If a paper is too long, I was advised to split it into two papers. What is the general opinion of reviewers/editors on having "Part I", "Part II" literally in the title of the papers?

Or is it better if I replace "Part I", "Part II" by more descriptive titles?

Thanks. (My field is in Math.)

  • Did you contact the editor of the journal? If you are having a longer proof, they might have procedures for that. – OBu Feb 21 '18 at 8:16
  • There are quite a few famous papers in CS called "Foo bar bizzz, Part I" with no Part II. – Oleg Lobachev Feb 21 '18 at 13:42

You can do that, though a better approach may be to title them something like

Hypersingular monoids in graph theory. Part I: Definitions and basic properties

and then

Hypersingular monoids in graph theory. Part II: Applications to semiregular smoothness theory of spiked stars

This way, you're a bit more expressive than just part 1 and 2.

The downside of this approach is that good journals will ask you to make sure that either "Part I" is already self-contained and of independent interest (which is probably difficult to achieve if you are currently splitting up something you've already written), or that you submit the two parts together (so that the combined oeuvre can be reviewed as a whole). The latter, of course defeats the purpose of splitting it in the first place.

Long papers are a hassle all around. It's difficult to get them through the review process, and much depends on what concretely you have in the paper(s). As a consequence, there is little that can be said in terms of specific advice in your situation without knowing the details of the paper. Talk to some of the experienced people in your field about the situation and ask them how they would suggest you handle it!

| improve this answer | |
  • Actually please, please add the "part I" and "part II". I have seen a few papers which are clearly part 1 and 2 to each other, but have not be named as such and now it is easy to find only one in literature search and miss the other part which might have had the information you actually needed. It also reminds me to be cautious about not mixing them up. – skymningen Feb 22 '18 at 9:17

This keeps happening for a lot of people. Why don't you split it into different titles? What I mean is, try publishing the Part I and then publishing part II as an extension of part I. This has a huge advantage. Plus you get a citation.

| improve this answer | |
  • 5
    This does not seem to actually answer the question, which is about whether to name the two parts as I and II or similar. – Tobias Kildetoft Feb 21 '18 at 7:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.