65

I think this is a good example of putting too much faith in an average measure like Impact Factor or SJR when you talk about the 'reputation' of a journal. In 2015, in its first year, SoftwareX published "Gromacs: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers", which was extremely highly cited ...


37

It could be that your co-author attempted to reach out to you in order to get your permission to use your name but never got a response, i.e. old email/ not known address, ran out of time and had to publish without your name. I would advise getting in touch with your colleague first in order to establish what happened before using the nuclear option. It may ...


25

You're putting the cart before the horse here. Step 0 is to contact your previous supervisor and ask for clarifications. You may or may not get an answer, and if you get one it may very well disappoint you, but I'm willing to bet no journal editor or university administrator will want to proceed unless you first tried to resolve the issue with your old ...


20

You should ask your advisor. They will be able to tell you if your funding comes from a grant, and if so, they can give you the details you need to report (e.g. oftentimes a grant ID number is required). If indeed your funding is coming from a research grant, then it may very well be important to disclose this. Not only for the journal, but it may also be ...


16

Yes, you can complain to the editor. If you complain to IEEE, the publisher, they will probably refer you to the editor. You can request retraction or request a correction adding your name as an author. A correction would require the agreement of all authors. You can also complain to the university, but the university can only punish the supervisor. They ...


12

Yes, you need to contact the editor immediately. You don't want them to waste time putting the wrong version into the production system. If the submission was online, they may have to reset the system to permit the update (or not). You can offer to send the paper directly. If an online system permits an update, then do that, but also inform the editor so ...


10

Wow, yes that is completely unethical. I recently stopped working at an academic institution, but I still collaborate with my former colleagues and we continue to publish old projects that I was involved in, with me being an author still. I think you have two options: Contacting the university you did you postdoc at. Email the head of faculty, or if ...


10

It's much more important to send something right away, so that they have as much time as possible to look at it, rather than wasting precious hours finding just the right words. State clearly and concisely what you are asking them to do, and when you need it done by Explain briefly the reason for the short deadline Apologize for the rush and acknowledge ...


10

It's fairly common for journals to ask for reviewer recommendations. This is to help them get reviewers. Suggested reviewers make the editor's job easier, since they no longer need to work that hard to find people who can review the paper. The downside isn't that it's unethical - I don't see why it would be - but rather that the authors are going to suggest ...


8

A significant number of physics journals require authors to recommend referees. So it is common to recommend referees. I do not believe that recommending referees is unethical. It is the editor that picks the referees, not the recommending author. If the editor picks the author's recommendations without considering the quality of those referees, the ...


7

I work for Conpher. Conpher was started by 35 postdoc researchers who want to share journal article publication experiences in order to share advice on where best to publish your research. Conpher is a is free platform available for all to search. We are independent of all journals and publishers. We launched in June 2020. Colleagues in over 30 countries ...


6

There are many possible reasons. Perhaps the author(s) withdrew it. Perhaps the editor made a decision somehow, though given the time, probably a reject. Of course, you can ask the editor, and you may or may not get a real reason.


6

Moving on is the best approach, as @lighthouse suggests. If you don't like the best approach and prefer to combat it, you can ask the editor for another reviewer. Politely, on a day you feel great about everything else in your life and after being absolutely showered by compliments by all of your friends has put you in the very most positive mindset, write a ...


6

The arxiv has a dedicated field where you can add the DOI. (Note that this will not create a new version.) In addition, most journals will allow you to upload the final accepted version (that is, the version with the corrections you did following the referee comments, but without any copyediting done by the journal), so you can additionally upload that ...


5

The simple and short answer is Yes! You have the freedom to try and publish anything you want, assuming the publisher is accepting it. Now the long answer. Your concern is that since you do not have any expertise in this area you might do a poor job. This concern is valid and indeed there are high chances that you will do a poor job. But there is no rule ...


5

Summary There is no way of deducing the fate of your manuscript with reasonable certainty except a decision letter that says so. In particular, if your manuscript is certain to be rejected, there is no reason for the journal to spend further time on it instead of immediately telling you. Main Argument In the vast majority of cases, you can apply the ...


4

It is probably best that it goes in the bibliography, which should represent a full accounting of the resources you draw on. It is an obvious place to put the URL of the web site. In general, it is better to be a bit formal in such things than informal, whether you literally need to cite it or not.


4

A small addendum to @Allure's and @AnonymousPhysicist's answer. The "one recommended, one self-invited" policy is based on two ideas: the authors have a good idea of the experts in the field, and can do a good job identifying people who will give a knowledgeable review; ... but reviewers recommended by the authors may be biased toward them. So ...


4

There are two options: Upload the revised version that you submitted to the journal (i.e. the one which got accepted finally). But, don't upload the post-produced pdf that you got from the publisher (and did not compile yourself from a .tex); this is not allowed by most journals. Further, you might want to look at the journal's statements about arXiv ...


4

In principle, publishing in a prestigious journal may help reach many readers and/or boost your career. The practice of judging articles by the journals they appear in is widespread although also widely denounced (cf the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment). In practice, a lot depends on your field of research, your career stage, and the ...


3

By comparing the CVs of academis who have permanent jobs with those who do not, you can show that publishing in a prestigious journal is, in fact, career changing. Having publications in prestigious journals is strongly correlated with later receiving a stable academic job. This in no way means that everyone should spend all their time on trying to publish ...


3

I am completely disillusioned with prestige at this point in my academic career. It is all about the strength of the peer review committee for me now, nothing less. I work on the intersection between engineering and computer science, so I get to read literature from both community and I cannot tell you how many completely **** paper makes it through the &...


3

I agree with "move on". Most of the problems here are with the editor and/or editorial staff, not with the reviewers. That is, the reviews may indeed be bad or slow, but since this is common (as @Bryan Krause says, or following Sturgeon's law, "90% of everything is crap"), it is the editor's sole purpose to (1) pick reviewers who are ...


2

arXiv automatically ingests publication metadata from many journals and some other sources. So the DOI might be automatically updated for you once your article is published. For a major journal like ApJ, I would expect that to be the case. If that turns out not to happen, then you can update the DOI and journal reference metadata on the version of the paper ...


2

I would move on. Everyone makes experiences like that, and some other time, everyone gets lucky with the reviewers as well. So in the large scheme of things, such experiences cancel out each other.


2

The most likely explanation: The editor invited too many reviewers, with the expectation that most of them would decline. Other reviewers submitted their review before you, so your review was no longer needed. It is like an overbooked flight.


2

Another review was submitted that left the editor in no doubt that the paper should be rejected (typically for reasons where there is no room for a different opinion, e.g. incontrovertible evidence of plagiarism, duplicate submission, a fatal flaw in the problem definition, etc).


1

Another explanation: The editor forgot that they had already asked you for a review a short while ago. Realizing this and not wanting to burden you twice in a short time, they paddled back.


1

The editor hastily selected reviewers, and after the fact encountered information or 'came to a realization' that having you review the article would constitute a conflict of interest. This may be real or perceived. I believe, however, this would be a less likely scenario than those suggested in the other answers above.


1

From my perspective, you shall choose the journal that meets your research field and direction. It should be peer-reviewed and respected in your narrow area of research (ask your advisor/colleagues). Many groups prefer to publish mostly in Nature-like journals. I would say that there you see more like a future prospects rather than full results with ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible