Timeline for Whether to ask journal editor to review two papers simultaneously because the papers are mutually dependent on each other?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 19, 2015 at 1:49 | comment | added | Greg | @xLeitix On one hand I see the logic of your argument. On the other hand reviews are often not really reliable sources of opinion on editing and rhetorical decisions. In technological fields it is very common that the implementation and technical details of a certain device is far beyond the interest and comprehension of the readers who will be the ones actually using the device. See MRI, NMR, etc. In this case strictly focusing on two topics in separate manuscripts is actually a good way to do it, and the "i want to know all" is the sign of poor craftsmanship. | |
| Mar 18, 2015 at 15:05 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | @xLeitix: "two (presumably) separate set of reviewers asking for the other part are at least a good indication" - not too reliable, maybe. Quite some reviewers seem to automatically ask for getting any mentioned other paper B (or complain about its unavailability) on the assumption that it contains more information helpful (but not indispensable) for understanding paper A, which is not necessarily the case. It's like a trigger, a bit like in an oral exam: When you mention some X and imply there's more information available about X, the reviewer/examiner will ask about X ;) | |
| Mar 18, 2015 at 8:33 | comment | added | Kimball | Hmm... that must be nice. I guess this is how people in science fields can read so many papers so quickly (that, plus them often being much shorter). | |
| Mar 18, 2015 at 8:26 | comment | added | xLeitix | @Kimball Yes, at least in my field the basic assumption is that papers do not assume specific knowledge about the author's earlier work to be useful. Of course they do sometimes expect non-trivial prior knowledge about the research field, but even that is somewhat frowned upon. Referring to a different paper for non-standard terminology would be pretty close to an auto-reject. If this is different in maths I cannot tell, but it would seem at least mildly surprising to me. | |
| Mar 18, 2015 at 7:54 | comment | added | Kimball | Is it really expected that papers in science are supposed to be self-contained? In math, many papers are written with the assumption that the reader has read (and understood) certain previous works. Though I hate when papers just refer to other papers for notation without bothering to recall it. (And often the cited paper will not be easily accessible.) | |
| Mar 18, 2015 at 7:06 | comment | added | xLeitix | @Greg I agree, but two (presumably) separate set of reviewers asking for the other part are at least a good indication that the split in this case wasn't all that natural. | |
| Mar 18, 2015 at 6:31 | comment | added | Greg | It is hard to judge without seeing the manuscripts, whether the split is justifiable. There are cases when splitting the manuscript actually does good for readability. I have seen papers where the review process forced the authors to jam together several different studies, and they were not pretty to put it politely. | |
| Mar 17, 2015 at 15:21 | comment | added | Floris | Thanks for our thoughts. I would much prefer a single paper - splitting was really done to accommodate what are in essence artificial limits. I am looking for "what is done" so we may approach this in the most practical way. There is a clear reason for wanting to publish in this particular journal... but having options is a good thing. | |
| Mar 17, 2015 at 15:11 | history | answered | xLeitix | CC BY-SA 3.0 |