Abstract
What makes a successful professional journal the first choice for the submission of manuscripts, the quality of those manuscripts, the speed of the peer review process, publication times or the number of times a manuscript is cited? One aspect not often considered is the number and technical expertise of those volunteers who act as reviewers for the journal. Since joining the editorial team in 2010, it has become increasing apparent that we rely on a limited number of reviewers. This is because many potential reviewers in the database can no longer be contacted. There can be a number of reasons for this; change of job, shift in expertise, retirement or simply that the reviewer’s contact details have changed. The latter often occurs when a business changes e-mail address or when an individual changes their internet supplier.
Recently, Dr Emma Leighton, managing editor of Ironmaking and Steelmaking: Products, Processes and Applications sent an e-mail to everyone registered in the reviewer’s database asking for their contact and technical expertise details to be updated. Not surprisingly, many e-mails have ‘bounced-back’ stating that the e-mail address no longer exists or that person no longer works or studies at that particular institution. For those readers of this journal, who are registered as reviewers and wish to continue, and with whom we have lost contact, please log-on to the Ironmaking and Steelmaking online submission site at www.editorialmanager.com/irs and update your contact details. No doubt many of you will have forgotten your user name and password; if so please contact Mr Dave Bishop, editorial assistant, email
As the Ironmaking and Steelmaking reviewer’s database develops, details of a reviewer’s expertise is becoming increasingly important as it enables the Editors to allocate manuscripts to the best person to undertake the review. A reviewer in the database may have a ‘flag’ as being an expert in ironmaking and steelmaking, but that particular ‘flag’ can cover any aspect from coke making through to hot rolling. Similarly, modelling has some twenty sub-divisions. So, to
It is not only the loss of reviewers that is of concern. As technology changes, we require reviewers with the knowledge to be able to review in depth those manuscripts describing the new technology or new method of working. In this respect, and also in respect to areas of expertise where the reviewer’s database is short of names, we are seeking new reviewers for the following areas:
Electrical engineering with respect of the EAF (AC and DC), ladle arc steelmaking, electro slag remelting (ESR), plasma applications (heating, reduction etc) and the application of magnetohydrodynamics (EMS) to all continuous casting operations and ladle stirring.
Steel plant, casting and mill engineering, especially design.
Sintering. We have a number of reviewers for this topic, but we are receiving an increased number of papers, especially on the environmental aspects.
Fuzzy-logic applications.
Advanced thermodynamics and kinetics.
Modern advanced statistical analysis and applications to control and quality prediction.
Advanced numerical modelling and CFD modelling. With an increasing number of manuscripts containing some form of modelling we need to increase the pool of reviewers.
Slag chemists.
Vacuum systems and applications.
Sustainability and recycling.
Ingot casting, including all aspects of mould design, casting and metallurgy.
Steel coatings technologies.
Cokemaking.
Reviewers are typically asked to review two to three papers per year. However, this does depend on what is received by the journal; it could mean no papers to review or slightly more than three. For example, in the past two years we have only had one paper on ingot casting metallurgy but we have had seven papers modelling ingot teaming numerically using CFD to investigate the effects of fluid flow on cleanness, segregation and surface quality. We ask all reviewers to complete their review within 21 days so that authors can receive an initial decision on their manuscript within a month of submission. This means reading the paper carefully and checking that the experimental method is satisfactory and that the discussion of the results gives meaningful conclusions. The reviewer should check that equations are correct, and figures and tables are accurate and can be interpreted by the reader. Also, that S.I units are used throughout (or appropriate conversions given) and data are reported to a sensible number of significant figures, in line with the experimental errors given. In addition, where possible, the reviewer should assess the literature cited in the manuscript for completeness, suggest other papers the author could consider and comment on the work’s suitability for publication. Occasionally, reviewers are asked to check a revised manuscript to confirm they are satisfied with the changes made to the journal. A reviewer can cite their role as part of their ‘Continuing Professional Development’ (CPD) for charted status of a number of institutions in the UK and European Community.
If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for the journal, please send a copy of your CV or resume along with details of your main area of expertise and past reviewing experience to Emma Leighton, managing editor, e-mail
I look forward to hearing from you!
Assistant Editor
Ironmaking and Steelmaking: Process, Products and Applications.