What they have done and what I can do

Last two years, I spent quite a lot of time on reading about what people have done on the research about oxide film on light alloy.  In the early study on my final year research project, my literature review mainly focus on how oxide film affects the mechanical properties of the casting component, and how modelling work has been done to track the films, both during the filling process and solidification.  After I submitted my research report last year, my co-supervisor C R sent me several copies of the work had been done in Japan. The study in Prof. Ohnaka's group using the theory established by Prof. Campbell in Birmingham to model the porosity formation in castings. Then they developed a software to model the filling and solidification in casting. The application is modelling of high pressure die casting  produced in China and Japan. They published loads on this topic, but personally, I feel their prediction is not that accurate. There are two possible reasons for this: a)the fundamental theory is not correct or only correct in some circumstances; b) their models have some limitation.

When I started my PhD, I felt what I should do was the work they did as viewed in the first part of the literature, i.e. modelling the formation of oxide film in light alloy, but developed their work. However, later NRG said we should try to model the porosity inside the casting, since this is more damaging than oxide film. According to Prof. Campbell's theory, oxide films can be a nuclei of porosity, so modelling oxide film formation and distribution can help the understanding of porosity distribution in castings. And this is the basic theory of Ohnaka's work.

Then what I can do?

I feel I can develop the model built by CR to a more accurate way and validate it.

I could develop two kinds of approaches, one on the double oxide film formation, the other on the bubble entrainment. Both two models  could use particle module to track. But to achieve this, I need to talk with Flow Science developers.

After accurate modelling of the distribution of double oxide films and micro-bubbles, I think I can use the package developed by PDL's group to model the growth and morphology of those porosity.

This sounds fantastic, doesn't it?

How to get published in Science

Yesterday, I joined a lecture titled "How to get published in Science", by Anthony Newman who's a chief editor (probably) in Elsevier Amsterdam. He gave us a very clear presentation about the whole procedure of publishing scientific paper. But he spoke really first, I can only wrote down the key points of his speech. Let's start.

What to Publish?
   New & original results or methods!

Before you start

•    Is your research new and interesting?
•    Is your research on a hot topic?
•    Is your work providing solutions to some difficult problems?
•    Are you ready to publish? ( I didn't write down what you should prepare before to publish)

What type of manuscript?

• Full letters: completed pieces of research
• Letters:  quick and early
• Review paper:  usually invited 

Identify the audience

Select the best journal for submission    review recent publications to find out the hot topic

• look at your references. (find out which journal they published)
• Is the journal peer-viewed?
• Who are the audience of the journal? Do they match to the your audience?
• Average time to print (too slow you may lose to your competitor)
• Impact Factor (IF): measurement of quality 

Problems frequently faced by publishers

• out of scope
• Do not follow "guide of authors"
• Wrong (or No) suggested reviewers
• ...

What's a good manuscript?

• Clear, useful, exciting scientific message: your words should not be creative, but concise and clear.

General Structure of a full article

• Title
• Author
• Abstract
• Keywords
• Main text

The writing sequence: write backwards

• 1.figures and tables
• 2.methods, results & discussion 
• 3.introduction
• 4.abstract

           where is conclusion?

Details on structure

• Title : informative and concise, avoid jargon and abbreviations
• Abstract: 1.should stand alone, 2.what you did? key finding! and 3. accurate and specific
• keywords: label, should be critical

The introduction:

•  describe the problem
•  provide a perspective consistant with the natural of the journal
•  based publications
  

Pitfalls of the introduction:

• too wordy
• a mixed bag of introduction with results, discussion, etc.
• no words like "novel", "first time",etc.

The method: give the details, but don't give all details about standard methods: use references and supplementary materials


Results:

• Only representative results, essential for the discussion
• Do not "hide" data
• Use sub-headings
• clear & easy to understand
• Appearance counts: un-crowded, scale marker for picture

DISCUSSION: THE MOST IMPORTANT, what you think about your work


Pitfall: 

• go beyond the results
• unspecific expression
• sudden introduction of new terms or idea

Conclusion:

• how your work advances the field from the present state of knowledge
• DO NOT repeat the abstract

Acknowledgements: advisor, financial supporters, proof readers,typists


Reference:

• cite the main scientific publications
• not too many references
• avoid excessive self-citations
• avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region

COVER letter:

• why did you submit the manuscripts to this journal?
• mention special requirements
• accelerate the editorial process of your paper