How to get published in Soldering and Surface Mount Technology (SSMT)

How to get published in Soldering and Surface Mount Technology (SSMT)

Keyword: Publishing

We are always keen to help new authors who wish to publish in SSMT and I am often asked for advice, not only from those new to publishing in technical journals, but also from experienced authors who are submitting a paper to SSMTfor the first time. The following therefore briefly summarises how a paper progresses through to publication and will hopefully give a clearer picture of how the review system works. Much of the advice here applies to any journal, but the details are of course based on those for SSMT.

Where to start

Many papers are based on the results of an experimental investigation or set of trials, such as the paper by Guo in this issue, or the modelling of a specific issue such as solder joint reliability. The results from an unsuccessful trial can be just as useful as those from a successful one if it saves others from going down the same blind alley or aids their understanding of problems with their own products or processes. Other suitable topics for papers include the results of benchmarking studies, commentaries on a particular topic or reviews of the status of knowledge in a particular area. Sometimes either myself or a member of the EAB will invite submission of a paper, typically following publication at a conference, where we feel it would be useful to bring the paper to a wider audience. In this case the conference is acknowledged when the paper is published.

Paper submission

When submitting a paper it is very helpful to follow any specific submission guidelines – these are usually inside the back cover in SSMT and are also on the MCB Web site (www.mcb.co.uk). Most conferences require the manuscript in a "camera ready" format and will just add page numbers and the conference name during reproduction, but MCB will typeset the paper in their own house style and their submission guidelines are geared more to facilitating the review process. For example, most journals will ask for submission in a double line spaced format, in order to provide space for reviewers to make comments – the tightly packed text and double column formats used by most conferences can make this very difficult. Different journals also have different policies regarding the format for references and for SSMT the Harvard format is now required. This format is also described in the notes for contributors, but the easiest thing is to follow the format used in papers in recent issues.

Papers are normally accepted for consideration on the basis that they have not been submitted to other journals. It is however often acceptable to submit very similar papers to, for example, a mathematical modelling journal and an application oriented journal such as SSMT, which may have very different readerships, but it is important that the journals' editors are made aware of this type of situation. Before submission it is also worth ensuring you have any necessary permission to publish.

Once a paper is received I will give it an initial check over for completeness, that it is not blatantly commercial, and that it seems to have some relevance to the journal. I will then send an acknowledgement to the author and put it into the review process.

The peer review process

All papers published in SSMT go through a process of review by at least two reviewers. These are typically university academics or from other research organisations, consultants, or from industry, but are usually themselves experienced paper writers and I try to ensure that at least one reviewer has a specialised knowledge of the paper's topic. Things I ask reviewers to look for include:

• Relevance – will the paper be of value to the journal's readership?

• Originality – does the paper add some new knowledge or provide valuable confirmation of other experiments (this obviously does not apply for a review paper)?

• Completeness – for example does the paper fully describe the experiments so that they could be repeated, and are the results presented and discussed clearly?

• Reference to the work of others – does the paper include appropriate references to previous work to establish the context of the presented work and to allow the reader to obtain further background information on the subject?

• Organization and clarity – is the text readable, and are the figures clear and readily understood?

The conclusion from the review process can range from outright rejection to unconditional acceptance, but the majority of papers are accepted subject to some revisions. The purpose of the review process is therefore not to provide a simple accept/reject decision, but is largely to ensure the papers published are presented as well as possible by giving the authors a chance to refine them based on feedback from their peers. If the authors are not native English speakers then the editorial team can also work with the authors to help ensure the clarity of presentation.

Revision and final submission

Once the review process is complete I let the authors know the conclusion which will usually include providing them with copies of any comments from the reviewers and a copy of their manuscript marked up with any further comments or suggested corrections. As for most peer reviewed journals the identity of the reviewers' will not be revealed to the authors. Some journals will also conceal the authors' identities from the reviewers, although this is not the case for SSMT. Most authors will address the reviewers comments fairly quickly and it is a great help when they provide a commentary on what changes have been made (or an explanation if they disagree with the reviewers) with the revised manuscript. For publication in SSMT brief biographies of the authors and a completed copyright form (the "JAR") are required in addition to the final manuscript.

If major revisions have been necessary I will sometimes ask one or both of the reviewers to have another look through the paper, but for most papers I will check whether the reviewers' comments have been addressed (or satisfactory counter arguments made) and provided I am satisfied I will then pass the paper to MCB for publication in the next available issue.

I hope that this has given a clearer picture of the journal publication process, but if you have any other questions or have an idea for a paper, and are not sure if it is suitable for SSMT, then please feel free to get in touch with me or a member of the Editorial Advisory Board. We are always happy to give advice and if, for example, I think a paper might be more suited to another journal then I will say so and will often be able to put you in touch with a member of the editorial team for that journal.

David Whalley