Engineering Journal: Publishing Across Engineering Disciplines
Reporting standards for engineering manuscripts — experimental rigour, simulation validation, uncertainty, and citing the right technical standards.
Engineering research covers an unusually wide span of evidence types: analytical derivation, numerical simulation, laboratory experiment, field measurement and full-scale deployment. What unites good engineering papers across all of them is that a competent engineer reading the paper could rebuild the apparatus, rerun the model, and check the numbers.
This page covers what an engineering manuscript must report, discipline-specific expectations in mechanical, civil, electrical and electronics engineering, and the reporting failures that most often send a paper back for revision.
Reporting experimental work
A single specimen tested once is a demonstration, not a result. Engineering reviewers look for replication and for a statement of scatter across specimens, because material and manufacturing variability is the norm rather than the exception.
- Apparatus described with make, model, capacity and calibration status of every instrument.
- Test conditions stated: temperature, humidity, load rate, sample geometry, conditioning period.
- Number of specimens tested and how results were averaged.
- Measurement uncertainty quantified, not merely acknowledged.
- The governing test standard cited by number, for example ASTM, IS, BS EN or ISO as applicable.
- Raw data presented or made available, not only processed summary values.
Reporting simulation and numerical work
Simulation papers must be validated. State the solver and version, the governing equations, the boundary and initial conditions, the material models with their parameters, and the mesh. Report a mesh independence study: show the quantity of interest converging as element size decreases, with the chosen mesh justified against it.
Then validate against something external — published experimental data, an analytical solution, or your own measurements. A CFD or FEA result with no validation is an illustration of what the software produced, not evidence about the physical system.
Discipline-specific expectations
- Mechanical: material specification and heat treatment state, machining tolerances, loading configuration, failure mode observation and, for fatigue work, the full S-N protocol.
- Civil: mix design proportions, curing regime and age at test, aggregate grading and source, reinforcement detailing, and the applicable design code referenced explicitly.
- Electrical and power: circuit topology, component ratings, switching frequency, control strategy, efficiency measurement method and the harmonic standard against which distortion is assessed.
- Electronics and embedded: microcontroller or FPGA part number, clock configuration, sensor part numbers and sampling rates, firmware toolchain, power consumption measurement method.
- Manufacturing and industrial: process parameters, the design of experiments used, and the optimisation method with its objective function stated.
Standards, safety and compliance
Cite standards by their full designation and year, since requirements change between revisions. "Tested per IS 516" without the year is ambiguous. Where a design claim depends on a code, name the clause.
Work involving structures, pressure systems, high voltage, chemicals or machinery should describe the safety measures taken and any regulatory approvals obtained. Reviewers in these areas will ask, and an omission reads as a gap in the work rather than a gap in the writing.
Figures, drawings and data presentation
- Dimensioned drawings for any fabricated component, with units stated.
- Schematics rather than photographs of breadboards for circuit work.
- Axis labels with units on every plot, and legends that are readable at column width.
- Error bars on measured data, with a caption stating what they represent.
- Photographs of test setups and failure surfaces where they carry information.
- Tables for numerical comparison; plots for trends. Do not duplicate the same data in both.
Common reasons engineering papers are revised
- Simulation presented with no mesh independence study and no validation.
- A single test specimen with no repeat and no scatter reported.
- Instrument calibration and measurement uncertainty not addressed.
- Standards cited without a year or clause.
- Efficiency, strength or performance claims without the measurement method described.
- Conclusions extrapolated well beyond the range of conditions actually tested.
Publishing engineering research with IJVAST
IJVAST publishes mechanical, civil, electrical, electronics and communication, and allied engineering research, routing each manuscript to a reviewer from the relevant discipline. Papers are published in IEEE two-column format, open access under CC BY 4.0, with an editorial decision targeted within 48 hours of submission and a flat fee of Rs.1,200 including 18% GST for Indian authors or $25 USD for international authors.
IJVAST is published by SkyInnovate Technologies. Its ISSN application and Crossref DOI membership application are both in progress; until those are granted the journal states this openly rather than displaying a number it does not yet hold.
Frequently asked questions
Which engineering disciplines does IJVAST accept?
Mechanical, civil, electrical, electronics and communication, computer engineering and allied applied engineering fields, alongside its wider multidisciplinary scope.
Can I publish a purely simulation-based study?
Yes, provided it includes a mesh or grid independence study and validation against experimental data, an analytical solution or published results.
How many specimens should an experimental study test?
Enough to report scatter meaningfully. Three replicates per condition is a common minimum in materials and structural testing, and the number tested must be stated explicitly.
Do I need to cite the test standard I followed?
Yes, with its full designation and year, since requirements change between revisions of a standard.
Are design and fabrication projects publishable?
Yes, when they include quantified performance measurement, comparison against an existing approach, and a discussion of limitations — not only a description of what was built.
Submit your engineering paper
Reviewed by an engineer from your discipline, with a decision targeted within 48 hours.