Also, we ask authors to take into consideration that we are a general interest and broad scope materials science journal that covers many sub-disciplines.
That should be reflected in the manuscript’s writing and contextualization.
Especially at the very end of the conclusion of the manuscript, readers should be left with a general sense of the impact of work, not simply a repetition of the specifics of the results.
We ask authors to please format their discussion and conclusion as a narrative, not a bulleted or numbered list.
The discussion should never be omitted, since this is where science usually happens, in the interpretation of the results collected and presented.
A scientific manuscript should be shaped like an hourglass.Many of our points echo those made by other editors at other journals , , , .As a whole, our guide definitely reflects our own personal preferences and standards here at , but we might be so bold as to suggest that the principles herein might also be good guidelines for author success at other materials science publications and maybe even for scientific journals generally .If authors go straight from talking about the result of their final experiment, to a conclusion that is simply a summarized re-hash of all the experiments they have done, then the authors have neglected to take the discussion seriously.If authors neglect to discuss the significance of their results, we might assume that there is no significance to the results.Researchers must motivate their work and explain why they bothered to undertake it – which includes explaining how other people beyond themselves might find the research question interesting.The discussion goes from specific to general and is the place for contextualizing the results that were obtained. All papers should necessarily bridge to other scientists, who are very often working in connected fields but perhaps not in the exact same community to which the authors belong.The abstract should be an extremely brief shrunken-down version of the entire paper.It should follow the same general order as the manuscript itself: it should give some background and motivate the challenge addressed (introduction), describe the experimental framework (methods), tell readers what was found (results), and describe how the results answer the challenge and why the report is noteworthy or significant (discussion).As other editors have noted , manuscripts that describe routine analysis of routine materials with entirely predictable results are not entirely compelling, and we are likely to reject such manuscripts, especially if the authors do not make a case for how the results impact the field at large.The impact does not have to be Earth-shattering, but it should be noteworthy to an intended audience.