JSciMath.org: Manuscript Scoring
Manuscripts are scored in 3 categories: Intellectual Merit, Broader Impact & Originality, and Critical Quality.
|| Very Good
The "Intellectual Merit" of a manuscript is its importance in advancing knowledge and understanding within its field. The Journal seeks to publish works of revolutionary character and high intellectual merit in all fields of Science, Mathematics, and Engineering.
Broader Impact & Originality
Originality is a key ingredient to scientific progress. Truly original work can provide new and potentially fruitful directions in which to aim future research efforts. Original or novel ideas, when correct, often have broad impact; and very often, the more original the idea, the broader the impact. Therefore, these two criteria are grouped under a single heading. The "Broader Impact" of a manuscript is its ability or potential to advance discovery and understanding across different fields.
Manuscripts must be free from detectable errors. If a manuscript receives a score of 1 or 2 in the Critical Quality category, it will be rejected at the end of the Review Period. Manuscripts should be given a score of 2 if they contain any of the following:
a) 1 spelling error. [U.S. spelling preferred, but U.K. spelling allowed.]
b) 2 grammatical errors. [U.S. (generous) comma usage preferred.]
c) 2 formatting errors or text legibility errors
d) Incorrect subject classification
e) Content error I: The manuscript simply states known facts, such as can be found in textbooks or previously published work (exceptions to this are, of course, well-organized and fairly comprehensive review articles).
f) Content error II: The manuscript only states personal opinion backed by no factual evidence, carefully reasoned arguments, or mathematical analysis.
g) One or more objectively verifiable factual errors, such as:
"…like charges attract."
"2x(x + 3y) = 2x2 + 3xy"
The following are disagreements that should not be considered to be objectively verifiable factual errors:
Author: "…the pressure in this region changes considerably."
Referee: "…the pressure in this region changes only moderately."
Author: "The heat transfer coefficient for this type of configuration is roughly 2000 W/(m2 ºC)."
Referee: "The heat transfer coefficient for this type of configuration is roughly 1900 W/(m2 ºC)."
Discrepancies of the magnitude cited in the heat transfer example above are often tolerated in that particular discipline. If, on the other hand, a disagreement of this magnitude were made when reporting a fundamental physical constant, for example, this would be an objectively verifiable factual error.
Referees should give a manuscript a Critical Quality score of 1 if they find more errors than the quantities indicated above.
Critical Quality scores of 3 or 4, which allow the manuscript to be published, are intended for evaluating more subtle qualities, such as writing style and overall presentation.