1.     不按投稿要求准备稿件

Manuscripts are not prepared according to the requirements of the object journals.

This phenomenon is very common, especially in literature citation and reference indexing. Some manuscripts submitted to the JMS still follow the citation-order system while JMS requires author-year system.

Besides reference, JMS have strict requirements on figure format and size, even on the word fonts and the word size in the figures.

In addition, JMS requires the authors’ family names be capitalized, the corresponding author’s email address be listed.

The manuscripts which can’t follow the JMS Guidelines will be returned to the authors for revision and then resubmit. This will greatly prolong the manuscript processing period.

2.     摘要很短或者摘要中大部分介绍研究目的

The manuscript has only a brief abstract or the research objective occupies the large part of the abstract.

In an original paper, an abstract should include the research objective (should be introduced concisely), the study methods or technology (such as the study sites, study materials, major test equipment or facilities, main experimental process, statistical or analytical methods), and the important study results and conclusions.

Some papers use a great deal of words to describe the research purpose (objectives) but only one or two sentences to describe the research methods and results. It looks top-heavy.

3. 只把读者定位在中国人群

Some Chinese authors seem to take the papers’ readers to be Chinese only. To a Chinese, some abbreviations have very clear meaning, but it's not the case to a foreign reader or reviewer .

Usually they have the following characteristics:

(1) Writing some events in abbreviations and don’t give any further description, such as “the 5.12 Earthquake”;

(2) Frequently using “at home and abroad” in the paper while it refers to “China and other countries”. In fact it doesn’t need to add this phrase. As an international English journal, JMS has readers and authors around the world. So every author with his manuscript submitted to JMS should take his readers globally, and his literature review also should NOT be limited in his own countries’ literature but all the important and directly relevant literature around the world. In the discussion part, it should be the same.

Here I have several examples which repeatedly mention “at home and abroad” in the literature review.

Example one: “The quantitative test and analysis about the viscoelastic behaviors of different viscous debris flows from triggering, thixotropy and shearing movement were not developed both at home and abroad for the restrictions of rheological equipments.

Example two: The rheological dynamic oscillatory tests were made to study the debris flow slurry from Jiangjiagou Ravine with the further rheological research at home and abroad.

Example three: The quantitative test and analysis about the viscoelastic behaviors of different viscous debris flows from triggering, thixotropy and shearing movement were not developed both at home and abroad for the restrictions of rheological equipments.

(3) Use a chain of Pinyin for the names of the sites, which greatly confuse a reader who can’t understand Pinyin.

In a manuscript about the secondary disaster caused by the May 12 Wenchuan Earthquake, the authors mentioned many sites, including administrative regions, rivers, mountains, valleys, and so on, but they are all in Pinyin.