Interesting
Address a subject that readers will want to explore and provide meaningful technical value to a broad audience within the field.
ASME Turbo Expo Author Resources
Journal & Best Paper Evaluation Guidelines
Understand the qualities that distinguish a publishable, impactful, and award-worthy technical paper at ASME Turbo Expo.
Journal Paper Standard
What Makes an Archival Journal Paper?
A journal-quality paper must be interesting, original, clearly developed, and significant to the gas turbine engineering community.
Original
Present a unique or innovative contribution through new methods, results, interpretations, discoveries, design guidance, or physical insight.
Clear Narrative
Lead readers through a logical progression from the introduction and methodology to the analysis, discussion, conclusions, and recommendations.
Significant & Relevant
Move the state of the art forward and provide findings that remain useful to researchers and engineering practitioners.
Quality Checklist
Characteristics of a Strong Journal Paper
Use these elements to strengthen the paper’s technical development, usefulness, and presentation.
Clear Technical Context
Place the work within both its broader and specific technical context.
Well-Documented Methods
Clearly explain the experimental, computational, or theoretical techniques used.
Carefully Selected Results
Present results that directly support the paper’s objectives and technical contribution.
Thorough Analysis
Provide a meaningful analysis and discussion of the reported findings.
Substantial Conclusions
Develop explicit conclusions and recommendations that are supported by the analysis.
Appropriate References
Select an appropriate number of relevant references that support the technical context.
Reproducible Findings
Include enough information for others to verify or reproduce the main conclusions independently.
Professional Presentation
Use clear English, consistent terminology, accurate formatting, and careful proofreading.
Reviewer Evaluation
Journal Paper Rating Scale
The standard of a journal paper is not absolute. In practice, it is established by the quality of papers that the technical community finds valuable and worthy of publication. Using this standard, reviewers evaluate each paper and place it into one of the following categories.
Category 1
Major Results and Exceptional Contribution
Award-quality work with highly significant technical results.
Top 1% • Publish
Category 2
Good, Solid, and Interesting Work
A definite and valuable contribution to the technical field.
Next 10% • Publish
Category 3
Minor but Positive Contribution
Adds to existing technical knowledge with a more limited level of impact.
Next 10–20% • Publish with Discretion
Category 4
Technically Correct but Limited Impact
Elegant and technically correct, but offers little value relative to the current state of the art.
Do Not Publish
Category 5
Neither Elegant nor Useful
Not actually wrong, but lacking sufficient technical relevance or usefulness.
Do Not Publish
Category 6
Wrong or Misleading
Contains technical conclusions or information that are incorrect or potentially misleading.
Do Not Publish
Share