171

I don't know if it's normal, but it should be normal for all reviewers to make reasonable efforts to verify that the claims authors make are correct, so to the extent that it's not normal, I can only commend the reviewer for being willing to make an effort that other reviewers don't make. What you sense as "distrust" is the reviewer doing their job, nothing ...


61

I come from a different field, in which the code we use isn't a major output. But if a referee asked for the code, we would provide it and happily. Most of our work is done in python so an executable wouldn't be usual, the source would (also true for matlab). In fact the only thing I find slightly odd here is the use of executable rather than source. Don'...


32

You must cite your source every time you use someone else's intellectual contributions. A review article contributes curation of sources (among other things) as its intellectual content. If you use that intellectual content, you must cite the review paper (in addition to the individual sources). Otherwise you are misleading the reader into believing that ...


31

It is probably a good thing to do, just for the experience. It will also get you on the good side of the professor. However, make sure, in accepting, that the professor and others know that you haven't finished your degree yet. That might cause them to withdraw the invitation, of course, but it should be made clear.


28

In my capacity as editor for a journal, I see this quite frequently. I think it is a pity that you are left on your own to try to resolve the problem. An editor should provide some indication of possible solutions in tricky situations like this. So my first advice is to contact the editor and briefly explain the dilemma and ask for some advise on how to ...


28

What this means to me is that Section X needs to be revised. Reviewer #1 is pointing out that section X is not well-motivated as it stands -- because they can't figure out it's relation Reviewer #2 is pointing out that section X is not good enough as it stands -- because it doesn't address relevant issues about X. Thus, the two are not necessarily ...


26

Literature reviews, often referred to by journals as just "Reviews" can and are their own form of research paper. My very first publication was a review like this, so it's clearly possible. How viable a paper like that is will probably depend on the conventions of your field. For example, mine generally requires that these "expert reviews" (in contrast to a ...


24

Getting a review in two days late for a journal article is pretty common. I wouldn't worry about anything less than being a week late. For conferences, deadlines can be tighter, but 2 days is nothing. Ideally you would let the editor know your review will be a couple of days late, but even if you didn't, it is not the end of the world.


22

The point of a survey paper of the type you are discussion (as distinct from a systematic review), is to provide an organized view of the current state of the field. As such, you should not be attempting to cite every paper, but only the ones that are significant (which will still be an awful lot). Writing a good survey paper is hard, and there really aren'...


21

It seems tempting to cite only the issue of a journal when it contains several articles that you want to refer to from your introduction. Especially so if it is a special issue directly related to your paper. As to your question whether it is an accepted practice, I haven't seen so, but it could depend on the field of research of course. Personally, I would ...


19

There is no reason why you cannot write a review on your own, but there are at least three possible problems: Many journals accept reviews on invitation only (but if you can find a journal that is willing to publish your review that is great). Writing a review takes a lot more time than you think, especially if you are starting in the field and are not ...


19

My personal rule for this is that I go ahead and suggest the paper in my review, and in the "Notes to the Program Chair/Editor" I disclose that I am suggesting a paper of my own. That way, I am covered on both fronts: I am suggesting papers that are relevant to the authors and I let the Editor decide whether it is a fair suggestion.


17

First, I'll remark that (at least in fields close to me: physics and chemistry), the process for submitting review articles is typically handled in a different way than other articles (which I'll call “research articles”). Review articles take a lot of effort to write, and that their publication may depend not only on intrinsic quality and scientific ...


17

Often, but not always, reviewers try and be helpful. For example, a reviews that simply says that "crucial aspect of the paper is broken/wrong/needs to be reworked", tends not to be as helpful as "crucial aspect of the paper is broken and would be improved by doing X". Of course when you get a second review saying to do Y and X and Y are incompatible, then ...


17

Chances are the editor noticed you authored a paper on a similar topic and is inviting you based on that. There's no harm doing this. You might feel you're not qualified, but you're being invited, therefore the editor thinks you're qualified. You shouldn't worry about writing a bad review either - full professors can write crappy reviews also, and if you ...


17

The fact that they addressed you as "Dr." doesn't mean anything. In situations like a reviewer invitation, where the editor is sending an email to someone they don't know well, it's common that they will address the email with some generic title like "Dr." or "Professor" even though the title may not actually apply to the recipient. It's just too much ...


16

Is it a good idea to upload a version of the survey on Arxiv and keep on updating it? It's worth doing if you have the time and energy, but it's unconventional. There are some continuously updated survey papers (such as the dynamic surveys in the Electronic Journal of Combinatorics), but the usual expectation is that a survey represents a snapshot in time. ...


14

To summarise the situation with your data:- 1) You came up with an algorithm on paper/Matlab/whatever. 2) You implemented that algorithm in some programming language. 3) You built a set of test data to exercise your algorithm, and came up with some results for what it should do in theory. 4) You put that test data through the code and came out with some ...


13

Reviewers' suggestions are just that: suggestions. So, read both of them, make your own idea on how useful each of the suggestions would be, then depending on available resources, you may choose to follow one, the other, both, or none. If you can do both, then of course do it, compare the results, and that will vastly improve your paper! If you cannot do ...


12

Purely opinion. Possible, yes. Guaranteed, no. You should not bargain. You should follow your university's procedure for evaluating doctoral theses. Your advisor's job is to advise you on what should be in your thesis. If he is ambitious and you do as he suggests, it will make both of you look good. I have often observed that if the PhD student is ...


12

Do you feel that the demand of my supervisor is too much? I work in theoretical mathematics. In that field, a requirement of four publications in journals of impact factor greater than 2 would stop more than 99% of students from getting a PhD thesis. (I got my PhD in 2003 and am now a tenured, "full" professor. If I'm not mistaken, I have zero ...


12

The purpose of references is for readers to look up the sources of the information you present in your article. If these publications are exactly the same, word for word, then I would not worry too much about it and I would cite the most easily accessible source or the one with a DOI and only cite it once, so that it will be easier for readers to find the ...


11

I have handled similar situations by adding a sentence citing the article, such as Smith (2003) provides a useful summary of this topic. My reasoning is that since I found the review article very helpful, people reading my article may be interested as well. I know I appreciate references like this.


11

Updated review papers are not particularly unusual, as a Google Scholar search readily demonstrates. You should definitely explicitly declare the paper as an updated review, and it is probably best to send the paper to the same journal as before. If you can get in touch with the journal editors, they may even be able to expedite the review process, since ...


11

Based on the background you gave, particularly that you are writing a detailed review article, then I think you should definitely include this article. Part of the function of a good review article is that it documents the history of scholarly thinking on the topic of question. From your explanation, this article presented an idea so apparently true that ...


10

A review paper is likely also known as a "survey paper", where you read (i.e. survey) related works in the field and then comment on them. Usually, a review paper should be able to contribute a small amount of knowledge in its own right to the field by providing a taxonomy of work. Another type of paper that reviews extensively related work but isn't ...


10

When I look at the part of the project which should process the general_input_file, there is a statement which looks like this: if the name of the given input file equals specific_input_file, then return specific_output_file. [...] Otherwise, try to process the generate_input_file and generate general_output_file. At this point the software breaks....


10

I recommend that you find another co-author who is willing and able to spend the time that you cannot. An good candidate may be a supervisee (PhD student, postdoc) who needs to get more familiar with the topic anyway. A fresh view may also help to address possible problems with the paper.


10

I will use 'Johnson (2016)' and 'Smith (2015)' rather than 'Y' and 'X' in my examples: Explicitly corroborating Smith's (2015) hypothesis that mice love cheese, Johnson (2016) demonstrated that mice ate cheese rather than carrots, when offered both. Smith (2015) argued that mice love cheese. Johnson (2016), citing Smith, experimentally verified this ...


10

I wouldn't even ask. Just "tell". Send a short email saying you will send the review a week later (more time than needed, don't want to come back in 2 days again). Don't phrase the email in a manner that requires a response from the editor--tell, don't ask (cut the back and forth chatter). If the editor wants/needs to pull the paper, he will do so. But ...


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