I have recently received reviews for a journal paper I submitted a few months back. The verdict is a major revision (three out of four reviewers requested this, the fourth said accept with minor revisions).

Many of the reviewers felt like we did not justify our approach sufficiently, to which we agree and can improve upon. The editor; however, in their comments to us, stated that we should take a different (much more complicated) approach altogether (even though none of the reviewers suggested changing the entire approach, only to justify why we chose the approach we did).

Question: How should we proceed when the editor’s comments seem much stronger than those of the reviewers?

It is not feasible to accommodate the editor’s requests by the deadline. I’m unsure if the reviewers made (stronger) private comments to the editor requesting larger changes or if the editor interpreted the reviewers comments much differently than we did. The paper will go back to the reviewers after we make the requested changes.

I received the following email:

Dear Prof. X:
You are no longer assigned to manage the review of Manuscript ID #####. The manuscript has been removed from your Associate Editor Center.

What does it mean? I sent the paper 2 months ago and just today I got the email above. Do I have to wait long as a new editor will check the manuscript?

I have a new manuscript to be published in an Elsevier engineering journal that has a maximum limit of 8000 words. I can’t fit the content in this space. Fortunately, the manuscript can be easily split into two manuscripts, say A and B. The first will be concerned with assessing the potential of, say, wind energy in country X and the measurements carried out, while the second manuscript B will be focused on simulating wind energy systems. The first manuscript will be independent, but I’ll have to refer to it in the second one (although, the second article will be understandable without reading the first manuscript). So, I have the following questions:

  1. Should I split the manuscript, or submit it to another journal with flexible space limitations?
  2. Is it a good idea to do that, based on your experience? (I have read a lot about this, but I want to know what the editors prefer and how they handle this situation)
  3. Most importantly, how do I submit the two manuscripts (to the same journal): at the same time or consecutively?

I have a new manuscript to be published in one of Elsevier engineering journals. The journal I’m thinking of has a maximum limit of 8000 words. I can’t fit the content in this space. Fortunately, the manuscript can be easily split into two manuscripts, say A and B. The first will be concerned with assessing the potential of say wind energy in country X and the measurements carried out, while the second manuscript B will be focused on simulating wind energy systems. The first manuscript will be independent, but I’ll have to refer to it in the second one (although, the second article will understandable without reading the first manuscript). So, I have the following questions:
1- should I split the manuscript, or submit it to another journal with flexible space limitations?
2- Is it a good idea to do that, based on your experience? (I have read a lot about this, but I want to know what the editors prefer and how they handle this situation)
3- Most importantly, how I submit the two manuscripts (to the same journal)? In the same time, or consecutively.

My situation: I got two papers underway and the second one was accepted only days after the first one. The second one cites the first one and, naturally, I want the citation to be attributed correctly. Currently, both publications are “accepted” and probably on the editor’s desk or something.

How should I provide the bibliography information for an accepted paper? Can my citation still be accurately attributed to my first paper if I do not have a DOI for it (e.g. in Scopus)? Is there anything I can tell the editors of either journal to guarantee everything is going smoothly?

The field is solid matter physics/materials science.

I have an accepted manuscript published in an Elsevier engineering journal. The status of the article on its sciencedirect page is “In press, corrected proof”. For now the article can be cited using its DOI and year of publication (2017). However, the journal is now working on two volumes: the December volume of 2017 and the January volume of 2018. I have noticed that some articles accepted after mine have been assigned to the January 2018 volume, while my article and some other articles accepted within the same week (1-7 July) are still in the corrected proof status.
So I have two question:
1- Can the article get assigned to the January 2018 volume considering that it is now cited as an 2017 article?
2- Is their any priority criterion for publishing? Topic? First submission date? … etc?

I submitted a paper to a journal and after more than one year I got a positive report. I revised the paper as requested by the referee but when I tried to submit the revised version I discovered that my handling editor is not in the editorial board anymore. What happens normally in a case like this? Should I submit the revised version to a different editor?

I’m chairing a workshop where the review process is double-blind, using EasyChair to manage the reviews. I haven’t been on the chairing end of double-blind review before.

Is it reasonable to remove paper conflicts (in EasyChair or whatever system you are using) once the final decisions have been made? I assume this is harmless, but I wasn’t sure whether it was common practice. As a PC member I would like to see the final rankings for all papers, including any I was conflicted with.

By “paper conflict”, I mean when a PC member is identified as having a conflict of interest with a particular paper, e.g. because they are one of the authors, or one of the authors is a collaborator or student. In systems like EasyChair and HotCRP this hides most of the review information from the PC member and ensures they are not able to review it or add comments. Removing the conflict enables access.

(Perhaps this question isn’t specific to double-blind review.)