I work in Theoretical CS for context.

There is this problem A I've been working on for the past year and wrote and submitted a paper X 3 months ago on a new bound we proved for A. I just recently (literally 2 days ago) got the first round of feedback on the paper and it is extremely good. The reviewers mostly want minor changes and recommended acceptance.

However, in the last 3 month (since I submitted X), I continued working on the problem and broke that upper bound again (just a few weeks ago). I wrote another paper Y that uses a lot of the ideas from paper X, but of course with 1 major key new idea that broke the previous improved upper bound.

I am worried that if I submit Y, the reviewers will think that I got two ideas, and instead of just directly submitting the better Y directly, I decided to "break" things up into two papers instead.

Would this raise any eyebrows or am I overthinking this?

1 Answer 1


Some people might think that and "salami publishing" can be a problem. But your options are limited. It would probably be a mistake to delay the submission of the second paper, lest someone else pick up on the idea. It would probably be a mistake to incorporate the new ideas into the first paper as it will require a new round of review with an uncertain outcome.

If an editor asks, just reassure them that the new ideas came as a result of completing the first paper. That is completely natural.

If the first paper stands on its own, as seems likely, then you really don't have a problem. Of course, the reviewers of the second might not agree that it is a sufficient advance over the first to warrant publication, but that is true in any case. Carry on.

You must log in to answer this question.

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