Ask to guid
M T
I recently posted a question about why my article on contamination simulation was not being accepted by reputable journals, even though I need it to be published in a Q1 journal. Thank you to everyone who responded, and special thanks to the friend who suggested sharing my abstract for more tailored guidance. I’m posting the abstract below, and I would be grateful for any comments or recommendations that could help improve it for submission to a high-impact journal. Thank you in advance for your time and support."Abstract
The oil pollution caused by leakage from fuel storage tanks at railway stations produces various environmental problems and, in the case of the Tabriz railway station, has intensified social conflicts. This study investigates this issue through backward modelling approach using MT3DMS coupled to MODFLOW to simulate and predict the transport and fate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) under multiple scenarios: continuous leakage, cessation of leakage, and natural attenuation. The results show that continuous leakage maintains persistently high PAH concentrations, whereas a 50% reduction in source concentration reduces the contaminant plume by more than 48%. Relying on natural attenuation alone would require more than 50 years to eliminate the contamination. Since this passive process cannot restore the aquifer within an acceptable timeframe, the SEAM3D model was used to evaluate active bioremediation options.
The model predicts that, if all leakage ceases by 2024, implementing bioremediation could achieve complete aquifer remediation in approximately 20 months. To validate these findings, a pilot-scale remediation was conducted in selected wells, incorporating influencing factors through a multi-criteria decision method using machine learning algorithms, including ANN, KAA, XGBoost, and Random Forest. XGBoost was selected to stratify and prioritize wells for real site remediation effort, based on performance metrics. Results indicated that the air sparging bioremediation achieved a treatment efficacy of 75% over four months, while the pump-and-treat approach reached an efficiency of 24.26%. It is suggested to continue bioremediation efforts in other wells to achieve complete remediation that meets the standards defined by the US EPA."
Kenneth Ugalde
- About the need to be published in a Q1 journal vs. having high impact.
- Let me be clear: the impact of your research (that might have been done better or worse) and your article (that might have been written better or worse) has nothing to do with the journal's "Q" rate.
- Probably, it's not YOU the one that needs the journal to be a Q1, but your thesis director (if you are PhD-ing), or your area/department manager (if you are an established researcher/practitioner). Talk with them. Especially, if you are PhD-ing: how the f#ck does make sense that somebody who is learning to be a researcher has to be able to do research and write an article worth being published in a Q1 journal!!
- About trying to have impact (meaning: your article it's found, it´s read, it's understand, and it's cited in further research works):
- First, find a "niche" journal that meets your research's matter (probably not a Q1, but a Q2 or even a Q3) and, while following the journal's specifications, write a good article.
- If you want your article to be found and read, you have to carefully work on both the title and the abstract to be attractive to your target audience.
- I suppose your target audience is not "anyone" (it doesn't seem a "general divulgation" article), not "any researcher/scientist/practitioner" (it doesn't seem a "scientific divulgation" article, but that of a "Case Study"), but a very select /small fraction of them (i.e., researchers/practitioners working on soil/groundwater remediation). Always have in mind who you are writing for! They probably are equivalent to you (and me, as I'm PhD-ing also in groundwater remediation systems). How do you look for interesting articles? Well, that's what I do....
- I use one (or more) scientific search engines & databases (e.g.: Scopus, WorldCat, WoS/Web of Science...), try different sets of specific search-words, until I obtain a nice/good publication list. Also, I'm subscribed to the "news-list" of more than 10 specific/niche journals (on my reserach field), so I periodically receive an e-mail with their new articles (titles, authors, abstracts).
- Then, I start reading the Titles: if I don´t find it interesting, I mark the publication as "Title checked, not interesting"...and don´t even make an effort reading the abstract. If I find the Title interesting, then I read the Abstract: if I don´t find it interesting, I mark the publication as "Abstract checked, not interesting", and don´t read the article. If I find the Abstract interesting, then I read the article (or ask my manager/director to give me access/pay for it, if it's not OpenAccess).
- Remember the sequence: search-words (for the query) > Title > Abstract. And then, of course, the article itself (the content).
- About the abstract itself:
- Abstract length. Yours is 248 words: I find it a little bit too long. Check the journals' indications: sometimes it is "...maximum around XXX words...", other times it is "no more than XXXX words". E.g.: instead of mentioning all the algorithms tried (ANN, KAA, XGBoost, and Random Forest), just say "...using several machine learning algorithms, finally selecting XGBoost to stratify...". Look for other non-essential data that can be taken off the abstract to shorten it a bit.
- Abstract structure. What do you look for when reading an abstract? General statements like "groundwater is a renewable resource" or "oil pollution caused by leakage from fuel storage tanks at railway stations produces various environmental problems"? I knew it 30 years ago, and I've read more than 1.000 papers/publications repeating it (mostly, in the first sentence of the abstract). When I read an abstract, I look for the novelty, the findings, something that's new (and even, a few times, shocking!) for me. Then, of course, I look for the background/context, methods/materials, etc. to be summarily explained. So... what's the most interesting, new or even shocking part of your research? A new methodology, the findings...? After reading the abstract, I found the most interesting:
- Methodology: the use of SEAM3D for active bioremediation evaluation (maybe because I'm still not used to numerical modelling...) and the verification through a multi-criteria decision method using several machine-learning algorithms.
- Results: air-sparging bioremediation seems clearly more effic*... than P&T (* efficacy/efficiency: you use different wordings when comparing the modelled/evaluated remediation approaches: why? It's confusing...maybe confounding, if you are comparing two different parameters: in that case, it should be clearly explained).
- About style (also applicable to the whole article).
- Avoid anthropomorphisms. In the abstract, you've written "This study investigates...", but the study is not a thinking/reasoning entity, much less a researcher. It's you (and your coworkers/cosigners) who have investigated it: take credit/responsibility for both your work and successes! (and failures, if any). I would have written it as "In this study, we have investigated...". Check for more anthropomorphisms, e.g.: "The results show...", "The model predicts that...", "Results indicated that...".
- Restrict passive verbal-form usage to cases when you really want/need to use it. E.g.: you've written "Since this passive process cannot restore the aquifer within an acceptable timeframe, the SEAM3D model was used to evaluate active bioremediation options", which emphasises the use of the SEAM3D model. But if you really meant to emphasize the active bioremediation in contrast to the earlier-mentioned passive process, it would be better to write it as "Since this passive process cannot restore the aquifer within an acceptable timeframe, we evaluated active bioremediation options using the SEAM3D model" ("we": remember to take credit/responsibility for what you've done...).
- Again: take credit/responsibility. E.g.: "It is suggested..."...by whom? By you, the author/s? Then SAY IT!!! ("We suggest...")
- Some other (technical) thoughts:
- You don't mention groundwater, nor saturated zone, just "plume" (and only once, mid-abstract), aquifer, wells... If it´s about PAHs in groundwater, say it: "...the transport and fate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) IN GROUNDWATER under multiple scenarios". If it's not, then you should explain what you've modelled in the vadose zone...