟t”, “hasn‟t” – Never use them in scientific writing – Only use abbreviations for units of measure or established scientific abbreviations, e.g. DNA 49 Scientific Language - Grammar • Minimize use of adverbs: “However”, “In addition”, “Moreover” • Eliminate redundant phrases say „and references therein‟ - as in [1] and [25]. Any intelligent • “Never Double-check unfamiliar words or phrases reader knows to look at the references in a paper in order to get even more information.” - Editor “Delete „In present report‟. It is impossible for it to be in a different report! You start the conclusions "In this report, we have prepared....." This is nonsense. The samples were prepared in the laboratory!” -Editor 50 Language Finally, you should use English throughout the manuscript, including figures 51 Summary – How can I ensure I am using proper scientific language? • Proper scientific language is important so that editors and reviewers can easily understand your messages • Refer to the journal‟s Guide for Authors for specifications • Check that your paper has short sentences, correct tenses, correct grammar, and is all in English • Have a native English speaker check your manuscript 52 How do I build up my article properly? General Structure of a Full Article Each section of a paper has a definite purpose • Title • Abstract • Keywords • Main text (IMRAD) – Introduction – Methods – Results – And – Discussions 54 • • • • Conclusion Acknowledgement References Supporting Materials MakeThe themprogression easy for indexingofand thesearching! thematic (informative, attractive, effective) scope of a paper: general  particular  general However, we often write in the Journal space is precious. Make your article as brief following order: as possible. – Figures and tables – Methods, Results and Discussion – Conclusions and Introduction – Abstract and title Title Tell readers what your paper is all about • Attract the reader‟s attention • Be specific • Keep it informative and concise • Avoid jargon and abbreviations 55 Title: Examples Original Title Revised Remarks Preliminary observations on the effect of Zn element on anticorrosion of zinc plating layer Effect of Zn on anticorrosion of zinc plating layer Long title distracts readers. Remove all redundancies such as “observations on”, “the nature of”, etc. Action of antibiotics on bacteria Inhibition of growth of mycobacterium tuberculosis by streptomycin Titles should be specific. Think to yourself: “How will I search for this piece of information?” when you design the title. Fabrication of carbon/CdS coaxial nanofibers displaying optical and electrical properties via electrospinning carbon Electrospinning of carbon/CdS coaxial nanofibers with optical and electrical properties “English needs help. The title is nonsense. All materials have properties of all varieties. You could examine my hair for its electrical and optical properties! You MUST be specific. I haven‟t read the paper but I suspect there is something special about these properties, otherwise why would you be reporting them?” – the Editor-in-chief 56 Abstract Tell readers what you did and the important findings • One paragraph (between 50-300 words) • Advertisement for your article • A clear abstract will strongly influence if your work is considered further We tackle the general linear instantaneous model (possibly underdetermined and noisy) where we model the source prior with a Student t distribution. The conjugate-exponential characterisation of the t distribution as an infinite mixture of scaled Gaussians enables us to do efficient inference. We study two well-known inference methods, Gibbs sampler and variational Bayes for Bayesian source separation. We derive both techniques as local message passing algorithms to highlight their algorithmic similarities and to contrast their different convergence characteristics and computational requirements. Our simulation results suggest that typical posterior distributions in source separation have multiple local maxima. Therefore we propose a hybrid approach where we explore the state space with a Gibbs sampler and then switch to a deterministic algorithm. This approach seems to be able to combine the speed of the variational approach with the robustness of the Gibbs sampler. 57 What has been done What are the main findings Keywords Used by indexing and abstracting services • • • 58 They are the labels of your manuscript. Use only established abbreviations (e.g. DNA) Check the “Guide for Authors” Article Title Keywords “Silo music and silo quake: granular flow-induced vibration” Silo music, Silo quake, stick-slip flow, resonance, creep, granular discharge “An experimental study on evacuated tube solar collector using supercritical CO2” Solar collector; Supercritical CO2; Solar energy; Solar thermal utilization Introduction Provide context to convince readers that you clearly know why your work is useful 1st paragraph of an Introduction •Sample Be brief • Clearly address the following: – – – – – What is the problem? Are there any existing solutions? Which solution is the best? What is its main limitation? What do you hope to achieve? • Try to be consistent with the nature of the journal Zhang, XR; Yamaguchi, H. “An experimental study on evacuated tube solar collector using supercritical CO2” Applied Thermal Engineering. © Elsevier 59 Methods Describe how the problem was studied Sample 1st paragraph of an Experimental Set-Up section • Include detailed information • Do not describe previously published procedures • Identify the equipment and describe materials used Zhang, XR; Yamaguchi, H. “An experimental study on evacuated tube solar collector using supercritical CO2” Applied Thermal Engineering © Elsevier 60 Results What have you found? • Present essential/primary results • Use sub-headings • Use figures/illustrations – Graphs – Tables – Photos 61 Type of attack Classical (%) Pop (%) Jazz (%) Echo addition 0 0.10 0.27 Noise addition 1.20 1.42 1.60 Band equalization 2.31 2.50 2.73 Ikeda, S., Tabata, Y., Suzuki, H., Miyoshi, T., Katsumura, Y. “Formation of crosslinked PTFE by radiation-induced solid-state polymerization of tetrafluoroethylene at low Zhang, temperatures ” RadiationH. Physics and Chemistry © Elsevier XR; Yamaguchi, “An experimental study on evacuated tube solar collector using supercritical CO2” Applied Thermal Engineering © Elsevier Discussion What the results mean Sample 1st paragraph of an Discussion section • Most important section • Make the Discussion correspond to the Results • You need to compare the published results with yours 62 Muite, B.K., Quinn, S.F., Sundaresan, S., Rao, K.K.. “Silo music and silo quake: granular flow-induced vibration” Powder Technology. © Elsevier Conclusion How the work advances the field from the present state of knowledge Sample Conclusion • Should be clear • Justify your work in the scientific field • Suggest future experiments Muite, B.K., Quinn, S.F., Sundaresan, S., Rao, K.K.. “Silo music and silo quake: granular flow-induced vibration” Powder Technology. © Elsevier 63 Acknowledgments Ensures those who helped in the research are recognised Include individuals who have assisted with your study, including: • Advisors • Financial supporters • Proofreaders • Typists • Suppliers who may have given materials 64 References Cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based • Do not use too many references • Always ensure you have fully absorbed material you are referencing and do not just rely on checking excerpts or isolated sentences • Avoid excessive self-citations • Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region • Conform strictly to the style given in the Guide for Authors 65 Muite, B.K., Quinn, S.F., Sundaresan, S., Rao, K.K.. “Silo music and silo quake: granular flow-induced vibration” Powder Technology. © Elsevier Cover Letter Your chance to speak to the editor directly • Submitted along with your manuscript Final approval from all authors • Mention what would make your manuscript special to the journal • Note special requirements (reviewers, conflicts of interest) Explanation of importance of research Suggested reviewers 66 Revision Revise before submission • Vet the manuscript as thoroughly as possible before submission • Ask colleagues and supervisors to review your manuscript Finally, SUBMIT your manuscript with a cover letter and await a response… 67 After Submission • Refereeing speed varies tremendously between journals • The Editor will decide to “Accept”, “Accept with Revision (Minor or Major)”, or “Reject” the manuscript 68 Summary: How do I build up my article properly? • • • • • • • • 69 Title Abstract Keywords Main text (IMRAD) – Introduction – Methods – Results – And – Discussions Conclusion Acknowledgement References Supporting Materials • Structure your article properly • Make sure each section of the paper fulfills its purpose clearly and concisely Process from submission to publication EES in Applied Energy  author Author on-line submission Language ? Format ? Structure ? editor reviewers Pre-screening Quick review by editor-in-chief proof (1+ w) Reviewer 1 Editor for the manuscript Reviewers 2 (1-3+ m) Reviewer 3? accepted (3+ m?) Publisher (3+ m?) Web Publication 70 (3+ m?) publisher Rejected? Revision? Printing Paper publication What reviewers are reviewing? 1. Relevance to the scope of 2. Originality 3. Engineering/scientific relevance 4. Doubtful or controversial arguments 5. Completeness of the reported work 6. Adequacy of acknowledgment of the past related work by others, in the reference list 71 Organization and composition of the manuscript, which must have:  Definition of the objective  Justification of the objective  Accomplishment of the objective  Description of the method of the study  Error analysis of the study method (experimental and/or numerical), mandatory  Clear presentation and discussion of the results  Validation of the results  Comparison to the results by others  Concise conclusions/recommendations  Clarity and good expression in English, and of tables and illustrations  Appropriate length Source: Elsevier 2011 Reviewer’s Comments • “Although comprehensive in trying to cover all possible technologies, the focus seems a little diluted. And there is little quantitative evidence to support the conclusion. I would suggest that the paper focus on the comparison of the two most promising technologies with more quantitative data. If the authors insist on discussing all technologies, a table listing the relevant parameters for cross-comparison would be useful”. 72 What leads to acceptance??? Attention to details Check and double check your work Consider the reviewers‟ comments English must be as good as possible Presentation is important Take your time with revision Acknowledge those who have helped you New, original and previously unpublished Critically evaluate your own manuscript Ethical rules must be obeyed Nigel John Cook Editor-in-Chief, Ore Geology Reviews 73 Source: Elsevier 2011 How to increase your impacts of your published paper (& journals)? Good selection of journal (good authors) Appropriate title (scope) Relevant keywords (scope) Well addressed introduction (readers) Specific and supported conclusions (usefulness and novelty)  Exchange with other scholars: e-alert, citation alert … (networking & communication)  Provide responsible feedback to readers (the audiences!)      74 How is a paper rejected? Example: reviewer’s comments on a rejected paper The paper presents an experimental study on the performance of water diesel emulsions in a direct injection diesel engine. As far as the study is concerned it adds no new data or analysis to the pre-existing body of work on this subject, it merely confirms much of what is already out there. The focus of this journal is to provide "a forum for information on innovation, research, development and demonstration in the areas of energy conversion and conservation, the optimal use of energy resources, analysis and optimization of energy processes, mitigation of environmental pollutants, and sustainable energy systems". As it presently stands, this paper does not address this rather broad aim, rather it presents without context a set of experimentally derived results. Disappointingly, the quality of the results cannot be judged because no details on methods, error (etc) are provided. Given these facts, I cannot recommend publication of the paper in Applied Energy. 75 Not new – no originality No specific & detailed results No methods provided Mistakes made by other authors       76 The CFD model is worthy of publication, however, I am not convinced that the experimental/verification results are presented to the same level as the mathematical model. Although the English is understandable it could be improved by a fluent English proof reader. Introduction - This is very long and not all relevant to this paper. There is very little detail about what is lacking in current work and what your work does to add to this. Only 2 hours to reach temperature seems rather short, I believe the standard says that temperatures should not vary by more than a certain amount in a certain time. Could you confirm that temperatures were definitely stabalised. I also thought the standard was for a 24 hour test not 12, could you confirm this also. Non-dimensionalising the temperature in Celsius does not make sense. Comparison with data - 'a reasonable agreement', this is very subjective. Some agreement looks good, some looks bad, please highlight in the text where agreement is good and objectively how good and where it is bad and objectively how bad, in terms of real temperatures. I do not think it adequate to only provide accuracy for the global average values, this is relatively easy to get right, it is more difficult to get the distribution of values correct and you have not adequately assessed this. Your results/methods shall be “verified”! Language! Non-relevant Info! Not accurate … Careless! Be objective! Summary: Your article should be of value… • To the research community A research study is meaningful only if it is clear/understood/reproducible….. and USED • To yourself Your article is your passport to your scientific community 77 Thanks Questions and Comments? Citations h h Available on Scopus Rates individuals based on career publications Incorporates both quantity and quality Productivity and age constraints Paper no. Example: Scopus • Citation of the papers • Researchers H-index 80