EDITORIAL
W 2010 Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich, Germany
www.ijmr.de
Not for use in internet or intranet sites. Not for electronic distribution.
IJMR’s most downloaded papers from 2008 to the present: a review W
e thought readers of International Journal of Materials Research would be interested to see which papers and subject areas are proving to be the most popular. One way of judging this is to look at downloads of individual papers from www.ijmr.de, so here we review the Top 10 papers downloaded since January 2008. Three of the top four downloads concern steels/iron alloys, showing high continued interest in the latest advances in what could be considered “classical” metallurgy. In their paper “The influence of plastic instabilities on the mechanical properties of a high-manganese austenitic FeMnC steel” Allain et al. [1] showed, partly through novel in-situ imaging experiments, how dynamic strain ageing makes only a limited contribution to the work hardening of their steel. In the same issue (July 2008) Meka et al. [4] elucidated the complex nature of the nitriding of an Fe–Al alloy in “The emergence and disappearance of a high density of microcracks in nitrided Fe-4.65 at.% Al alloy”. Bhadeshia et al. [2] critically assessed texture estimation methods for displacive transformation of austenite in steels in “Calculation of crystallographic texture due to displacive transformations”. Thermodynamics has long been a strong subject for IJMR and its previous incarnation Zeitschrift für Metallkunde, so it is encouraging to see five of the most popular downloads representing this field. In one of three Top 10 papers coming from the February 2009 issue, Fries et al. [2] illustrated the progress made in materials property prediction in “Upgrading CALPHAD to microstructure simulation: the phase-field method”. In the same issue, Schön and Jansen [5] reviewed the deductive approach to phase diagrams in “Prediction, determination and validation of phase diagrams via the global study of energy landscapes”. The third paper from the February issue of our centenary volume contained a valuable reassessment of an important alloy in high-temperature turbine applications: “Thermodynamic re-assessment of the Ti–Al–Nb system” by Cupid et al. [9]. Hallstedt [8] demonstrated the challenge in assessing multi-component alloy systems and the need for much greater effort in establishing (and publishing) ternary system datasets in “From binary assessments to thermodynamic databases”. Finally for thermodynamics, in the first of two papers on the subject, Grundy et al. [10] described their development of a silicate viscosity model with great relevance to metallurgical slags. Their paper “A model to calculate the viscosity of silicate melts. Part I: Viscosity of binary SiO2–MeOx systems (Me = Na, K, Ca, Mg, Al)”
704
was a runner-up in the 2008 Köster Prize competition for excellent original contributions to the field of materials science published in IJMR. In a fascinating look at the differences in the meaning, use and implications of the term “evolution” in biology and materials science, “Evolution of microstructure in materials”, by Hornbogen [7], used the nucleation controlled evolution of dispersoid microstructures in Al–Cu alloys to justify the use of the term “evolution” in our field. The final paper from our Top 10 is of a type not often seen in IJMR but is perhaps appropriate for this review. In “The anatomy of the International Journal of Materials Research in the light of bibliometry”, Marx [6] provided a comprehensive overview of the performance of IJMR as a journal and also gave our readers an insight into the complex world of bibliometric evaluation methods which range well beyond much-misunderstood issues of impact factor and citations. We plan to keep readers informed of how this evolves by reviewing the list every six months, thus the next list will be published in the December issue of IJMR. Richard Segar Viola Küstner Editorial Office IJMR
References [1] S. Allain, P. Cugy, C. Scott, J.-P. Chateau, A. Rusinek, A. Deschamps: Int. J. Mat. Res. 99 (2008) 734 – 738. DOI:10.3139/146.101693 [2] S.G. Fries, B. Boettger, J. Eiken, I. Steinbach: Int. J. Mat. Res. 100 (2009) 128 – 134. DOI:10.3139/146.110013 [3] H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia, H. Abreu, S. Kundu: Int. J. Mat. Res. 99 (2008) 342 – 346. DOI:10.3139/146.101645 [4] S. Meka, S.S. Hosmani, A. Clauss, E.J. Mittemeijer: Int. J. Mat. Res. 99 (2008) 808 – 814. DOI:10.3139/146.101703 [5] J.C. Schön, M. Jansen: Int. J. Mat. Res. 100 (2009) 135 – 152. DOI:10.3139/146.110010 [6] W. Marx: Int. J. Mat. Res. 100 (2009) 11 – 23. DOI:10.3139/146.101793 [7] E. Hornbogen: Int. J. Mat. Res. 99 (2008) 1066 – 1070. DOI:10.3139/146.101748 [8] B. Hallstedt: Int. J. Mat. Res. 99 (2008) 589 – 597. DOI:10.3139/146.101680 [9] D.M. Cupid, O. Fabrichnaya, O. Rios, F. Ebrahimi, H.J. Seifert: Int. J. Mat. Res. 100 (2009) 218 – 233. DOI:10.3139/146.110015 [10] A.N. Grundy, H. Liu, I.-H. Jung, S.A. Decterov, A.D. Pelton: Int. J. Mat. Res. 99 (2008) 1185 – 1194. DOI:10.3139/146.101752
Int. J. Mat. Res. (formerly Z. Metallkd.) 101 (2010) 6
