paper

How to write a paper?

Leave a Comment

This is a collection of some documents about how-to-write-a-paper.  Just google it an you will find much more. The important thing is, that you have to find your definition of what science is and how communication between scientists should work. It has to be your own definition, which makes writing much easier.

What you should do is to read some of the content behind the provided links to see the very different interpretations of scientific communication.

One thing that worked for me is the advice in source one. Grab a coffee or beer and start to think about the structure and ideas of the paper by writing down everything on a A3 page in landscape alignment.

A Paper Review

Leave a Comment

The paper I was worried about suggesting good referees is now accepted with minor changes at the 1st try. It took 1 month an 10 days. This is my second accepted paper as main author  and the fastest review I have seen in the institute.

The referees comments are very positive and increase the quality of the manuscript and caused a positive mind set. I wonder if I should thank the referees and put there names on the paper. Ups Its a single-blind review process. So thank you, mysterious scientist.

Another interesting thing are the different reviewer comment styles. I only have a small sample set of two measurement points but it shows already an extreme gap. Some referees directly like what they see and only comment on major issues. Some referees are giving many very detailed hints.

Example
Referee #1: I recommend the paper for publication. END
Referee #2: <2 sections introduciton> <many hints> I recommend the paper for publication, with some changes.
Referee #3: What is this piece of crap
Referee #4: -no comment-  (?died during review?)

The example illustrates a 2:1 win, which would result in an accepted paper with some changes.

How to find reviewers for my paper?

Leave a Comment

Today (some days ago) is a very good day because I am submitting another paper. This is a very good moment in a life of a scientist or phd student. All the scientific work , discussions, literature search and writing of the last view months, years or even decades is nearly done and condensed in a view pages. Now the human factors are introduced even more by choosing a journal, the editors from the board and suggesting peers to review your scientific work.

How to choose the right persons?

This is the last tricky part. It is tricky because the scientific world is small. You have to suggest peer reviewing scientists and to chose an editor. If they are to close and work in the same field at the nearly same topic, you are in a bad position (www.phdcomics.com). People to far away will not get the point and could underestimate or over estimate (which can backfire) your work.

One part of the answer for me is to choose peers, which I support with my work. The other part of the answer is to ask an experienced scientist. In my case I asked my supervisor. They can tell you some times which persons have a bad habit and which are nice.

Choose Wisely, Young Grasshopper