Skip to content
IOP Science

Archives: Questions

Can I submit an article that has been posted as a Preprint?

IOP’s Preprint pre-publication policy allows authors to share a Preprint of their article anywhere at any time, subject to two restrictions.

This means that IOP will consider articles which have already been posted as a Preprint anywhere online, provided that (i) you did not and do not transfer (assign) ownership of its copyright, and (ii) you did not and do not grant an exclusive licence to it.

Additionally, IOP will also consider articles that have been included as a preprint in a thesis or dissertation, provided (i) you did not and do not transfer (assign) ownership of its copyright, and (ii) you did not and do not grant an exclusive licence to it.

Materials Research Express: 2016 Reviewer Awards

Reviewer of the Year: Dr Christopher Jeynes, University of Surrey, UK

Professor Chris Jeynes believes there is no perfect peer review method, but that however it comes we need it to discourage ‘bad’ papers and to improve ‘good’ ones.

He has some candid advice for reviewers (first-time and experienced), authors and editors alike.  He says:

‘Reviewers:  you are the gate-keepers!  You must insist on sound arguments and data, informative titles, accurate abstracts, and fluent and masterly introductions. It is up to the author to persuade you that their research is both valid and valuable.

Authors:  remember that reviewers are not God:  it is good practice to argue your point!  But also remember, it is your job to persuade reviewers—who are hard pressed for time—that your paper is worthy.  You should conduct your own internal review before submitting it, and then welcome tough reviews since it is a paper’s legacy that is guaranteed by careful reviewers.

Editors:  remember that your reviewers are not God, no one has a monopoly on truth just as no one is free from error!  It is your job to oversee the peer review process so that better papers result.  You should encourage creative argument between reviewers and authors!

In all this, of course sound science is essential, as is a good command of the literature.  Reviewing papers that offer a coherent, timely, interesting and important story make it all worthwhile!’

Outstanding Reviewers:

  • Dr Mohd Yusri Abd Rahman, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Dr Rachid Baghdad, Universite Ibn Khaldoun de Tiaret, Algeria
  • Dr Debashis Bandyopadhyay, Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani, India
  • Dr Rajasekhar Bhimireddi, Indian Institute of Science, India
  • Dr R Bolmaro, Instituto de Física Rosario, CONICET, Argentina
  • Dr Gunther Brunklaus, Westfalische Wilhelms Universitat Munster, Germany
  • Dr Abhijeet Budruk, Intel Corp Hillsboro, United States
  • Professor Gloria Buendia, Universidad Simon Bolivar, Venezuela
  • Dr Yanping Cao, Tsinghua University, China
  • Professor Dr Jian Chen, Southeast University, China
  • Dr Houyang Chen, University at Buffalo – SUNY, United States
  • Dr B H Y Corcoran, University of Sydney, Australia
  • Dr Rodolfo Cruz-Silva, Shinshu University, Japan
  • Dr Albert Dato, University of California – Berkeley, United States
  • Professor Kentaro Doi, Osaka University, Japan
  • Dr Yong-Hua Duan, Kunming University of Science and Technology, China
  • Professor Jiyang Fan, Southeast University, China
  • Dr Martin Friak, Institute of Physics of Materials, Germany
  • Dr Fethullah Gunes, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Turkey
  • Professor Masataka Hakamada, Kyoto University, Japan
  • Dr Baoshan Hu, Chongqing University, China
  • Dr Chuan-Lei Jia, China University of Mining and Technology, China
  • Dr Shaohua Jiang, Bayreuth University, Germany
  • Dr Itaru Kamiya, Toyota Technological Institute, Japan
  • Professor Dong-Hau Kuo, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
  • Dr Jianmin Li, Zhejiang University, China
  • Dr Lingyan Liang, Chinese Academy of Sciences – Ningbo Institute of Materials Technology and Engineering, China
  • Dr Jinyun Liu, Chinese Academy of Sciences – Intelligent Machines Institute, China
  • Professor Chee Liu, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
  • Dr Enzhou Liu, Northwest University, United States
  • Dr Roberto López, UAEM, Mexico
  • Dr Magdalena-Valentina Lungu, National Institute for Research and Development in Electrical Engineering ICPE-CA, Romania
  • Dr Jie Ma, Tongji University, China
  • Dr M Mahdi, University Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Mrs Sarita Mann, Panjab University, India
  • Dr Ambrose Melvin, NCL, India
  • Professor Dionysios Mouzakis, University of Athens, Greece
  • Dr Shaibal Mukherjee, Indian Institute of Technology – Indore, India
  • Dr Ghulam Murtaza, Government College University Lahore, Pakistan
  • Professor Li Nu, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
  • Professor Alessio Perrone, Universita del Salento, Italy
  • Professor Kandasamy Prabakar, PUnited Statesn National University, Republic of Korea
  • Dr Kakarla Raghava Reddy, The University of Sydney, Australia
  • Professor Dr Erwan Rauwel, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia
  • Professor Guenter Reiss, Universitat Bielefeld, Germany
  • Professor Georgeta Salvan, Technische Universitat Chemnitz, Germany
  • Dr S M Sapuan, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Dr Maheshwar Shrestha, Michigan State University, United States
  • Dr Piyush Solanki, Saurashtra University, India
  • Dr Marin Tadic, Institut za nuklearne nauke Vinca, Serbia
  • Dr L Tang, Academia Sinica, Taiwan
  • Dr Joseph P Thomas, Univ. of Waterloo, Canada
  • Dr M V Ulybyshev, University of Regensburg, Germany
  • Dr Guanglei Wang, Arizona State University, United States
  • Dr Hua Wei, Radiation Monitoring Devices, Inc, United States
  • Dr Humphrey Yiu, Heriot-Watt University, UK
  • Dr Nadia Zurba, Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal

Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter: 2016 Reviewer Awards

Reviewer of the Year: Dr Daniel Errandonea, Universidad de Valencia, Spain

Considering peer review a vital element of scientific professionalism, Dr Daniel Errandonea feels it his duty to contribute his time to refereeing and sees it as a means of maintaining high standards across journals such as Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter. In his opinion, peer review not only improves the quality of ‘good science’ but stops ‘bad science’ from being published.

Dr Errandonea gains much satisfaction from knowing that his scientific expertise is valued, and is pleased to have his efforts recognized by the Reviewer of the Year award. He takes the view that he is also an author, and understands that peer review is not a perfect process. He is wary of the possibility that original, pertinent research can be unnecessarily blocked or delayed, and advocates removing authors’ names from manuscripts in the interests of impartiality.

His advice to first-time reviewers is to ask for guidance from more experienced scientists and to follow journal guidelines—and not to take too long to respond.

When refereeing, Dr Errandonea looks for originality, high quality and reliable data, and rigorous science. He also considers the importance of the questions addressed and evaluates the implications of the conclusions. An article on iron oxides at high pressures—Computational searches for iron oxides at high pressures—springs to his mind, due to the authors’ interesting theoretical predictions.

Outstanding Reviewers:

  • Dr Joel Ager, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, United States
  • Dr Andres Aguado, Universidad de Valladolid, Spain
  • Professor Vladimir Ajaev, Southern Methodist University, United States
  • Dr Remi Arras, CEMES, France
  • Dr Elias Assmann, Technische Universitat Graz, Austria
  • Dr Remi Avriller, Universite de Bordeaux I, France
  • Professor Petre Badica, Institutul National de Cercetare – Desvoltare pentru Fizica Materialelor, Romania
  • Dr Yaroslaw Bazaliy, University of South Carolina – Columbia, United States
  • Professor Bogdan Bulka, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland
  • Dr Giovanni Cantele, CNR, Italy
  • Professor Robert Cava, Princeton University, United States
  • Dr Wei Chen, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
  • Dr Yaomin Dai, Los Alamos National Laboratory, United States
  • Dr Pierre Dalmas de Reotier, SPSMS, France
  • Dr Fabrizio Dolcini, Politecnico di Torino, Italy
  • Professor Shuai Dong, Southeast University, China
  • Dr Manuel dos Santos Dias, Forschungszentrum Julich Peter Grunberg Institut, Germany
  • Dr Charles Downing, Universite de Strasbourg, France
  • Dr James Drewitt, University of Bristol, UK
  • Dr Chunhui Du, Harvard University, United States
  • Professor Morten Eskildsen, University of Notre Dame, United States
  • Dr Lucia Galisova, Technical University, Slovakia
  • Dr S Gallego, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Spain
  • Dr D Giuliano, Universita della Calabria, Italy
  • Dr Moshe Goldstein, Tel Aviv University, Israel
  • Dr Igor Golosovsky, Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, NRC “Kurchatov institute”, Russia
  • Dr Quanmin Guo, University of Birmingham, UK
  • Dr Joel Helton, National Institute of Standards and Technology, United States
  • Professor Dr Joachim Hemberger, Universitat zu Koeln, Germany
  • Professor Shinya Hosokawa, Kumamoto University, Japan
  • Professor Qing-Miao Hu, Chinese Academy of Sciences – Institute of Metal Research, China
  • Professor Zi-Xiang Hu, ChongQing University, China
  • Dr Chen Huang, Florida State University, United States
  • Dr Ethirajulu Kannan, Birla Institute of Technology and Science – Goa Campus, India
  • Dr Pranchanan Khuntia, University of Paris-Sud 11, France
  • Mr Joon-Seok Kim, University of Texas at Austin, United States
  • Professor Tsuyoshi Kimura, Osaka University, Japan
  • Dr Tomasz Kostyrko, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland
  • Professor Peter Kratzer, Universitaet Duisburg-Essen, Germany
  • Dr Tom Lancaster, Durham University, UK
  • Dr Jing Li, Penn State Univeristy, United States
  • Dr Xiao Li, University of Texas at Austin, United States
  • Dr Zi Li, California State University Northridge, United States
  • Dr Jianmin Li, Zhejiang University, China
  • Professor Yang Li, Universidad de Puerto Rico – Recinto Universitario de Mayaguez, Puerto Rico
  • Dr Yong Liu, Ames Laboratory, United States
  • Dr Zhe Luo, Purdue University System, United States
  • Mr Eric Yue Ma, Stanford University, United States
  • Dr Roland Mathieu, Uppsala University, Sweden
  • Professor Yoshiaki Nakamura, Osaka University, Japan
  • Dr T Odagaki, Tokyo Denki University, Japan
  • Dr Lin Peng, Shanghai University of Electrical Power, China
  • Professor Julian Poulter, Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand
  • Professor Vlad Pribiag, University of Minnesota, United States
  • Dr Matt Probert, University of York, UK
  • Professor Dr Rui Qiao, Virginia Tech, United States
  • Dr Richard Qiu, The Ohio State University, United States
  • Professor Luciano Reatto, Universita degli Studi di Milano, Italy
  • Dr Clemens Ritter, Institut Laue-Langevin, France
  • Dr Kostas Sarakinos, Linkoping University, Sweden
  • Dr David Scanlon, University College London, UK
  • Dr Matthias Schmidt, University of Bayreuth, Germany
  • Professor Walter Selke, Rheinisch – Westfalische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Germany
  • Dr Igor Solovyev, National Institute for Materials Science, Japan
  • Dr Cheng Song, Tsinghua University, China
  • Professor Yan Song, Harbin Institute of Technology, China
  • Dr Pawel Strak, Institute of High Pressure Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland
  • Dr Gloria Subias, CSIC-Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain
  • Dr Mengtao Sun, Chinese Academy of Sciences – Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, China
  • Dr Y Takagaki, Paul-Drude-Institut fuer Festkoerperelektronik, Germany
  • Dr Keisuke Takahashi, Hokkaido University, Japan
  • Dr Naoyuki Tateiwa, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Japan
  • Dr Trevor Tyson, New Jersey Institute of Technology, United States
  • Professor Shin-ichi Uchida, The University of Tokyo, Japan
  • Mr Bernard van Heck, Universiteit Leiden, Netherlands
  • Dr Taras Verkholyak, Ukraine National Academy of Sciences – Institute for Condensed Matter Physics, Ukraine
  • Dr Andrew Walter, Brookhaven National Laboratory, United States
  • Dr Haijing Wang, Chevron Energy Technology Company, USA
  • Dr Yun-Peng Wang, University of Florida, United States
  • Dr Qun Wei, Arizona State University, United States
  • Dr D Wolverson, University of Bath, UK
  • Professor Toshishige Yamada, Santa Clara University, United States
  • Dr Li-Chang Yin, Tohoku University, Japan
  • Dr Kai Zhang, Yale University, United States
  • Professor Xiaoguang Zhang, University of Florida, United States
  • Professor Han Zhang, National University of Singapore, Singapore
  • Dr Taishan Zhu, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States
  • Dr Zhen Zhu, Michigan State University, United States
  • Dr Rok Zitko, Jozef Stefan Institute, Slovenia
  • Dr Elena Zvereva, M V Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia

What we look for in your article

If you are an early career researcher you may find our PDF guides (available in both English and Chinese) helpful.

You can also watch our guide on How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

IOP Publishing (IOP) considers for publication in our journals articles that:

1

Report original science and add significantly to research already published

2

Are of interest to the community

3

Are scientifically rigorous

4

Have sound motivation and purpose

5

Have not been published previously in the peer reviewed literature

6

Are not under consideration for publication in any other peer reviewed journal or book available through a library or by purchase

7

Comply with our preprint pre-publication policy (see below), and

8

Comply with our ethical policy.

It is particularly important for you to consider whether you have enough new results before starting to plan and write a paper for submission to an IOP journal. Reporting incremental steps forward from previous work is usually not sufficient.

Articles based on theses for higher degrees may be submitted. You should take care to ensure that such articles are prepared in the format of a research paper, which is more concise than is appropriate for a thesis.

Articles reporting work that was originally presented at a conference may be submitted, provided these articles do not appear in substantially the same form in a conference proceeding and provided that the journal paper would add some new contribution. Again, you should ensure the format of a research paper is used. The article length should also be appropriate to the content. In case of doubt, please enquire with the relevant journal.

Reports that are not available to the general public are not regarded by IOP as prior publications. Many journals published by IOP consider a range of different article types in addition to regular research papers, including special issue articles, topical reviews, comments and replies. However, please check via the journal homepage that your article is of an acceptable article type and suitable scope before submission.

All articles are judged solely on their scientific merits. Unbiased consideration is given to all manuscripts offered for publication, regardless of whether or not the authors request publication on a gold open access basis and regardless of the race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, sexual orientation, age or reputation of the authors.

IOP Publishing reserves the right to refuse to publish any content that, in its opinion, could be deemed distasteful or illegal including, but not limited to, libellous, defamatory, offensive or hate speech.

We treat all submitted articles as confidential until they are published and they will only be shared with those reviewers, board members, editors and IOP staff who are directly involved in the peer review of the article. (An exception to this would be if it is felt necessary to share the article with additional external parties in order to investigate a possible breach of the ethical policy.)

Post-publication corrections to journal articles

If you notice an error in your published article, several courses of action are available:

A corrigendum
should be published when you (the author) have made an error in your article.
An erratum
should be published when we (IOP Publishing) have made an error in your article.
A post-publication change to the original article
can only be made where the error affects the discoverability, visibility and citability of the article. For example, corrections can be made to author names, titles and abstracts. We only allow changes to affiliations, footnotes and/or acknowledgments in order to meet the requirements of a funding body, or those related to legal issues. Please contact the journal email address to request changes in these categories.

If you have changed your name and would like to update previously published articles, please refer to our specific policy relating to name changes in the related links below, which includes instructions on how to make a request.

In the case of a corrigendum or erratum, the PDF of the correction article will be attached to the online version of the original article, and a link created between the corrigendum/erratum article and the original article to make readers and other users/systems aware of the correction.

When submitting a corrigendum, the article title should be in the following format: “Corrigendum: “original article title” (“original article reference”)”

If a post-publication change is made, the online version of the article will be replaced and a dated note added to highlight the amendment that was made. Please note that in some cases it will not be possible to also correct any print versions.

Please contact us in the first instance and we can provide guidance on the most suitable course of action. Please note you may be required to provide reasonable proof that you are the author of the article. The majority of post publication changes require agreement from all co-authors to proceed.

In cases where serious errors are identified, we may publish a retraction or expression of concern:

A retraction
should be published as a way to correct the scientific record by bringing fundamental flaws/errors in a paper to the attention of the readership. They are usually reserved for cases where there is clear evidence the findings are unreliable due to misconduct or honest error. When articles are retracted they are not removed from IOPScience, instead they are retained with a clear notice of retraction and bibliographic databases are notified, as per COPE guidelines.
An expression of concern
should be issued when concerns about publications have not been conclusively proven but are sufficiently serious to warrant warning potential readers.

My order is ‘Pending’. What does this mean?

Some orders require review and approval by  IOP’s rights and permissions team, and you will be quoted a ‘TBD’ (to be determined) price. Please note that you will be provided with a full quote before being asked to pay, and you may accept or decline the order at this stage. The rights and permissions team aims to provide an initial response to all pending orders within two working days.

Author rights policy for copyright forms signed prior to 26 April 2016

For authors who submitted a copyright form for a subscription article prior to 26 April 2016, please refer to our previous author rights policy page.

Please note this applied to all IOP-owned journals and some journals published on behalf of our partners. Please refer to the policy for a full list of journals to which it applied. If the journal you are publishing in is not listed, please refer to the ‘Alternative author rights policies’ below.’

 

Current author rights policy

For authors who submitted a copyright form for a subscription article from 26 April 2016, this author rights policy applies to the article.

Please note this applies to all IOP-owned journals and some journals published on behalf of our partners. Please refer to the policy for a full list of journals to which it applies. If the journal you are publishing in is not listed, please refer to the ‘Alternative author rights policies’ below’.

 

Tips on making a good video abstract

Why make a video abstract?

Video abstracts are a great way to explain your research with greater freedom and variety than in a traditional paper. Our copyright allows you to host your video abstract on your own website as well as the IOP website so that you can disseminate your work and communicate its implications to the widest audience possible.

They are not intended to describe the contents of your paper in the way that a written abstract or a general scientific summary would. In a video abstract you can demonstrate your experiments physically, illustrate complex theoretical phenomena through practical demonstrations, introduce viewers to the equipment and tools you have used in your research and engage with your audience in a more informal manner. If you have visual data such as simulations or animations, video abstracts are a good place to showcase them and explain their implications in real time. As such, they should be engaging, interesting and offer viewers more than you could write in an abstract. The key is to be creative and make full use of the audio-visual medium.

Raise your visibility

In addition to our author-friendly copyright, which allows you to host your video abstract anywhere on the web, the Brightcove video platform used for hosting has excellent sharing functionality. This allows viewers to bring your video to the attention of the rest of the world too.

On the web

It is essential to design a video abstract that can be viewed on the web. When uploaded, the video will be compressed to ensure file sizes are small and playback times as short as possible. Your video will not have the same quality as one viewed on a television screen. However, there are a number of ways to ensure it looks and sounds good on the web.

What to film

Video abstracts should be a maximum of four minutes in length. To ensure your audience watches to the end you must hold their attention. Structuring your abstract to tell a story about your research is a good way to do this.

Be creative

  • We welcome creativity and you can include practical demonstrations, animations, interviews and anything else you can think of. Alternatively, you can keep the structure very simple but always try to engage with your audience
  • You can have one or multiple presenters, and film group discussions
  • Within reason, you can film at any location you like.

Before you begin

Many research institutions have a press department that may be able to offer assistance. They may be able to lend cameras and microphone equipment and may even be able to edit your video footage. Be sure to contact your university press officer for more advice before you start filming to see how they can help you.

Audio-visual quality

Whether your video abstract contains lots of edited footage or a very simple single shot, audio-visual quality is essential to ensure your audience gets the most out of your efforts. If it is difficult to follow because of poor visual or sound quality it will not be watched.

Tips for improving visual quality

Lighting
  • Do try to ensure that you have as much light as possible when filming your video. Natural light gives better results and filming your piece to camera outside is a good way of ensuring even lighting conditions. Sometimes your own office or laboratory can be the best place to discuss your research. If you are sitting in your office ensure the lighting is adequate. Try to use multiple light sources to avoid creating too much contrast.
  • Do not sit directly in front of a window or any other light sources.
Vibration
  • Do try to reduce vibration to a minimum by using a tripod or use a camcorder with a stabilizer. This will make the overall quality of the video better after compression.
  • Do not attempt to film while walking and do not zoom in and out too often.
Background
  • Do ensure the background behind the presenter in your video is suitable if they are performing a piece to camera.
  • Do make sure there is nothing moving in the background that might distract the viewer’s attention. The simpler the background, the better it will look on a computer screen.
  • Do not use blank walls, empty whiteboards or blackboards as a backdrop. Stationary backdrops are better for compression but coloured backgrounds, posters or the bookshelf in your office might be better, more interesting alternatives.
Exposure
  • Do use a slight overexposure when filming as this reduces intricate details, resulting in less information to process during video compression. Also, some computer screens tend to make videos look darker, so added brightness can improve image quality.
  • Do not underexpose your subject too much as the resultant video may appear even darker and more difficult to discern on screen.
Frame
  • Do keep your frame simple. Trying to incorporate too much action or movement in a frame will make the eventual file compression more difficult. If a person is speaking to camera, try filming them from the shoulders up to avoid catching too much body movement.
  • Do not film in areas where people or traffic are likely to appear in the frame.
Addressing your audience
  • Do maintain eye contact with the camera if addressing your audience directly.
  • Do choose to have someone standing off camera at whom you can look to maintain a constant eye level if filming your piece in the style of an interview.
  • Do not get distracted by activity off-camera.
Equations
  • Do use equations to describe your work where relevant. If you wish to display or write equations on a whiteboard or blackboard, ensure that the characters are large enough to discern and are legible.
  • Do not use bright lights to illuminate your writing surface: white- and blackboards can reflect light and obscure the surface for the viewer, so please be aware of this and alter the position of your light source accordingly. A room with plenty of natural light is best.
Animations
  • Do incorporate data, animations or simulations into your video to further illustrate your work and engage your audience.
  • Do not display animations by filming them on a computer screen or a wall projection while you present to camera. This method makes animations very difficult for viewers to discern. If you want to use presentation slides, there are many ways you can convert them into online Flash movies.
Accessibility
  • Do include a transcript for your video abstract. Our journals have an international readership and while we publish all research in English, it is not the first language of many of our readers. A transcript will allow anyone to follow your video abstract and help them get the most out of your efforts.
  • Do speak clearly at all times.
  • Do speak to your audience. Silent films with no narration are far less engaging.
Transcript
  • Do ensure that your transcript is written in correct English.
  • Do not submit a transcript that differs from the narrative on your video.

Tips for improving audio quality

Noise
  • Do ensure that background noise is kept to a minimum if you film in your lab: loud extractor fans/motors, etc, will reduce the sound quality and will be very difficult to edit out.
  • Do not film next to busy roads or in high wind if you film outside.
Microphones

Do use a lapel microphone if possible. However, if you do not have such equipment, ensure that background noise is reduced as much as possible.

Music

Do not add music in your video abstract. Unfortunately, we no longer allow the use of any music in video abstracts. Clearing rights to use music is incredibly complicated as there are often many rights holders, in both the master recording and the underlying song. Attaching music to images, such as overlaying a piece of music with the images in the video abstract, also requires us to obtain a separate synchronization licence. Licences (i.e. permissions) generally have to be negotiated with the copyright owners, usually the record company and the publishing company. Unfortunately, music taken from royalty free sites is not an answer to the problem. Generally, these sites cannot guarantee that the music has not been copied from elsewhere. Therefore, we cannot include music taken from royalty free sites or stated to be in the public domain. The risk to IOP, our partners and our authors in getting this wrong is too high, as we do not want anyone to be sued for copyright infringement. We appreciate that this may be disappointing, but this is the safest option for everyone.

Extra hints and tips

There are lots of great resources online to help you make the best of your footage and storyboard. You may already have movie editing software on your computer and there are numerous websites that offer advice on how to make the most of these resources.

We have provided a few links to other useful sites below. (Note that these links lead to resources located on servers maintained by third parties over which IOP has no control. IOP accepts no responsibility or liability for any such resources. The intellectual property rights in such material are owned by third parties and may be subject to other terms of use and/or privacy policies. Please see here for more detail.)