METRICS

TITLE METRICS

✓(+) The words representative of your contribution are upfront in a verbless title.
✓(+) The title has 2+ search keywords, in different sections on the inverted pyramid.
✓(+) Your title has attractive words (non search keywords)
✓(+) No noun phrase exceeds three words.
✓(+) All your title search keywords are found in your abstract.
✓(+) Your title is read in less than two seconds and is clear at first reading.
✓(+) No search keyword present only in the abstract appears with a frequency higher
than any title search keyword found in the abstract.
✓(+) The impact or outcome of your contribution is identifiable in the title.
✓(+) Your title clearly sets the scope of the research.
✓(-) The words representative of your contribution are back and front, or at the back.
✓(-) All your keywords are in the same inverted pyramid section.
✓(-) The title has only one search keyword.
✓(-) Your title has two prepositions (and, or) or one (with).
✓(-) Your title has no attractive words.
✓(-) Your title contains ‘a,’ ‘an,’ ‘study,’ ‘Investigation’.
✓(-) Nouns phrases have 3+ words (e.g. Metastable transition metal nitride coatings).
✓(-) Some title search keywords are missing from your abstract.
✓(-) Your title requires more than two seconds to read.
✓(-) Search keywords repeatedly found in the abstract are not in the title.
✓(-) Your title creates diverging expectations about its contents.
✓(-) Your title does not set the scope of the research, or does so partially.

AND NOW FOR THE BONUS POINTS:

✓(+++) The title creates only one expectation about its contents, and fulfills it.

© 2011 Lebrun Jean-Luc

ABSTRACT METRICS

✓(+) All search keywords in your title are also in the abstract.
✓(+) Your abstract has all four main parts (what, how, results, impact).
✓(+) The part that contains the contribution has the greatest word count.
✓(+) Your abstract does not contain background or justification of problem
importance.
✓(+) Your abstract is written using verbs at the present or present perfect tense only.
✓(+) Your abstract mentions the main result(s) with precision or the key method steps
if contribution is a method.
✓(+) By revealing the main outcome of your results, your abstract targets the reader
who stands to benefit the most from your research.
✓(-) One or more search keywords in
✓your title are missing in the abstract.
✓(-) The first sentence in your abstract is more or less a repetition of the title.
✓(-) The first sentence in your abstract contains none or just one of the title keywords.
✓(-) Your abstract is missing one of the main parts.
✓(-) The part that contains the contribution does not have the greatest word count.
✓(-) Your abstract is written using the past tense only, or a mix of various tenses.
✓(-) Your abstract remains vague and lacks precision when mentioning the main result
(s) or the key method steps if contribution is a method.
✓(-) The abstract remains vague on part 4 (the impact) because no reader is targeted.

AND NOW FOR THE BONUS POINTS:

✓(+++) The reader is able to figure out the title of your paper, just by reading your
abstract.

© 2011 Lebrun Jean-Luc

STRUCTURE METRICS

✓(+) All contribution-related search keywords in the title are also in the headings/
subheadings.
✓(+) The contribution is grouped under successive headings.
✓(+) The structure contains informative subheadings
✓(+) Not one heading/subheading could change place without compromising the
structure of the paper.
✓(+) The structure does not contain acronyms, synonyms, or keywords only
understood by experts only.
✓(+) The majority of your structure words are in the abstract.
✓(+) The structure does not contain orphan headings or subheadings.
✓(-) Contribution-related search keywords from title are missing in your structure.
✓(-) The contribution is scattered throughout the structure.
✓(-) The structure does not contain any subheadings, or any informative headings or
subheadings.
✓(-) Headings / subheadings could change place without compromising the structure
of the paper.
✓(-) The structure contains acronyms, synonyms, or specific expert keywords.
✓(-) Less than 50% of your informative structure words are in the abstract.
✓(-) The structure contains orphan headings or subheadings.

AND NOW FOR THE BONUS POINTS:

✓(+++) Even a non-expert could figure out the title of your paper, just by reading the
structure.

© 2011 Lebrun Jean-Luc

INTRODUCTION METRICS

✓(+) The introduction starts fast, without warm-ups.

✓(+) The introduction finishes with the anticipated outcome of the research.
✓(+) The introductory segments enable the non-expert reader to benefit from the
paper. They represent more than 15% of the paper.
✓(+) References are never in groups exceeding three, the majority are single.
✓(+) All four “why” questions are answered explicitly: why this, why now, why this
way, and why should the reader care.
✓(+) The introduction is active, personal, and story-like.
✓(+) Methods, data, and/or application field correctly frame the scope of the paper.
✓(+) The rare imprecise words found in the introduction are qualified immediately
after their use (“several… such as”)
✓(+) Judgmental words are never used and the story plot is well connected.
✓(+) Background is provided for each specific and intermediary title keyword.
✓(-) The first sentences of the introduction are known to the journal readers, or
attempt to warm the reader by referring to the hot research topic.
✓(-) The introduction does not finish with the impact of your contribution.
✓(-) Bridging the knowledge gap has not been considered. Introduction size is below
10% for a regular scientific paper.
✓(-) References are presented in groups exceeding three.
✓(-) The answer to one or more “why” questions is missing
✓(-) The mostly passive voice introduction uses less than three personal pronouns.
✓(-) The scope of the paper is mentioned in parts only, and not easily identified.
✓(-) Imprecise words are sprinkled throughout the introduction.
✓(-) Judgmental words are found in the introduction, or the story plot does not
include comparisons or does not relate the paper to past papers.
✓(-) Background is missing for some specific and intermediary title keywords.

AND NOW FOR THE BONUS POINTS:

✓(+++) The introduction contains one visual or (+++) the average number of words
per sentence in your introduction is 22 words or less.
© 2011 Lebrun Jean-Luc
VISUAL METRICS
(calculate your score for each visual)

✓(+) The visual is self-contained.

✓(+) The visual has no acronyms (in caption, title, or inside visual)
✓(+) The visual is essential to support the contribution and add to its value.
✓(+) The point made by the visual is seen by the reader within 20 seconds.
✓(+) The visual easily fits on one column.
✓(+) The visual’s title, table headings, axis legends are clear and informative.
✓(+) The type of visual used corresponds to what the reader expects, or is better than
what the reader expects. It fully supports the point made in the text or in the caption.
✓(+) The visual does not raise more questions than the writer is willing to answer.
✓(+) The caption provides context to help understand the visual.
✓(-) The visual’s understanding depends on external support other than caption/title.
✓(-) The visual has acronyms.
✓(-) The visual is not essential and makes a secondary point.
✓(-) The point made by the visual is missed, or unseen, or slow to see.
✓(-) The visual requires much space and could be far from its reference in the text.
✓(-) The visual’s title, table headings, axis legends are cryptic or too abbreviated.
✓(-) The type of visual used does not correspond to what is required to make the
point made in the caption.
✓(-) The visual raises more questions than the writer is willing to answer.
✓(-) The caption is silent on the context.

AND NOW FOR THE BONUS POINTS:

✓(+++) Reader and writer, or two independent readers agree on which single visual
represents the core of the contribution.

© 2011 Lebrun Jean-Luc

CONCLUSIONS METRICS
(if you have a conclusion)

✓(+) The conclusion is positively charged.

✓(+) The conclusion is significantly different from the abstract.

✓(+) The conclusion is longer than the abstract.

✓(+) The conclusion does not claim new benefits or findings not already presented
before.

✓(+) The conclusion encourages the reader to benefit from the contribution or to
further the work
✓(-) The conclusion presents limitations as a severe drawback instead of an
opportunity to improve.

✓(-) The conclusion does not differ much from the abstract

✓(-) The conclusion simply restates the results, and if there is an impact statement, it
is a plain restatement from the abstract, without elaboration.

AND NOW FOR THE BONUS POINTS:

✓(+++) The reader is able to reconstruct the title from the conclusions.

© 2011 Lebrun Jean-Luc