7. Breakdown of rejected manuscripts from Chemical Engineering Journal in 2011 based on decision
terms in EES. The difference between the total rejected articles (green) and the rejected without review
(blue) indicates the number of articles that were rejected post-review. The majority of manuscripts were
rejected for not meeting the journal’s standards for research/experimental quality.
7
13. Some useful tips (often overlooked)
Choose well your Journal
Why Chemical Engineering Journal?
Choose well your type of manuscript
13
14. Some useful tips (often overlooked)
Choose well your Editor
14
15. Some useful tips (often overlooked)
Spend time on your cover letter (and abstract)
Explain the main findings and motivation of the work
Highlight the novelty and significance of the results
Choose well the suggested reviewers
The Editor will be more likely to use some of them:
If they are obviously experts in the field
If they are from a different country without
obvious link to the authors
(If he/she has difficulties finding candidates)
15
16. Some useful tips (often overlooked)
Introduction is especially important!
You are telling a story. Introduction sets the scenario
Quote what is necessary for background and to give
credit to previous works. Do not add superfluous
references.
Editors will often choose reviewers from cited work
Give a clear motivation for the work.
Explain what is novel compared to what is already
available in the literature
16
17. Some useful tips (often overlooked)
Results and discussion
Together or separate?
You are telling a story. Keep the narrative flowing,
concise, well organized.
Be rigorous. Do not make statements that are not
supported by your data.
17
18. Some useful tips (often overlooked)
Conclusions
Not the same as a summary!
Give conclusions that are supported by your resuts
Do not overreach. Statements such as “this method
can be potentially used…” do not belong to the
conclusions (and often irritate referees)
18
19. Once you receive your reviews
Minor revision
Good job. Just do what you are told and resubmit quickly.
Rejection
It may be disappointing, but most of the times the reviewers
are right (and yes, they did understand the paper; and no,
they are not biased against you)
If you think you have been unfairly treated you may appeal.
But this should be exceptional.
19
20. Once you receive your reviews
Major revision
Major is “major”. Take it very seriously.
Answer all the comments received, one by one, explaining the
changes made to the manuscript in response to the remarks (or
the reason why a modification is not required).
Go straight to the point. Refer to what the comment is about, and
not something else.
If you feel a remark is not justified or a request is unreasonable,
say so, but substantiate your response.
If in doubt, the Editor is likely to send it back to the referees.
Submit a revised version where the changes have been
highlighted.
20
21. After acceptance
Be diligent with any last minute requests (e.g. Quality of
figures, format adjustments)
Return the proofs quickly. But make sure you revise
them thoroughly (it is your last chance to correct any
mistakes before your manuscript is published)
Decide whether or not to submit a figure for the Journal
cover. Decision will be based on both paper quality and
figure impact.
21
22. Journal Covers & Featured Articles
Featured Articles (2012) FREE on ScienceDirect until 8 August 2012
Submission details available on the CEJ homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cej
22
Journal homepage is a good starting point for determining if article fits within the aims & scope (next slide) and is appropriate for the journal audience (e.g. gauge through downloaded articles, most cited, etc.). Also will provide information for proper formatting and submission requirements (Guide for Authors).
Guide for authors will provide information on journal standards for formatting of the article, references, and figures/tables, etc.