16

I like the current three top answers right now (by @ObscureOwl and @DmitrySavostyanov and @JackAidley). But I feel like there is one option that is not being represented. You can provide both the pseudo-code and the real-code. Most likely the real-code is too long to be provided in-line in your paper. So you would provide the pseudo-code in the paper. Then ...


7

For online publication, just contact the editor and let them know of the problem, including that you were sent a correct version. It is probably easy to fix as long as they know of the problem, but they might not if you don't tell them. Emphasize that these aren't new changes you request, but just that they seem to have put up the wrong version.


5

Think tanks are not academic endeavors. There is no submission process. There is no peer review. The "editorial board" is not made of researchers. Think tanks are essentially lobbies, but for ideas rather than corporations/industries. They work like any other lobby: they pay a lot of money to recognized researchers/politicians/journalists/cultural figures/......


4

Publishing a paper omitting the main contributor is plagiarism, as well as an ethical violation. Publishing an already-published paper isn't plagiarism (assuming the original authors haven't changed), but it almost surely violates a journal's originality policies. Both will likely lead to retraction. The first will require hard proof, but the second shouldn'...


4

Is publishing runnable code instead of pseudo code shunned? Not that I know of, but this probably depends on the specific subculture of the respective field. In Computer Science is it preferable to describe algorithms using pseudo code rather than real code? It was (see Owen's answer) and sometimes still can be (see considerations below). If so, why? ...


4

There does not have to be a clear distinction. The most important part of pseudo code is, that it should be clear to read. So you do not want to deal with constructs that are not part of the actual algorithm and you do not want to deal with syntax constructs, that are useful in a programming language, but not easy to understand when you do not know the ...


3

There was a time when pseudocode was the clear choice, since programming languages were so crude. The 60's and 70's, but later than that -- it takes time to safely assume a language is in general use, and at the time, not using pseudocode just felt weird. I remember pseudocode including such pie-in-the-sky constructs as: "foreach", for-loops, loops at all (...


3

I think you should ask the editor. They may decide to go ahead and publish your paper, or want to wait for the results of the new experiments to appear. In either case you should revise the paper to discuss the new experiments.


3

My understanding is, online first articles are completely published except for the fact they aren't assigned to an issue. There's literally no production work left. They will also have a DOI. Therefore, although you can't give the full reference yet, you can list it in the application giving the journal name & DOI.


2

I would not use your first name as a last name. Especially in the West, a surname is a kind of "strong" identifier, and using one in publications that doesn't match what you use on a daily basis-- or worse, that matches the wrong daily name-- could lead to many strange situations. People may address you incorrectly (Dr. First Name instead of Dr. Surname), ...


2

Personally, I am a fan of the TeX-Package TikZ. It is easy to draw simple diagrams, include small pictures or create structures by using loops and conditionals. It also supports relative positioning, which makes everything a lot easier than manual placement. Since all of the input is plain text, it works great in combination with source control (e.g., git) ...


1

Sounds like a minor administrative hiccup from the publisher's side where they had two versions of the manuscript and uploaded the older one by mistake. I would point this out to the production staff (the people who sent you the proofs) and expect that they'll be able to handle it. Notifying the editorial board is likely not necessary, since it's got ...


1

I think @EthanBolker's suggestion is spot on: ask the editor. Additionally, if your field is permissive of preprints, you may be able to submit and cite a preprint of the work you've already submitted for review - check the policies of the journal you've already submitted to. Depending on the delays for review on each paper you may be able to update the ...


1

In general you should always cite work you have previously done when you use it. If you don't, you open yourself to a charge of self-plagiarism. The reason for citation is that a reader may need to go back to earlier work to get a full picture. The earlier work included context that is likely missing in the current work, such as the references you used, ...


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