5

I'm a mathematician with physics background. We recently obtained some results that, in my opinion, has interesting physics interpretations and thus deserve an interdisciplinary attention.

We already wrote a manuscript meant for a math journal. It is super technical and not friendly at all to general audience. I find that a pity, and want to write a kind of "short communication" (actually not sure about the format), in which I would avoid all the mathematical reasonings and only present the interesting interpretations that are relevant for material scientists and soft matter physicists. The purpose is to disseminate our result to a more general audience, and invite interdisciplinary collaborations.

I have no experience of such manuscript. My colleagues suggest that I should try top journals Nature or Science. But I have the concern that such a manuscript has no "original result", which seems to be required by these top journals. Then my colleagues argue that "interpretations" are original results. But I fear that most of my "interpretations" are just personal opinions and won't count as solid result.

By the way, I do see people publish "long version" then "accompanied short version", which sometimes raises the concern of dual publication. My planned "communication" won't be a short version, but a completely different paper with no overlap.

My question: What should I do in this situation? What journals welcome such manuscript (Nature and Science seems very unfriendly towards mathematics)? How do people usually disseminate technical results?

3
  • 2
    I'd be skeptical of an answer from someone who has not read your work. For Science/Nature you are likely to need both an experiment and a theory. Perhaps PRL? Sep 23, 2019 at 9:08
  • @AnonymousPhysicist Well, indeed, I have absolutely no experiment ...
    – Hao Chen
    Sep 23, 2019 at 9:19
  • 5
    Just a quick comment: while you are right to worry that a paper with no "original result" may not get accepted by a top journal (because one is always right to worry that a paper may not get accepted by a top journal), you seem to think that it might raise academic integrity concerns. As long as you clearly cite the other paper and explain in your introduction what the purpose of the second paper is, I don't think you have to worry about academic integrity at all. Sep 23, 2019 at 16:22

4 Answers 4

7

There are journals in physics that encourage interdisciplinary work and also mathematical physics journals. I have seen (and written) Physical Review Letters that have many pages of mathematics in a supplement. See, for example:

Colbrook, Matthew J., Bogdan Roman, and Anders C. Hansen. "How to compute spectra with error control." Physical review letters 122.25 (2019): 250201.

You might do well adding an introduction that addresses the physics and then sending to a mathematical physics journal.

Do not be afraid of covering the same material twice, however. Perhaps you write the paper as a math paper, and then a separate paper that covers in different words the same material from a physics viewpoint. You can always call it a review or guide if that makes you feel more honest. I recently employed that strategy and I hope Referee B feels this is alright.

1

It's very unusual for math papers to appear in Science or Nature, but people do occasionally publish shorter interdisciplinary math papers in PNAS (see this MO answer for some examples).

0

Forget about journals. Mathematical physicists and theoretical physicists read papers on arXiv and do not care about journals. To reach them, what matters is:

  • The choice of arXiv categories. (Not trivial: for example hep-th sounds rather narrow but it is historically the first arXiv category and catches a lot of traffic.)
  • Well-chosen title, abstract, introduction.
  • Have a physicist give feedback before posting on arXiv. Improvements made when publishing in a journal count for little: most people who might read your paper will have already have done so by the time it is published in a journal.

For an example of a paper written by mathematicians for physicists, see https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.05418 .

For a discussion of how arXiv is used by (many) physicists, see my blog post http://researchpracticesandtools.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-open-secrets-of-life-with-arxiv.html

2
  • 3
    Journals are still important to prestige. Sep 24, 2019 at 2:33
  • The OP wants to "disseminate our result to a more general audience, and invite interdisciplinary collaborations", not boost their career. Sep 24, 2019 at 14:45
-2

Nature and Science will want an original result. Physical Review (B) or PRL are likely too high ranked as well. Put it in some place like J. Appl. Physics or Chemistry of Materials or J Chem Phys or Materials Theory or the like. (I don't know the specifics...of course if it involves ceramics those journals are a good fit; if it involves bio, those are good.)

I would encourage you to get it into a real journal (not Arxive). Something like a specialty APS or ACS journal. The archival is superior...ends up being put on acid-free paper and retained for hundreds of years in Harvard library. Digital storage and version control are not as good as dead trees. In addition going through peer review and a copy editor ends up almost all the time pushing a more professional product with lesser typos and the like.

I wouldn't underestimate the difficulty involved in doing what you are trying to do. For one thing the materials journal has to a bit take on faith the math efficacy (or repeat the review of that). But it's not impossible.

Also, try to show some example system and some charts versus temperature or instrument resolution or the like (even if no experiments, just "drawing spaghetti" (band diagrams). Connect it to something.

4
  • 1
    What makes you think PRB is too highly ranked? If anything Chemistry of Materials has a significantly higher IF. But given that the post mentions "soft matter" I'd think it might be out of scope for PRB anyway, though PRE (and maybe PRM) could make sense.
    – Anyon
    Sep 23, 2019 at 22:25
  • I don't know what soft matter is. You might be right.
    – guest
    Sep 23, 2019 at 22:26
  • 1
    Just my impression of Phys Rev B and of Chemistry of Materials. I always had the impression that Physical Review as almost close to Nature/Science. That said, a more mathy thing (no experiments) will fit better in physics world than in Chemistry of Materials (basically an ACS experimental journal). On the gripping hand, there can be a strategy of sliding it into some place that will take the math on faith instead of reparsing it.
    – guest
    Sep 23, 2019 at 22:29
  • Interesting how different that is compared with the view from within physics. Physical Review Letters and Physical Review X get close, yeah. Being invited to submit to Reviews of Modern Physics is possibly even better. However, Physical Review B is respected and dependable, but not that difficult to publish in, at least not for physicists. (As a condensed matter theorist, it's where I usually send solid, but not overly exciting results.) On the other hand I know that materials scientists can have a lot of trouble publishing there if their work has too much chemistry, and not enough physics.
    – Anyon
    Sep 24, 2019 at 0:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .