If I give any suggestion to make a good article, I will talk like that:

1, Cite well-known articles, don't cite silly papers unless you are authors of those articles. In my mind, IF < 2.x is somewhat stupid, many people (including me) don't believe on those results. Cite, at least, 2-3 famous articles such as Nature, Science, Cell, etc.

2. The amount of data should be sufficient. More information, more quality. Of course, if the data is not important, put it in supporting information, or simply neglect it. "no important" means meaningless. Good articles always show a huge usefull data.

3. Combine common and rare theory/trends/techniques/equations. Even you don't know well about that, you should try doing that if you can, it's really good. Of course, if you make any mistake in what you don't know exactly, it's also terrible.

A good article consists of a range of things:

Literature review should describe the the need for the work. It should describe the decisions the author has made in the current work and where those decisions come from (references). A logical sustained argument for the work you are doing and the decisions you have made.

The experimental section should be reproducible with all choices justified.

The results section should discuss the actual results including errors. Qualitative and quantitative. All analysis techniques applied need to be justified and transparent. It is the authors job to justify their analysis technique and the results it gives. It should also look at errors and what the data says regardless of the expected relationships.

The discussion and conclusion need to address how this work contributes to current knowledge, its significance, and what this work links to in the wider field. This shows a complex understanding of the science conducted.

There is a current trend to overstate the significance and confidence in results so be discerning (article lengths are increasing but content is not). There is also a trend to discuss the work beyond what it actually is making it sound more than what has actually been achieved. There is also a reliance on simulation which without experimental confirmation is only a model or hypothesis but is often taken as an 'observation' so be careful when applying that work.

Journal impact factors are no longer good indicators of quality, nor is citations. Science is a process of hypothesis, observation and understanding. With modern science there is a push to be 'ground breaking', 'significant', 'field leading' and most of all 'right'. Science is incremental and is a slow process of being less wrong and that is being lost in a world of citations, marketing and popularity.

Thanks Dr. Nguyen Duong Nguyen

for your nice answer.

Sincerely

Ammar

Many thank to you Dr. Veronica Gray

I appreciate your scientific answer that can help our researcher friends.

Sincerely,

Ammar