Tag Info

New answers tagged

4

As I always understood it, a paper called Zero-dimensional vector spaces claims to be an exhaustive overview of the topic, while On zero-dimensional vector spaces would be merely a contribution to the study of those spaces. So it is humility on the part of the authors.


4

In applied math (at least in my subfield), most papers do have a conclusion, and it's almost always a useless repetition of things already stated in the introduction (sometimes word-for-word). Please don't follow that pattern! I try to use a conclusion only if there are general observations or discussion that I wish to include and that would not make sense ...


1

As part of my graduate study we had to analyse several somewhat well-known papers in very reputable journals, published some 5 to 10 years before with no negative comments (yes, it was the time before Internet made such searches trivial). We found a glaring error in the central theorem of one of them. Not just the proof, the result was wrong. Sorry, I don't ...


23

Obsolete, no. Unfashionable, perhaps. One can usually drop the "on the" and still have an acceptable title in current usage, and I expect that is just what many do. On the other hand, I, like Massimo Ortolano, have also recently published an "On the" paper, so apparently I don't really care about the fashionableness of my titles. I would suggest that you ...


0

If you submit the summary (or a substantially similar paper), you should ask the relevant people at the journal beforehand. We can't give an authoritative answer for any particular journal, let alone all of them.


2

Just cite them as they are, and let them stand. You can point out that "the following [1,2,3,4] resulted from my thesis...". Going out of your way to emphasize it was your work, and you should have been first author, or whatever, will just come across as petty. [But then again, it is said university politics are so vicious because so little is at stake...]


0

As a postdoc, you are now in the driver's seat of your research career. "I am in danger of not publishing this work because we cannot agree" -- can you explain this? Is this because they're wearing you down, or because they have the capability of stopping you, or getting back at you? You need an ally. Look around. Good luck.


7

I distrust it for an entirely different reason. I once wanted to download a paper, and could only do it if I signed up. I signed up by logging on with my facebook account... Well, academia.edu took my profile information, and, without me knowing it, created an academia profile. With my picture, publications it could find via search engines, and a list of ...


1

In my experience, Academia.edu is useful mostly for [2] - discovering relevant research. [1] happens mostly through participating in feedback sessions for unpublished manuscripts. Definitely not for [3] and [4], as they are not supported. Usefulness for discovery comes in 3 ways: a) The home News feed: you will find out about: 1) publications of people you ...


7

(I assume here that you're talking about admission to PhD programs.) I'm not in computer science, so I can't speak with authority. We have a number of users here who are in US computer science departments and maybe one of them can step in. However, I would think that first-author publications would not be essential for admission to good PhD programs in ...


2

The Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, a German research funder, uses corresponding authorship as a criterion for paying publication costs with open-access publishers (source). In this context, the corresponding author is the one whose funder paid for the publication.


3

Take classes from professors you'd like to do research with. Do really well. Ask good questions. Participate. Go by office hours and talk to the prof. Show interest. Try to read and understand their work. But don't be so persistent that you become annoying. You're looking for a personal fit as well as demonstrating your interest.


1

To me, using academic citation databases (such as Scopus or Web of Knowledge) is the obvious choice for these types of searches, since they have option for filtering on article type (which Google Scholar doesn't have). You haven't explained why you "... feel some limitations.." when using ScienceDirect, so it is hard to know exactly what you feel is lacking. ...


2

Dirty secret of the textbook publishing industry: many textbooks list a copyright date of the year after they are released. With US copyright protection lasting 70 years beyond the death of the author, they are not interested in a single extra year of copyright protection 100 years in the future (in many fields, textbooks are obsolete after a decade; even ...


4

It's a common thing for publishers to set the copyright date as late as possible so as to get an extra year of copyright protection. It's quite common to see books that appear in print in stores in the fall of one year (say 2012) bearing copyright dates in the next year (say 2013.) Apparently, if someone were to pirate the book during the period immediately ...


10

You are not showing the location of publication, however in the U.S., while Copyright is established the moment the work is created, the only effective way to claim infringement is to have registered the work with the U.S. Government's Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov). The date shown is more than likely the date that they received confirmation of ...


3

Legally, the year of copyright is when the work was written. That can be very different from the publication year. Some texts have been buried in personal papers for many years after the death of the author, and only published posthumously.


5

The year of copyright is the year the work is created (if the published version is licensed), or the year of the transfer (when you sign over your rights). Journals can be behind schedule, so that a cover year can be any number of years behind the actual year of appearance.


6

As I see it, the issue is not actually how publishing and reviewing work. There are lots of alternative models out there, including modifications of blinding (e.g., Frontiers names reviewers when a paper is published), alternative approaches to peer review (e.g., IETF RFCs, math and physics use of arXiv), and decreased need for additional journals by ...


2

(For the record, it is indeed about "status/prestige", if not for the senior person, for junior co-authors, who are invariably judged by the most conservative possible standards (the convenience of which is that more negative conclusions are allowed...), ...) My slightly-new point here is that "tenure" does not promise good pay raises, a decent office, ...


2

A few tips: - Have good work to write about. - Have work that is reliable and solid, and communicate clearly why it is correct and interesting. - Have interesting results that solve a valuable problem or present interesting questions for further investigation, which a reader would probably not have thought of without your work. - Read the Call for Papers ...


3

If your intention is to publish a paper in good journals and conferences then you have to show that your algorithm works in more than one case, just one page is not enough, except if that is the specific intention, lets say, collect data from Google Finance pages about each company. First prove correctness, which could be done formally, running a good ...


2

Generally speaking the publications listed in a CV greatly evaluates your suitability for a particular scientific job. So it is always good to highlight the job related publications in the CV, no matter where and when it was published or who contributed less. Addition to this, list all other publications to increase the strength of your CV.


1

It is always a good achievement to develop an existing algorithm or write a new algorithm. But your paper will be highly evaluated if the algorithm works for various dataset. The strength of the paper will again increase if you can make a comparison with various available dataset and concluded the performance of the algorithm. You can also give the algorithm ...


7

Typically, your C.V. is expected to contain a fairly complete accounting of your life's scientific work (unless you are so advanced in your career that you can do a "selected publications" CV that just lists your greatest hits). As such, it is generally best to list every publication on which you are listed as an author, no matter when it may have been ...


6

I think that this can be clarified with a thought experiment. Let's say that rather than observing a Twitter conversation (or other social media), you were part of a three-way discussion with the two experts in the hallway at a conference. During the course of the conversation, some key facts and sources are mentioned, and this inspires you to look them ...


8

This is not a situation that calls for subtlety. I recommend adding large bold capital letters across the top of the first page: PRELIMINARY VERSION — DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE I would also include a footnote at the bottom of the title page indicating where the final version will be made available.


4

A footer is likely to be overlooked. Put the statement that this is unpublished, preliminary results, in your abstract or so. You might also mark it by overprinting with "Preliminary" by using e.g. LaTeX' draftwatermark package.


13

I am a mathematician (full professor in a top ten US pure mathematics department). In pure mathematics, the top four or five journals (in terms of prestige) are almost universally agreed upon; perhaps the least ambiguous three in the top five are Annals, Inventiones, and JAMS. None of these is open access: Annals is published by a university press, JAMS by ...


1

In addition to @jakebeal's points, I think the more “traditional” ways should be mentioned: E-mail. Usually, an author can be marked as “corresponding author” and associated with an e-mail address. Sure, it is not public, but I suspect it is one of the more common ways that comments and discussions actually happen. Talks. When you present your work at a ...


3

To comment on the options you present (my comments in bold): Use the A summary of B and cite to A. (Don't do this) Use the A summary of B and cite to B. (This would generally be poor form; you want to verify the accuracy of the summary and ideally form your own understanding; in extreme cases it could be plagiarism; that said if you are merely using ...


-1

Another platform is The Winnower, where you can post any article, or even blog posts, and receive a DOI, archival and have the opportunity to receive comments/peer reviews. DISCLAIMER: I am affiliated with The Winnower.


5

I'm aware of three general approaches that seem to be currently effective for seeding such discussion. Listed in order from most direct to least direct: Comments hosted by the journal itself: a number of journals that are embracing open science principles are embracing commentary directly. With this, you don't need to take your article anywhere else for ...


1

From a UK standpoint, I've yet to see an example of two open-access funder/institution policies that fundamentally conflict with each other. There is a lot of variance between them in details, and some are more stringent than others, so you could certainly do something that would be enough for Policy A but not enough for Policy B. However, it's very hard to ...


5

Reposting my answer from the original thread There have been multiple studies about this over the years and in different fields, indicating a link rot on the order of a few percent per year. Here are some, in chronological order: Randy J. Carnevale, Dominik Aronsky, The life and death of URLs in five biomedical informatics journals, International Journal ...


1

You should see if the publisher allows other publications of your work. For example you could publish the same article to a reputable and high traffic blog within the industry. Most blogs allow comments and if it's an industry specific blog then you should only get people within that industry commenting. If you don't want to republish the same article then ...


1

The answer seems to be field-dependent. In fields such as mathematics, it's common practice not to worry about fitting the original submission to the journal's specific style. See Should you conform to journal formatting requirements for the initial submission?. Having said that, the OP concerns ACM Transactions, and I have to go along with Dave Clarke: ...


2

The editor, who selects the reviewers, may not be familiar with the particular sub-area, when a journal is not hyper-narrowly focused. In that case, providing a list of potential reviewers directs the editor's attention to possible scholars in the area. Once your attention has been drawn to an individual, you can spend some time discovering whether they ...


7

Submit in the format they ask for, otherwise paper is likely to be rejected without being read. You won't be reviewing the paper, so don't worry about how awful you think it is. It's all here: tweb.acm.org/author.html including Articles must follow the "Small Standard Format" described in the ACM formatting guidelines.


3

If the paper you are speaking about is a published research paper, you should contact the publisher (e.g., Springer), as they do deal with copyright issues. If the paper is a technical paper, written by a set of authors about a subject, and those papers are hosted on an university website or a research-based company, then you need to contact the authors. ...


1

I disagree with the other answer, which states that an extended version of an earlier paper cannot be published if it does not contribute new methods or results. Extended papers (e.g., an extended journal article of a shorter conference paper) are common in many fields. The extended version may specify important details, that were left out of the shorter ...


0

At least a publication should show a contribution. Now publishing two papers with essentially same results/contribution is plagiarism; and even if you manage to publish both, you will damage your academic future and credibility as a researcher.


2

The dark side of post-publication peer review The main issue raised here seems to be the problem of policing who gets to comment on an article, and how they are identified. Anonymity is important to allow good criticism to be made, but also opens the flood-gates for trouble.


2

Regardless of whether the end-result would be better, one problematic part of a shift is always the shift. There are a lot of processes in place based around the current system, and it's very unlikely all stakeholders will simultaneously be in favour of change. Even if all academics agreed that moving to post-publication would be beneficial, there's a good ...


4

In my mind, there are three semi-related problems with post-publication peer review: It's difficult for the lay press to distinguish between pre- and post-publication reviewed papers, and for many "breaking" articles, I'd be concerned about reports of spurious results becoming more common, not less. For example, if I publish a paper on a risk factor for X ...


4

The function of the editor in a regular reviewed journal is to determine whether a submission meets the intellectual standards of that journal. The standards are in fact largely established by the editor, via explicit policy statements, choice of reviewers, and the editor's power to make final decisions that are contrary to the opinion of the majority of ...


0

Perhaps their particular niche has no open-source high-reputation venue. It still costs money to operate a publication site, and if it produces a print edition there might not be enough interest in the publication through advertising alone to cover its costs, and maybe only subscriptions are enough. I mean, how many people are going to want to read "Thumb ...


6

Since folks objected, let me simplify my answer to the key point: Because the journals they want to publish in decided to paywall their websites. To change this, you can create an equally (or more) respected journal (or equivalent) which isn't paywalled, and/or find a way to encourage parallel publication in non-paywalled form, and/or find a way to ...


60

A couple reasons come to mind: Tenured professors still care about prestige. And they still have promotions to consider - for example, from Associate to Full Professor, or if they fancy going after a Chair or Deanship. Open access publications are not (beyond perhaps their open status) inherently more virtuous as journals. It's possible that the best place ...


30

I wonder why tenured professors still publish in pay-walled venues. I can understand that non-tenured professors are publication pressured, but once one gets tenured, why should one still place knowledge behind walls? Who says they are placing knowledge behind walls? In many fields it's perfectly feasible to publish in pay-walled journals but still ...



Top 50 recent answers are included