16
2
1. Decide what the main message of your paper will be
2. Assemble in rough form, but in order, the figures and tables that tell the story
3. Write a sentence that introduces the figure; write another sentence (or two or three) that explains and interprets the result. Write a sentence or phrase that leads into the next figure or table, and repeat. This is the results and discussion section (combined or separate).
3
4. Write a paragraph or two that summarizes the main findings, makes any broader conclusions (optional), and mentions where the research is headed next (optional). This is the conclusions section
• Write a paragraph or two that introduces the topic, explains why it is important, acknowledges what’s previously been done, and finishes with a sentence that says: “As described further below, we find that (…main idea or allusion to main idea in just a few words)” This is the introduction
4
• Never lead o with “In recent years…” This is the equivalent of starting a novel with “It was a dark and stormy night!”
5
If the results section gets too lengthy or complicated, move the less essential figures or tables to the Supplemental Information and write “See SI” in the main text
If the discussion gets too detailed or convoluted, move the fine points, the erudition, or the alternative explanations that you’ve included only for completeness, to the reference section and incorporate them as endnotes
6
If you are completely stuck, and assembling the figures doesn’t get you on track:
• Write the acknowledgments section
• Write the experimental section
• Write the figure captions
• Start assembling the references
• Write a list of introductory bullet points
• Write a list of results bullet points
• Write a list of explanation/interpretation bullet points
7
•Every research paper in every journal contains something new, so a “new result” is not enough…
•A paper usually needs to present a new idea, a new concept, a new approach (“novelty”) – not just a new example
•A paper that reports a proof-of-concept may be a good bet for JACS, especially if it’s likely to inspire other researchers to investigate the notion further
8
• The paper should report an advance that will be useful to others in the field, not just a clever insight (“significance”)
• The report needs to interesting enough to draw in readers who work in other areas. By following JACS, general readers should be able to get a good sense of what constitute the most important and exciting new findings and developments in a particular subfield (“broad interest”)
9
•A paper whose primary aim is to show that a previous report in JACS (or elsewhere) is in error. There has to be a sizable element of originality.
•Papers that mainly describe a new instrument or technique.
•Papers that lack chemistry – for example, papers that really are mainly biology, condensed matter physics, or engineering.
10
• Papers that are largely empirical or phenomenological investigations, rather than hypothesis driven studies
• Papers that are very, very good, but still aren’t in the top 20% of JACS submissions (so perhaps the top couple percent of all papers published in chemistry journals)
11
•Indiscriminate submission, rather than selective submission of your best work (the Journal keeps track!)
•Neglecting to cite your own similar work or neglecting to alert the editor and reviewers of related work from your lab that is being reviewed elsewhere. (Reviewers will often call you out!)
•Neglecting to cite relevant work from competing groups
12
•Counting the “votes” of the reviewers and then arguing to the editor that you have enough “yes” votes for your paper to be published! (Reviewer comments are advisory only, and the editors alone make the decisions about acceptance or rejection.)
•Arguing that your paper needs to be accepted because it’s at least as good, if not better, than another paper published in JACS!
13
• Appealing a rejection because you received only one review – and even that review took too long to reach you. (Could be that the editor is lazy… More likely: the editor couldn’t interest anyone in reviewing the paper)
• Appealing a rejection within minutes or hours of having your paper declined
• Appealing every rejection (Only rarely are decisions at JACS reversed – and almost never based on improving a borderline (“B+”) paper to an “A-” level..)
14
• Following rejection by Science, submitting your paper to JACS w/o first revising in light of reviewer comments. (Often papers go back to the same reviewers…)
• Submitting a paper that is sloppily written or that needs the attention of a professional copy editing service (Many authors for whom English is a second or third language use these services…)
15
• Resubmitting a rejected paper without first getting buy-in from the original editor or associate editor
• Submitting, but never reviewing…
16
Pick your favorite author and read one or two of his or her JACS papers and then one or two of the papers he or she has published on the same topic in a more specialized ACS journal.
Even though JACS can accept only a small fraction of papers submitted, we do hope you’ll give us the opportunity to consider, review, and hopefully showcase and publish your best broad-interest papers.
