The aim of the Rising Stars in Computational Materials Science paper is to showcase a specific area of computational materials science to which the author has made a notable recent contribution.
The paper will help the specialist and the multidisciplinary reader by providing in a systematic manner: (1) the views of an expert on a current advance in computational material science in a clear and readable form. (2) evaluations of the most interesting papers, annotated by an expert, from the great wealth of original publications.
The aim of the paper is to highlight the work of the author while providing a review of recent articles, with particular emphasis on those articles published in the past two years. In addition to describing recent trends, you are encouraged to give your subjective opinion of the topics discussed. Your review should be approximately 2000 words (not including references or reference notes), with approximately 50 references and, as such, the review is intended to be a concise view of the field as it is at the moment, the contributions of the author to the field, and potential impacts, rather than a comprehensive overview. Our intended audience ranges from student to professor, so articles must be accessible to a wide readership. Please avoid jargon, but do not oversimplify: be accurate and precise throughout. Occasionally, unpublished data can be referred to, but only when essential and should never be used to substantiate any significant point.
Introduction
The introduction should be accessible to a wide variety of scientists by avoiding the use of jargon and concepts not familiar to non-specialists. It should outline the time period covered and the scope of the review, including the importance of and rationale behind your article. The introduction should include only a few background references.
Main text of review
Use concise, logical subheadings to provide clear links between the different sections and guide the reader through your review. Please write all abbreviations in full on first use, and use the abbreviation thereafter.
Conclusions
The conclusions section should summarise the topics discussed and describe future directions, including the author's opinions, as appropriate.
The majority of the references (please aim to cite approximately 50) should come from the period under review (i.e. the past two years) and, in general, at least 10% of these should be selected and annotated as being papers of special interest (* ) or outstanding interest (**). Annotated references MUST be from the past two years, and the annotation should provide a brief description of the major findings and the importance of the study. This is a valuable part of each review and is very popular with readers. For example:
""30. Wong FS, Karttunen J, Dumont C, Wen L, Visintin I, Pilip IM, Shastri N, Pamer EG, Janeway CA Jr: Identification of an MHC class I-restricted autoantigen in type 1 diabetes by screening an organ-specific cDNA library. Nat Med 1999, 5:1026-1031.
Using class I tetramers, the authors demonstrate that insulin-specific CD8+ T cells account for a large proportion of infiltrated T cells in the islets of prediabetic NOD mice. This is the first study to use peptide multimers to decipher the mechanism of autoimmunity.
Exclude from reference list
Unpublished work (including papers in preparation, papers submitted for publication and personal communications), conference abstracts, and PhD theses, should not be mentioned in the reference list. If you feel that the citation is crucial to the review, please mention it in the text only (see below). Please keep in mind that citations should be restricted to sources freely available to most readers. (If a submitted paper is accepted for publication before we go to press, then this information can be added in an 'Update' section). These references should be presented in the text as follows (please list the first author only, including initials and surname):
1. Personal communications: (SW Churchill et al., personal communication [or unpublished if referring to the authors' own work])
2. Submitted papers/unpublished data: (IMN Author et al., unpublished)
3. Abstracts (give full information but not title): (A Early et al., abstract 54, 3rd International Meeting of Cellular Immunology, Washington DC, September 1998) or (A Early, abstract in Soc Neurosci Abstr 1998, 4:154).
4. PhD theses: (R Arthur Goode, PhD thesis, University of Hawaii, 1988)
5. Websites: (Biological Biochemical Image Database; URL: http://bbid.grc.nia.nih.gov/)
6. Computer program/database: (Actin database, University of Harvard). (unless the program/database details have been published, in which case cite as a normal reference. For example, Nicholls A, Bharadwaj R, Honig B: GRASP: a graphical representation and analysis of surface properties. Biophys J 1993, 64:166-170.)
Note that personal communications must be authorised by those involved. You are responsible for obtaining permission to use personal communications.
For specific examples of a similarly structured paper (albeit in a different subject area), please see the following papers:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343514000384#
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343510001156
If you have any specific questions, please contact Joe d’Angelo