New answers tagged

0

I agree with all other answers. Peer-reviewed scientific journals are not the place for imprecise terminology. If you really think your work contains good research, perhaps you could look at depositing the research in an rxiv pre-print server. These are not formally peer reviewed, but are part of the scientific record. It might help you get some valuable ...


3

No, it’s not possible. No one wants to read a research paper with vague and imprecise explanations that don’t make use of the correct terminology of the topic you’re writing about. We have a place to read such things — it’s called “everywhere that’s not the scientific literature”. Research papers are exactly where researchers go to read precise, carefully ...


12

This isn't your problem. It's the role of the editor to find reviewers. The only things you can do are: Do more exciting research so people want to review your paper. Suggest reviewers to the editor (you should have a good idea of who works in your field and hence is likely to be interested in your paper).


11

You can ask an editor for advice. If the editor has a plan for finding referees then you can probably leave the paper in place for a while longer. Otherwise you can consider withdrawing it and submitting it elsewhere. But, submitting it to another journal might leave you at the beginning of the same frustrating cycle. There may be overlap between referees at ...


6

Is it interesting to compare the two compositions? If so, combining the results in a single paper may make for a better, stronger article, as Snijderfrey suggested. If not, separate papers that dive into the specifics of the materials may be preferable. You say that "providing all of the results for the two combinations in one paper would make it overly ...


3

You could consider sending emails to editors of the journals you want to target, asking their opinion on the matter. You want to submit to their journal a paper that has never been published in English before. This may be original and unpublished enough for their tastes. Maybe they won't be interested, but it can't hurt to ask.


7

It is possible to write two publications in such a case, no problem. This is a common strategy. Make sure to cite the other work where appropriate. However, in a paper you have to address a specific research question. It could well be the case that especially the second paper is only an incremental step forward because it does not include too many ...


6

I'm surprised that you ask, actually. It is perfectly fine to produce scholarly work alone. In many fields it is highly valued. But, your suggestion of asking another to serve as co-author for some sort of "padding" would be improper if the other person hasn't contributed to the intellectual content of the paper. Guest authorship is misconduct in ...


1

Because I sent my research there and I added it to the site with ease and no one has reviewed it before sending it This is because Researchgate is NOT a peer-reviewed journal, NOT a book publisher and so on. It is a social network for scientists so that you'd have relevant research in your morning feed instead of funny cat pictures. It is quite brilliant as ...


1

Note that copyright law varies around the world, so your own country's law will apply. In the US and some other places, your copyright rights begin when you make something eligible public in pretty much any way, including Researchgate or your own website. Other places require a specific registration process, though that may be disappearing. Note, however, ...


4

Reviewers are generally expected to judge a submission on it's own merits. Reviews of prior submissions (to completely unrelated venues) are not typically a part of that. I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish by including it. A rejection letter, even a complimentary one, probably isn't going to give you an edge in the review process (but it could ...


0

Make sure you are clear about what your company's policies are about what you are allowed to share about the paper. This is something you should talk about with your boss. Assuming you are allowed to share that the paper exists, who the authors are, what the title is, and the journal where you submitted the paper, you can add a line to your list of ...


2

From the comments it seems that the paper has not yet been published and that you have not yet assigned them (given them) copyrights or license to the paper. You need to sign something for that to happen. Being "in their system" but not publicly visible means nothing. If you have notified them properly, the paper is yours to do with as you please. ...


4

Actually, you don't really have an option. You need to cite your early work that is published in any form to avoid charges of self-plagiarism. Cite what can be seen. Your submission of the new paper will take long enough that you will have an option to update the citation if the older paper is more formally published. Reviewers understand these things. They ...


6

This is an example of a situation in which having a personal web page might be beneficial. Specifically, I suggest doing the following: Set up a personal web page with a section titled Preprints and any other details about you you think are worth highlighting. List your preprint-under-internal-review there, in the format: adamcatto. My grand theory of ...


2

Listing your publications bibliography style, and using a parenthetical comment, or change of font (removing italic, APA style) to identify those works under review, unpublished, or pre-publication is perfectly acceptable. This is often appropriate for technical reports under a grant, or government agencies. If not publicly available, you might have a copy ...


3

Your CV can have a section "Work in Progress". You can list titles (or tentative titles, even obfuscated titles if needed) there. You can mark some of the items "In preparation for publication" or something similar that seems right. "Pre-submission company review" can probably be understood, though it may need a footnote. It ...


Top 50 recent answers are included