New answers tagged

2

Usually not, but as Buffy said, ask. I don't know your field, either, so this may be specific to my own. However, accepted papers are almost never modified after they are peer reviewed, since even a "minor" change will need to be reviewed again. Think of what it might mean if a mathematical proof were accepted, then slightly modified but those ...


0

For Computer Science conferences, I found this article by three AI researchers/profs very helpful: https://medium.com/@deviparikh/how-we-write-rebuttals-dc84742fece1


2

3/4 days after the submission, the status changed to "under review" and till now the status remained unchanged. I am in a hurry and need to get the final decision as soon as possible. If you are in a severe hurry, then consider whether or not you can post it to an e-print repository such as arXiv, bioRxiv, ChemRxiv, or even GitHub, or your own ...


11

You cannot speed up the process. Everyone’s in a hurry to get their stuff published so your own situation is repeated with pretty much every submission. More importantly, what are the odds the manuscript will be accepted as is, with no revisions? Be ready to quickly make revisions, and be sure to address all concerns of the referees, and this will speed up ...


1

It is highly likely that your paper will be accepted. It is usually the editor who makes such decisions (if this decision has been mentioned in the email they sent you, then it was the editor). If the email also mentions that, upon submission, your paper will not be sent out for review, then you may want to contact the editor (although if I were you, I would ...


1

It would depend on who made the "recommendation". If it was a reviewer, then, no, it doesn't imply acceptance. It makes it more likely, but not assured. An editor can, and sometimes does, reject a paper even with positive recommendations. That might be for business or space reasons, perhaps. I think the "future steps" is to wait for a ...


1

If I'm interpreting your question correctly, you're asking about how to respond to a request for potential reviewers by the editor. It is what it looks like on face value - you suggest potential reviewers, which the editors may or may not use. There is no "list" to choose from. You can suggest anyone as long as they have the technical know-how to ...


1

If your goal is simply to timestamp the content, then you can create a hash and make that public. That is, you compute a MD5 or SHA hash of your pdf and tweet that, put it on your wikipedia page, or attach it to another arxiv submission. This provides proof that your document existed at that time, without revealing the contents of that document. At a later ...


1

arXiv will keep every version on the website, so people can always go back and see what version 1 or version 2 looked like, even when the paper is on it's 5th version (for example). These are some places where you can put your pre-prints, and then replace them without a version history being visible to any outsider: Academia.edu ResearchGate Mendeley ...


2

You can have this functionality without even trusting the hypothetical public server with any of your data treasure. Free public timestamp authorities (which follow RFC 3161) allow you to timestamp your article so that it is cryptographically provable that the article existed before a certain date (when you requested a timestamp from that particular public ...


5

The website you are looking for probably doesn't exist and if it does it's moot because no one will check it. Then if another paper comes along with the same ideas, people will read that paper, not yours. Moreover, even if you have proof, i bet few people will actually care that you came first. (And, pardon my harshness, deservedly so, because you purposedly ...


4

Figshare, for one, has the facility to apply an embargo to an item such that the material (e.g. an attached PDF) itself is not visible to the public, though the content description is. The timestamp is in the History section near the bottom of the item page. It looks like it even allows generating a private link for reviewers to access the material, but I've ...


10

Focusing just on the mistakes angle. Don't worry about having mistakes in arxiv papers, its a preprint service for a reason people know they are not full reviewed papers so my contain mistakes (not that fully reviewed papers don't also contain mistakes). You can always update the version in the arxiv when you realize a mistake. I usually update my papers ...


33

Basically, if I understand you correctly, you want proof of priority without publishing. Well, this problem is well known from middle-ages and renaissance where people wanted to be able to prove they have the earliest solution without revealing what it is (so that if someone finds it, they can prove they were there first). They often used anagrams, today you ...


2

There are a lot of things you can do, but if you want the paper to be published by this journal, it is almost certainly necessary for you to undertake the major revision. Refusing to revise will almost certainly result in an immediate rejection, based on the editor comments. You can withdraw the paper and submit it elsewhere as always. I'll note that "...


-1

SciPost Physics would be an alternative: good quality, open access, free to publish. However, you might first want to check if your subfield is adequately represented in their editorial college: https://scipost.org/colleges/physics


0

This entire situation is strange: to start with: you submit a paper that apparently lacks a good introduction with motivation for the research, a conclusion, and references the reviewers did not notice the lack of references, a big and obvious problem with the paper (but hopefully easy to solve) the reviewers did not comment on the lack of presence of a ...


4

Usually appeals are not a good idea, but in this case it might be your best choice. It is very odd for an editor to "suggest" appeal. https://journals.aps.org/authors/editorial-appeal-procedures Appeals can only be on the basis of procedure (not science!). The procedure says decisions are based on review by referees. Five of six referees said ...


Top 50 recent answers are included