Suppose that someone wants to publish his idea and his first successful experiments in a venue and then perform some extra experiments (for a more powerful proof) and publish it in another venue.
- Submitting the first to a conference hope to be accepted soon and then submit the second one after a while to a journal, referencing the first.
- Submitting both of them to journals and write them in different manners.
- Waiting until future experiments finish and combining them to be published as one journal paper.
I count, here, some negative and positive points of the ideas
- In the 1st idea, the first paper proves that your innovation has improved a method in the state of the art and the second one refers to the first and says that this innovation, even, is able to improve other more-powerful methods in state of the art. Of course both of them are contributions. But, lacking the powerful contribution of combining them in one paper.
- In the 1st idea, you are able to present your work in an international conference and take advantage of global feedback.
- In the 2nd idea, you should suffer side effects of deleting some parts from each paper, to avoid plagiarism.
- In the 2nd idea, you will have two journal papers which normally are more creditable than having one conference and one journal paper.
- In the 3rd idea, you should wait for finishing the experiments.
- In the 3rd idea, though you have one journal paper instead of two, this paper is published in a more creditable journal than others.
However, please let me know the optimal choice.