Especially at the very end of the conclusion of the manuscript, readers should be left with a general sense of the impact of work, not simply a repetition of the specifics of the results.
The discussion should never be omitted, since this is where science usually happens, in the interpretation of the results collected and presented.
A scientific manuscript should be shaped like an hourglass.
speak for itself: we do not publish raw data and we do not publish photocopies of lab notebooks.
There needs to be some extra care and thought put into presenting work for a wider audience, and that is the process we call scientific writing.
Researchers must explain why their results are significant. This means that authors need to make an effort to avoid unnecessary jargon, and use specific yet clear vocabulary, which implies that sometimes definitions need to be reiterated.
Other questions to address in the discussion include: What is different about the field now that the results are obtained? does not impose constraints on article formatting, e.g.As other editors have noted , manuscripts that describe routine analysis of routine materials with entirely predictable results are not entirely compelling, and we are likely to reject such manuscripts, especially if the authors do not make a case for how the results impact the field at large.The impact does not have to be Earth-shattering, but it should be noteworthy to an intended audience.Over 1600 authors have contributed to nearly 300 articles published in our first year of existence.We have greatly enjoyed reading about all the excellent materials science research that authors have shared with us since we launched last year.The abstract should be an extremely brief shrunken-down version of the entire paper.It should follow the same general order as the manuscript itself: it should give some background and motivate the challenge addressed (introduction), describe the experimental framework (methods), tell readers what was found (results), and describe how the results answer the challenge and why the report is noteworthy or significant (discussion).Many of our points echo those made by other editors at other journals , , , .As a whole, our guide definitely reflects our own personal preferences and standards here at , but we might be so bold as to suggest that the principles herein might also be good guidelines for author success at other materials science publications and maybe even for scientific journals generally .How are the results similar to or different from related works? word limits, but we propose that simple and concise sentences often convey a message most clearly.Using the first-person active voice can help in this regard, especially in the introduction and discussion.