Good paper:

Title: Development of magnesium-graphene nanoplatelets composite

Authors: Muhammad Rashad, Fusheng Pan, Aitao Tang, Muhammad Asif, Jia She, Jun
Gou, Jianjun Mao, and Huanhuan Hu.

Poor paper:

Title: Corrosion behaviour of titanium in the presence of calcium phosphate and serum
protein.

Authors: Xiaoling Cheng, Sharon G. Roscoe.

Content Criteria
1. Accurate, short and
precise
Title
2. Avoid certain words
e.g:studies on
1. More specific than the
Keyword title
2. 5 to 6 keywords
1. Brief summary of intro,
method, results, discussion
2. Not more than 200
Abstract
words
3. Avoid abbreviations,
equations & symbols
4. No figures & tables
5. No references
1.Must have originality
Introduction
2.Define the problem &
existing solutions
Good Paper
The title is accurate, short and
precise
Not using avoid words
Keywords are more specific
than title
6 keywords
Intro, method, results and
discussion were briefed
precisely
Not more than 200 words:194
words
No abbreviations, equations &
symbols
No figures & tables
No references stated
The author maintain the
originality
Author briefed the problem
and the existing problems
Poor paper
The title is short but it is
general.
Not using avoid words
Keywords are too general
4 keywords
Intro, results and discussion
were briefed precisely, but
methodology are not brief
specifically
Not more than 200 words:
140 words
No abbreviations, equations &
symbols
No figures & tables
No references stated
The author maintain the
originality
Author not briefed the
problem and existing
problems clearly
 Author makes the subtopic for
certain topics in introduction,
3.Must be selective &
which is making it easier to
critical information
read. The topic also related to
the title
4.Avoid use textbook as No textbooks as references
reference
Author stated what the
5.State the goal: what is previous research related to
new that others not found the research and stated the
goal that others not found.
1.Grammar:use past tense Author used past tense
2.Provide references Author provide references
Author told details about the
Methodology 3.Give details on materials used, specimen
equipment used preparation, immersion test,
and also the equipment used.
4. Do not include result Author didn't include result in
methodology
Author arranged the
introduction according to the
title, but not properly
organized. The introduction is
related to the title.
No textbooks as references
Author stated only a few
reports found doing the
similar research, and author
stated the goal which is
different from the existing.
Author used past tense
Author provides lack
references.
The experimental
methodology was very simple,
sample preparation didn't
explain clearly. Other
researcher will not be able to
continue this research.
Equipment used for
characterization also not
available.
Author didn't include result in
methodology

Author include representative
result, the result was clearly
1.Only representative label with the present of tables
result and figures. Author relates all
the tables and figures with the
Results
result obtained.
Author didn't mention about
2. Do not include methods
methods in results
Discussion corresponding to
the results without reiterates
1. Discussion relate to
the result. The discussion
original questions
relate to the original questions
and objectives
Discussion
The data and discussion
2. Data support hypothesis support the hypothesis of the
experiment.
3. Compare published Author do compared the result
result obtained with existing
published results.
Author includes
representative result; the
result was explained clearly
with the present of tables and
figures. Author relates all the
tables and figures with the
result obtained.
Author did mention about the
equipment used for
characterization in results, but
didn't mention it in methods
Author wrote result and
discussion in the same topics.
Results obtained were
discussed with tables and
figures together in one
section. The discussion does
relate with figures and tables
but not arranged orderly.
The data and discussion
support the hypothesis of the
experiment.
Author do compared the
result obtained with existing
published results.
 Author didn't repeat the
abstract, author wrote a nice
1. Don't repeat abstract conclusion. The conclusion was
made for every element in the
Conclusion experiment.
2. State the finding with Author stated the findings with
elaborations elaborations and also
suggested the future research.
1. Cite the main scientific Author cited the main scientific
publication publication related to the
References research
2. Avoid excessive self- Author didn't put excessive
citations self-citations.
Author didnt repeat the
abstract, but it showed the
resemblance of the abstract in
conclusion.
Author stated the findings
with lack elaborations and
didn't suggest the future
research.
Author cited the main
scientific publication related
to the research
Author didn't put excessive
self-citations.