To begin with, new technical authors need to carefully format their technical articles and then learn the details of the target journals in which they wish to publish them. These two processes alone require time and energy because each section of an article has its own requirements. For example, the experimental section requires explicit details so that others can duplicate the work. Also, the summary and discussion sections could appeal to executive types as well as regular scientists.

Also, if proposed articles are going to be peer-reviewed, authors could find themselves pitted against competitive reviewers. These situations can lead to more stress and seemingly unnecessary revisions. Authors may also need to incorporate new ideas into their articles along with significant cutbacks for editors. In the end, however, the final decisions belong to the editors, not the reviewers.

formatting

In general, the format of a proposed article is quickly learned and only minor differences occur between the target journals in question. A basic format is as follows: abstract or summary, introduction/background, experimental/methods, results, discussion/conclusion, recommendations, acknowledgments and references.

Precision

Scientific accuracy is the most important component of the proposed article, more than the writing itself. Too often, authors can find themselves faced with numerous seemingly valid reasons to improve article results for commercial purposes. But they are not true. Such reasons are never valid enough to pad or falsify scientific data.

People

People will be people, even professionals. We can become petty at times, especially when we try to place guarantees on what we perceive as our future and security. That could mean putting handles on those who might disturb our sense of security, including those who publish scientific papers. This type of human behavior goes to some extent with the technical-advertising territory. However, if it is treated directly, it does not need to get out of hand.

control

The scientific authors themselves must be well grounded in the knowledge they present, as well as in their own skills. Sometimes your own reviewers and local managers will exercise unnecessary opinions on the proposed article for their own reasons of aggrandizement and control.

The only way these reviewers can gain that kind of control is to inject something into the article or the author’s mind that isn’t true, especially if they are trying to control both the author and the publication too much. This fraudulent step separates the author from the exact truth, making him more susceptible to abusive man-made controls. These types of situations occur when basic professionalism is lacking.

editors

Science journal editors have seen it all. They are intelligent, capable and perceptive. They can instantly recognize game glitches in the proposed items that are sent to them.

Fortunately, because these publishers want their magazines to be top-notch, they lean toward intense accuracy. They want their articles to contain accurate science and credits, and be crafted by the precise voices of the writers.

Therefore, new technical authors may want to take a technical writing course before submitting an article for publication. For detailed information on this type of publication, please refer to the following website.