Publishing in high impact factor journals

1. Publishing in high impact journals
For Academic Staff and postgraduate students
Dr. Mohamed A. Alrshah (Ph.D.)
IEEE Senior Member.
Senior Lecturer,
Dept. of Communication Technology and Networks
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology
Universiti Putra Malaysia. mohamed.alrshah@upm.edu.my

2. This workshop has been held together with the following
organizations

3. The author is a journal referee/reviewer for the following journals
1. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, IEEE, (ISI, Q1, Impact Factor 4.951), PISCATAWAY, New York, USA.
2. IEEE Transactions on Communications, IEEE, (ISI, Q1, Impact Factor 4.671), PISCATAWAY, New York, USA.
3. IEEE Communications Magazine, IEEE, (ISI, Q1, Impact Factor 10.435), PISCATAWAY, New York, USA.
4. IEEE Wireless Communications Magazine, IEEE, (ISI, Q1, Impact Factor 8.972), PISCATAWAY, New York, USA.
5. IEEE Systems Journal, IEEE, (ISI, Q1, Impact Factor 3.882), PISCATAWAY, New York, USA.
6. IEEE Access, IEEE, (ISI, Q1, Impact Factor 3.244), Piscataway, New Jersey, USA.
7. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, Elsevier, (ISI, Q1, Impact Factor 3.5), London, England, UK.
8. Computer Communications, Elsevier, (ISI, Q1, Impact Factor 3.338), Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands.
9. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, Hindawi, (ISI, Q2, Impact Factor 1.899), London, England, UK.
10. Telecommunication Systems, Springer, (ISI, Q3, Impact Factor 1.542), Dordrecht, South Holland., Netherlands.
11. International Journal of Communication Systems, Wiley-Blackwell, (ISI, Q3, Impact Factor 1.066), London, England, UK.
12. IET Communications, Institute of Engineering Technology IET, (ISI, Q3, Impact Factor 1.061), Hertford, England, UK.
13. China Communications, China Institute of Communications, (ISI, Q4, Impact Factor 0.903), Beijing, Beijing, China.
14. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Springer, (ISI, Q4, Impact Factor 0.333), Iran.
15. Recent Patents on Computer Science Journal, Bentham Science Publishers, (Scopus), UAE.
16. International Journal of Engineering and Technology Innovation, Department of Automation, Taiwan Association of Engineering
and Technology Innovation, (Scopus), Wenhua Rd, Huwei County, Yunlin, Taiwan.

4. The AgendaPart 1
1. Background About Publication
2. Types of Papers (in general)
3. Writing Quality Papers
4. General review process
5. Choosing The Appropriate Journal
6. Submitting Your Manuscript

5. Background
Part 1

6. OutlinesPart 1
1. Background About Publication
1.1 What is a scholarly journal?
1.2 Aims of publication
1.3 Publication types
1.3.1 Journal papers
1.4 Why we publish in high impact journal?

7. 1.1 What is a scholarly journal?
At first, watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6WVJEXJj_o
• A scholarly journal is a periodical publication that publishes research
relating to a particular academic discipline or field.
• Academic journals serve as permanent and transparent forums for the
presentation, scrutiny, and discussion of research.
• Academic journals are usually peer-reviewed.

8. Basic concepts:
Before we start, we must know that:
1. The publication is the knowledge sharing.
2. Your research is worthless unless it is being published.
3. The value of an article increases when its citation in
other research articles increases.
“publish or perish” is a common phrase describes the pressure
in academia to rapidly and continually publish academic work to
sustain or to further one's career.

9. 1.2 Aims of Publication
Scholars publish their work:
 To build their author’s record (CV & reputation) of research contributions in the form of papers.
 To guarantee intellectual property of scientific contributions in academia and industry.
 To encourage scientists to share knowledge that they might otherwise have kept secret.
 To create a sense of competition among scientists to be the first to publish a new scientific finding.
 To encourage other researchers to continue published research.
 To share knowledge and to participate in advancing it.

10. 1.3 Publication Types
At first watch these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EHT8szRNvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEsAKqXSfbY
 Journal papers (The predominant type of publication)
 Proceeding papers (Conferences, Workshops, Colloquiums, and so on.)
 Magazine papers
 Letters
 Patents
 Standards & RFCs
 Theses
 Book Chapters
 Books
 and so on.

11. Attention:
Our focus here will be on the most beneficial
publication types, High-impact Journals, for:
Postgraduate students to fulfil the graduation
requirements.
Academic Staff to improve their professionalism.

12. 1.3.1 Journal papers
 Usually contain the contribution(s) made by the researcher(s).
 Should provide complete information about a particular piece of research.
 High impact journals mostly apply the peer-review process.
 Allow researchers to communicate their researches with their peers as an
opportunity to get professional comments about their work.
 Indeed, publishing a journal paper is a time-intensive process.
 To deliver your research to the world faster, try publishing at a conference!

13. 1.4 Why we publish in high-impact journal?
ISI, Q1, IF=2.743
IEEE conference
IEEE conference

14. Types of Papers (in general)
Part 2

15. OutlinesPart 2
2. Types of Papers (in general)
2.1 The common types of Papers
2.2 General structure of research articles
2.3 Original papers (full papers)
2.3.1 Structure of original papers
2.3.2 Letters and communications (short papers)
2.4 Review or Survey Papers
2.4.1 Structure of review papers (a sample)
2.5 Design papers
2.6 White papers

16. 2.1 The common types of Papers
 Original papers (full papers)
 Letters (short papers)
 Review or Survey Papers
 Design papers
 White papers
 Revisited paper

17. 2.2 General structure of research articles
I  Introduction
M  Methodology
R  Results
A  and
D  Discussion

18. 2.3.1 Original papers (full papers)
Original papers can be published either in journals or in conferences.
Original research articles must present:
 Detailed studies reporting original research.
 Satisfactory level of novelty.
 The primary literature of the original contribution.
 Critical discussion of related works.
 Detailed explanation of the proposed work(s) using textual and/or graphical tools.
 Deep discussion and interpretation of the results from all aspects.
 Discussion of possible implications (impact and future directions).
 Limitations, (if any). It will not devalue your work anyway.

19. Structure of original papers
 Title Make these components as easy as you can.
 Abstract They must be informative, attractive, and effective.
 Keywords Must be helpful for indexing and searching.
----------------------------
 Introduction Paper space is not boundless and reader's time is limited.
 Related works The work must be clear (nothing is hidden), correct, complete,
 Proposed work(s) precise, concise, straightforward and reproducible.
 Results and discussion Must use simple language.
----------------------------
 Conclusion  Must be brief and comprehensive (avoid repeating sentences).
 Acknowledgement  Funding information and thanks for people who helped in this work.
 References  Must be related, accessible, proper and sufficient.
 Supplementary material  If any (optional).

20. 2.3.2 Letters and communications (short papers)
 A letter is shorter than a scholarly article.
 It mostly presents an original and important contribution.
 It does not present a full explanation of research as a scholarly article does.
 It is usually an explanation of work that has been done, either a design or research, without
presenting all data.
 You would write a letter if you just wanted to summarize your work in a brief document
without presenting all your research.
 Letters are often used to get the word out quickly about research, and then followed up by
complete journal articles.
 Many journals are dedicated to letters alone, for example:
 IEEE Computer Architecture Letters.
 Electronic Letters on Computer Vision and Image Analysis.

21. 2.4 Review or Survey Papers
 Review article gives an overview of existing literature in a certain research field.
 These identify specific problems or issues and analyse information from available published
works on the topic with a neutral perspective.
 These are considered as secondary literature and can be a particularly efficient way for early
career researchers to begin publishing.
 Review articles can be of three types, broadly speaking, Literature reviews, Systematic reviews,
and Meta-analysis.
 The references used in a review article are helpful as they lead to more in-depth
research.
 You may write a review article to summarize the progress in a field you've been working on.
 Review articles are usually long and their lengths are depending on the journal.
 Some journals publish short reviews, while some journals are dedicated entirely to review
articles.

22. Structure of review papers (a sample)
 Title Make these components as easy as you can.
 Abstract They must be informative, attractive, and effective.
 Keywords Must be helpful for indexing and searching.
----------------------------
 Introduction  Must be clear, concise and sufficient.
 Literature review  Must cover new studies (in some fields) & must be comprehensive.
 Proposed taxonomy(s)  May present new taxonomies or classifications of existing solutions.
 Deep discussion  Must present the research gap and the future directions.
----------------------------
 Conclusion  Must be brief and comprehensive (avoid repeating sentences).
 Acknowledgement  Funding information and thanks for people who helped in this work.
 References  Must be applicable, accessible, proper and sufficient.
 Supplementary material  If any (optional).

23. 2.5 Design papers
 A design paper is a detailed description of a design that you plan to make or you
have already made.
 It consists of an overview of what others have done and where your design fits in,
and an explanation of technical requirements and solutions.
2.6 White papers
 A white paper is a document that falls somewhere between a brochure and a
manual.
 You can write a white paper if you want to provide a general, technical explanation
of an architecture, framework or product technology.
 Companies provide white papers to help users and researchers understand and use
their products.

24. Writing Quality Papers
Part 3

25. OutlinesPart 3
3. Writing Quality Papers
3.1 Important criteria for writing scholarly papers
3.2 Choosing the proper editing tool
3.3 Choosing the proper drawing tool
3.4 Choosing the proper reference management tool
3.5 Checking the similarity
3.6 Editing and proofreading
3.7 How to write it?

26. 3.1 Important criteria for writing scholarly papers
In order to write a high quality scientific paper, you must consider the
following points:
1. The Formatting (word count, no of figures, no of tables, referencing)
2. The Language
3. The Structure
4. The Clarity
5. The Coherence
6. The Completeness
7. The Originality and Novelty
8. The Significance
9. The Plagiarism

27. 3.2 Choosing the proper editing tool
 Microsoft Word produces good quality documents.
 Libre Office is a free and open-source.
 However, Latex produces very high-quality documents.
 Changing an article format is easier with Latex (in case of changing journal).
 The best tool is the one compatible with the template of the targeted journal.
We don’t
have enough
time, so
please read
it yourself.

28. We don’t
have enough
time, so
please read
it yourself.
3.3 Choosing the proper drawing tool
 Pixel-based graphs, such as JPG and PNG, are ok if they are kept with the original ratio.
 Victor-based graphs, such as EPS and EMF, provide very high quality.
 EPS (Encapsulated PostScript) usually used with Latex (not supported in Microsoft Word).
 EMF (Enhanced Meta File) usually used with Microsoft Word.
 Microsoft Visio is a good tool that produces a high-quality diagrams.
 Libre draw is a free tool that produces a high-quality diagrams.
 There are many tools such as Draw.io Diagrams, Lucidchart, and Cacoo Diagram Maker.

29. We don’t
have enough
time, so
please read
it yourself.
3.4 Choose the proper reference management tool
 Endnotes is an excellent tool, but it is not free.
 Mendeley, Zotero, Qiqqa and Bibtex are excellent and free tools.
 If you have Arabic references, better choose Zotero or Qiqqa.
 If you use Latex, you have to use Bibtex.

30. 3.5 Checking the similarity to avoid plagiarism
 To avoid plagiarism, produce the similarity report.
 There are many tools to check similarity.
 However, the journals’ editors mostly use Turnitin or iThenticate.
 Don’t play with the filter’s settings to reduce similarity.
 Paraphrase the similar parts and re-check with Turnitin.
 Turnitin is preferred for student use, while iThenticate is preferred for editorial use.
We don’t
have enough
time, so
please read
it yourself.

31. 3.6 Editing and proofreading
Make sure that:
 The language used in your manuscript is up to the professional level.
 The structure of your manuscript is proper and correct.
 The flow of ideas is correct.
 Make sure that your manuscript is consistent.
 Check consistency of names (e.g. UDP, Udp, & UDP are not considered the same thing)
 Check the abbreviations.
 If you can’t do all of these yourself, look for editing and proofreading services that are:
 Professional.
 Official.
 See https://www.elsevier.com/authors/author-services
We don’t
have enough
time, so
please read
it yourself.

32. 3.7 How to write it?
 State question(s) or problem(s), aim(s), objectives, hypotheses, and contributions clearly.
 Review (don’t just list!) relevant literature and derive meaningful and appropriate research questions
and/or problems.
 Discuss your methodology and pay attention to the validity and reliability of methods and data.
 Show your analysis by giving as much detail as possible so reviewers can follow every stage.
 Discuss findings with reference to the aim(s), objectives and questions/problems.
 Conclude your findings and identify the limitations and opportunities for further study.

33. How to write the Introduction section?
 Explain the background and context:
 Make it simple and clear.
 Directly, drive the reader to the problem, motivation and significance of the work.
 Don't make it an extensive essay.
 Define aim(s) and objectives of the paper:
 Be specific.
 The wider study is probably not that relevant (Hardly acceptable).
 Avoid referencing to any PhD and MSc theses.
 The research should stand (or fall) on its own merits under peer review.
 Explain structure of the paper
 Example: The upcoming section presents the literature review and Section 3 exhibits the methodology.
We don’t
have enough
time, so
please read
it yourself.

34. How to write the Literature Review section?
 It is not a list nor a narrative, but it’s a critique.
 Develop your arguments, bringing in relevant citations as examples of who supports or conflicts with
that argument.
 Write in sentences and paragraphs, where:
 Each paragraph discusses a single theme or central idea.
 Each sentence makes sense on its own.
 Reference the key authors, stick to examples from the best journals, use examples from your target
journal.
 Focus on the new literature.
 All references must be accessible.
We don’t
have enough
time, so
please read
it yourself.

35. How to write the Methodology/analysis section?
 Can the reader follow your complete method from start to finish?
 Is there a questionnaire? Have you put it in appendix?
 Is there missing steps? Can you refer the reader to another source if not the present paper?
 Are all formulae and values accurately reported?
 Nothing frustrates reviewers like being unable to follow the logic due to paper incompleteness.
We don’t
have enough
time, so
please read
it yourself.

36. How to write the Discussion/Conclusions section?
 Tie discussion back to themes from literature review so the paper has consistency.
 Link conclusions to objectives (complete the circle).
 Identify any limitations, make recommendations for future research.
 Discuss any implications or impacts for theory/practice.
 The limitations, future work, and implications will tell others how far you know about your work.
We don’t
have enough
time, so
please read
it yourself.

37. Want to fast-track the process?
 Look for a special issue (fast-tracked reviews).
 Look for a conference with a special issue attached.
 Look for Rapid Publication Journals.
 Specify preferred reviewers (sometimes an option).

38. The general peer-review process
Part 4

39. OutlinesPart 4
4. The general review process
4.1 The Peer-Review life cycle: behind the scene
4.2 The possible verdicts
4.3 If your paper was rejected - WHAT NEXT?
4.4 From the Editor-in-chief perspective
4.5 Eight reasons EIC rejected your article
4.6 From the reviewer's perspective
4.7 Being a good reviewer.

40. 4.1 The Peer-Review life cycle: behind the scene
Blind review? or Not?
Paid reviewers? or Voluntary peer-reviewers?

41. 4.2 The possible verdicts
 Out of scope (before/after review).
 Reject (before/after review).
 Reject – Resubmission is NOT recommended (don’t argue).
RPJ such as IEEE Access
 Reject – Resubmission after amendment is recommended.
 Minor correction (conditional acceptance).
Be careful both may lead to rejection!
 Major correction (conditional acceptance).
 Accept.

42. 4.3 If your paper was rejected - WHAT NEXT?
 Appeal the rejection.
 Appealing a rejection is within your rights as an author.
 Base your appeal on logic and not emotion.
 Outline your points to the editor without underestimating the reviewers or being argumentative.
 Appeals based on the scope of the journal are unlikely to succeed.
 Even if you have a strong argument, mostly you will go through the same process of new submission.
 Resubmit to the same journal.
 The journal may reject your initial offering but invite you to resubmit later after addressing the reviewers’ concerns.
 Remember, if a journal informed you that they are not interested in accepting any future versions of the manuscript, you
should respect their decision and try a different journal.
 Make changes and submit to a different journal.
 Consider the given comments and improve the manuscript.
 Don’t forget to change the format of the manuscript and to modify the cover letter.
 Make no changes and submit to another journal.
 Not a good idea since your manuscript may be reviewed by some of the same reviewers at the other journal.
 File the manuscript away and never resubmit it.
 Not a good idea at all, however, you can post your work to figshare or Dryad, where it will be citable and freely accessible.

43. 4.4 From the Editor-in-chief’s perspective
By Dr. Peter Thrower, the Editor-in-Chief of Carbon, the Elsevier journal.
 “When a manuscript is submitted to a high-quality journal, it goes through
intense scrutiny — even before it's seen by the editor-in-chief and
selected for peer review. At Elsevier, between 30% to 50% of
articles don't even make it to the peer review process.”
 As Editor-in-Chief of Carbon, the international journal of the American
Carbon Society, Dr. Peter Thrower advises authors:
“By avoiding these pitfalls, you will save reviewers, editors and staff time
and frustration, and ensure that your work is judged by its scientific merit,
not mistakes.”

44. 4.5 Eight reasons EIC rejected your article
By Dr. Peter Thrower, the Editor-in-Chief of Carbon, the Elsevier journal.
1. It fails the technical screening. Before they even go to the editor-in-chief, articles are checked for
technical elements. The main reasons they are rejected are:
 The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized, or it is currently under review at
another journal.
Republishing articles or parts of articles, submitting to one or more journals at the same time or using text or
images without permission is not allowed. See Elsevier ethical guidelines.
 The manuscript is not complete; it may be lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations,
keywords, main text, references, tables and/or figures).
 The English is not sufficient for the peer review process.
 The figures are not complete or not clear enough to read.
 The article does not conform to the “Guide for Authors” of the journal .
 References are incomplete, inaccessible and/or not up-to-date.
2. It's incomprehensible (unclear enough).
 The language, structure, or figures are so poor that it can't be evaluated.

45. 3. It does not fall within the Aims and Scope of the journal.
 For the journal Carbon, the material studied may contain carbon, but is not carbon.
 The study uses a carbon material but the focus is on something else.
 There is no new carbon science.
4. It's incomplete.
 The article contains observations but is not a full study.
 It discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work.
5. The procedures and/or analysis of the data is seem to be defective or deficient.
 The study lacked clear comparison metrics.
 The study uses procedures or methodology that cannot be repeated.
 The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field.
4.5 Eight reasons EIC rejected your article (Cont.)
By Dr. Peter Thrower, the Editor-in-Chief of Carbon, the Elsevier journal.

46. 6. The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper.
 The arguments are illogical, unstructured or invalid.
 The data does not support the conclusions.
 The conclusions ignore large portions of the literature.
7. It's is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors.
 Findings are incremental and do not advance the field.
 The work is clearly part of a larger study, chopped up to make as many articles as possible.
8. It's boring.
 It is archival, incremental or of marginal interest to the field (see point 7).
 The question behind the work is not of interest in the field.
 The work is not of interest to the readers of the specific journal.
4.5 Eight reasons EIC rejected your article (Cont.)
By Dr. Peter Thrower, the Editor-in-Chief of Carbon, the Elsevier journal.

47. 4.6 From the editor and reviewer’s perspective
Mostly, the reviewers want to check your manuscript based on the following
criteria:
 Is it presented in an obvious fashion and written in standard English?
 Is the methodology correct?
 Does the manuscript technically sound good?
 Does the data support the conclusions?
 Has the statistical analysis been performed properly and rigorously?
 Have the authors made all data underlying the findings fully available?
 Is the work repeatable/reproducible?
 Are the metrics proper and sufficient?
 Are the references up-to-date and sufficient?

48. We don’t
have enough
time, so
please read
it yourself.
4.7 Being a good reviewer
 If you want to be published, you accept the responsibility to also undertake reviews to help others get
published.
 If you want to be part of the academic community, you have a duty to that community.
 Reviews should be completed in a timeous way.
 Reviewers should ALWAYS explain the basis of their decision.
 Reviewers should NEVER be self-serving.
 Reviewers should be balanced (bring out the good and bad aspects of the paper).
 Remember you are also subject to this process “treat others as you want them to treat you”

49. Choosing the appropriate journal
Part 5

50. OutlinesPart 5
5. Choosing The Appropriate Journal
5.1 Important criteria for selection
5.1.1 Based on accessibility
5.1.2 Based on disciplinary
5.1.3 Based on indexing
5.1.4 Based on review speed
5.2 Journal selection tools
5.3 Check the validity of candidate journals
5.4 Check recent papers published in the selected journal

51. 5.1 Important criteria for selection
 Based on disciplinary
 Multidisciplinary journals.
 Interdisciplinary journals.
 Specialized journals
 Based on accessibility
 Open access journals
 Subscription-based journals
 Based on indexing
 Scopus journals
 ISI master journals
 ISI journals
 Based on the review speed
 Rapid publication journals.
 Traditional journals

52. 5.2 Journal selection tools
 Elsevier Journal Finder http://journalfinder.elsevier.com/
 Springer Journal Suggester https://journalsuggester.springer.com/
 IEEE Publication Recommender http://publication-recommender.ieee.org/home
 Journal Guide https://www.journalguide.com/
 Edanz Journal Selector https://www.edanzediting.com/journal-selector
 Find My Journal https://findmyjournal.com/
 Cofactor Journal Selector http://cofactorscience.com/journal-selector
 Journal Article Name Estimator (Jane) http://jane.biosemantics.org/
 EndNote Online Matcher https://projectne.thomsonreuters.com/#/login?app=endnote
 SciRev Journal Finder https://scirev.sc/
 JS Journal Selector https://journalselector.com/
 Wiley Find Journal https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/find-a-journal/index.html
 PubMed PubReminder http://hgserver2.amc.nl/cgi-bin/miner/miner2.cgi
 Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) https://doaj.org/
 HOWEVER, it would be better if you, first, search in your references (WHERE HAVE THE SIMILAR WORKS BEEN PUBLISHED?)

53. 5.3 Check the validity of candidate journals
In order to check the validity of the candidate journals information, use the well-known indexes:
 Clarivate (Thomson Reuters or isi)
 Web of Science http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR
 Master Journals List http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/
 Scopus https://www.scopus.com/sources
 Scimagojr http://www.scimagojr.com/
 Google Scholar index https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en

54. 5.4 Check recent papers published in the selected journal
Go to the website of the candidate journal.
 Read the scope of the journal carefully.
 Download a set of papers related to your topic.
 Check the submission, revision and acceptance dates.
 If you decided to submit to the selected journal:
 Download the journal’s template.
 Re-format your manuscript based on the template. (Why?)

55. Submitting your manuscript
Part 6

56. OutlinesPart 6
6. Submitting Your Manuscript
6.1 Preparing a good cover letter
6.2 Preparing a list of suggested reviewers (if required)
6.3 Preparing a list of conflicted reviewers (if any)
6.4 Preparing the authors' biography
6.5 Creating your researcher identity
6.6 Creating an account on the editorial-system of the journal
6.7 Dealing with reviewers' comments

57. 6.1 Preparing a good cover letter
Dear Prof. Dr. Vincenzo Piuri
Editor-in-chief of IEEE Systems Journal
On behalf of our research group members at the Department of Communication Technology and Network, Universiti
Putra Malaysia, I would like to thank you for your effort and cooperation for the success of publishing a high-quality
research in a professional manner.
I declare that this paper entitled "Elastic-TCP: Flexible Congestion Control Algorithm for High-BDP Networks" has not
been published previously and it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
In this paper, we presented a new congestion control algorithm, called Elastic-TCP, which is geared to work on high-
BDP networks. Based on extensive simulation and testbed experiments, we found that the proposed Algorithm could
overcome the compared algorithms, which are CUBIC (the default of Linux), C-TCP (the default of MS Windows), and
TCP-BBR (the latest algorithm proposed by Google team).
We think that the readership of your journal would be interested in this article since it provides a new approach to
congestion control over high-speed and long-distance networks, where the proposed algorithm improves the
performance of data communications up to 50%, in many cases.
Thank you so much.
Sincerely,
Mohamed A. Alrshah, Ph.D,
Department of Communication Technology and Network,
Universiti Putra Malaysia.
 To whom
 Introduction
 Declaration
 Summary of the paper
 The significance
 Interest of the readership
 Thanks
 Your name and affiliation

58. 6.2 Preparing a list of suggested reviewers (if required)
Dear Editor-in-Chief
For this submission, we respectfully suggest the
following reviewers:
1. Carlo Caini, Professor of telecommunications,
University of Bologna. carlo.caini@unibo.it
2. Sándor Molnár, Associate Professor of
telecommunications, Budapest University of
Technology. molnar@tmit.bme.hu
3. Chris Blondia, Professor of mathematics and
computer science, University of Antwerp.
chris.blondia@uantwerpen.be
Your cooperation is highly appreciated.
Thank you so much.

59. 6.3 Preparing a list of conflicted reviewers (if any)
Dear Editor-in-Chief
For this submission, we respectfully would like to inform you
that we have some conflict of interest with the following
respectful names:
1. FirstName LastName, Professor of telecommunications,
University of Anything. name1@domain.com
2. FirstName LastName, Associate Professor of
telecommunications, Anything University of Technology.
name2@domain.com
Thus, we would be very grateful if these names are avoided.
Your cooperation is highly appreciated.
Thank you so much.

60. 6.4 Preparing the authors' biography
Author Biographies:
1- Mohamed A. Alrshah: (M’13, ) received his BSc degree in Computer Science from
Naser University - Libya, in 2000, and his MSc degree in computer networks in May
2009 and his Ph.D. in communication technology and networks in Feb 2017 from
Universiti Putra Malaysia. Currently, he is a senior lecturer at Al-Asmarya University at
the Faculty of Information Technology, Zliten, Libya. He has published a number of
articles in high impact factor scientific journals. His research interests are in the field
of high-speed TCP protocols, high-speed network, parallel and distributed algorithms,
software defined networking, network design and management, wireless networks.
2- Mohamed A. Al-Moqri: received his BSc degree in Computer Science from
Almustanseriah University, Iraq, in 2000, and his MSc degree in computer networks in
2009 and his Ph.D. in communication technology and networks in 2016 from
Universiti Putra Malaysia. He has published a number of articles in high impact factor
scientific journals. His research interests are in the field of high-speed TCP protocols,
high-speed network, QoS, scheduling algorithms, admission control and wireless
networks.
3- Mohamed Othman: (M’04) received his PhD from the Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia with distinction (Best PhD Thesis in 2000 awarded by Sime Darby Malaysia
and Malaysian Mathematical Science Society). Now, he is a Professor in the Faculty of
Computer Science and Information Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). He is
also an associate researcher at the Lab of Computational Science and Mathematical
Physics, Institute of Mathematical Research (INSPEM), UPM. He published more than
160 International journals and 230 proceeding papers. His main research interests are
in the fields of high speed network, parallel and distributed algorithms, software
defined networking, network design and management, wireless network (MPDU- and
MSDU-Frame aggregation, TCP Performance, MAC layer, resource management, and
traffic monitoring) and scientific telegraph equation and modelling.
It must include:
 The name.
 Membership (optional).
 Current academic position (optional).
 The academic Qualifications with dates and
universities.
 The important academic achievements.
 The research interests.

61. 6.5 Creating your researcher identity
Use one or more of the internationally recognized platforms:
 ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) orcid.org/
 Google Citations scholar.google.com.my/citations?hl=en
 Scopus Author. www.scopus.com/
 ResearcherID www.researcherid.com/
 ARID Platform arid.my for Arabic-writing researchers

62. 6.6 Creating an account on the editorial-system of the journal
 Every journal has its own system
 Some journals rely on the user account created through the publisher.
 Some journal systems are independent from the publisher system.
 Connect your account at the journal to your researcher identity (when possible).
 E.g. ORCID
 Use your correct email, phone and address.
 Remember your account username and password.
 Put your name as a corresponding author, OTHERWISE, you will not see the manuscript in your portal.

63. 6.7 Dealing with reviewers' comments (sample)
 Respect the opinions of reviewers, even if they are wrong you answer politely.
 You should fulfil what have been requested by the reviewers, otherwise, you reply by a
polite reasonable explanation.
 Even if they asked you stupid or silly questions, you should find why they have done!
 Some comments implicitly tell you that your writing is NOT CLEAR.
 Don’t mix up the comments (leave it based on the reviewer).
 Even if two reviewers gave you the same comment, you must answer them separately.
 Highlight your corrections in the manuscript.
 Attach a report including a table of corrections with four columns (comment #, comment,
your response, position in manuscript).
 Don’t modify the comments.
 Don’t add any unrequested material, that may leads to another review round.

64. Selected Resources
 https://www.mindmeister.com/907295866 Research Tools by Mohamed A. Alrshah.
 http://www.editage.com
 http://www.aje.com
 http://libguides.mit.edu/citing, Citing sources: Overview.
 https://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article
 http://www.massey.ac.nz/, From research to publishing in high impact journals.
 https://www.trident.edu/, Student Guide to Writing a High-Quality Academic Paper.