And by established, I mean something that of course already exists be it in a textbook or another research text. I ask because I am developing/researching a what could be said to be quite original concept on my personal time but I feel that it is too idiosyncratic to be even given a thought, and the fact is perhaps offer no value most major journals will not accept it due to its concepts not being attached much to something already existing. Of course, there are other papers I am referencing and citing in the paper but the concept overall is not something I think is of much interest. If it helps, the concept is developing vector spaces over the field of surreal numbers to provide a basis for studying algebro-geometric concepts in a surreal analytic framework. The journals I considered are Compositio Mathematica and AMS.

Based on the papers I’ve read submitted to the aforesaid journals, they seem to prove fairly substantial results dealing with well established existing concepts. This doesn’t seem to come near what I am doing since my concept is infant.

Also, I am still in high school and am afraid of publishing. Will being a high schooler be put against me? Since I always hear if you are a high schooler your concepts be it whatever have no relevance. I am not trying to prove a major result or anything; just get my concepts out there. I’ve considered arXiv as an initial step to getting whatever research I have noticed but it requires sponsorship which I don’t think will make its way to me.

I want to submit my article in a reputed SCI journal. Is it necessary to read and cite articles from sci journals only so as to publish your article in some other SCI journal ?
I am asking this because there are a lot of non-SCI journals as well (including the predatory and just-for-profit fake journals) and if we cite some data particularly from those fake journal articles, will it not somehow make our article of poor quality and hinder the chances of getting my article selected in some SCI journals ?

SCI= Science Citation Index

I have submitted revisions to a journal. The editor asked that:

  1. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.
  2. Please ensure that you refer to Table 9 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

What does the editor mean? The article contains 17 table and three figures, but he only raised issue with figure 3 and table 9.

Figure 3 and table 9 have been mentioned in the text already.

The Institution of Engineers (India) is a prestigious organisation with more than one million members in 15 engineering disciplines in 114 centers or chapters in India and overseas.

Yet, it doesn’t prefer to publish its journals itself. All of its journals are published by Springer. This concerns me slightly because it helps in maintaining the monopoly that publishing houses have on research publications.

Why do even such large and reputed institutions not choose to publish on their own?

As you know, there are journals -predatory journals- which are just publishing scams, without actual peer review, etc. but look like genuine ones, and it is a problem for the honest researcher to avoid them.

Until recently there was a free blacklist, Jerry Beall’s (which had flaws), and now there is Cabell’s list, which apart from being behind a paywall, may not distinguish predatory journals from new ones (see this review).

As the number of publications seems ever-increasing, I feel new, legitimate journals will play an important role in next years. I would be willing to publish in one of them sometime, but I don’t know how to identify them. For the moment being, each time I receive an email promoting a starting journal (as some may in good faith do), I just dismiss it as being a predatory one.

So the question is: Are there good ways of knowing that a new journal is legitimate? Perhaps is there some kind of white list?


I would like to cite journal articles published by the Royal Society, specifically in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
Apparently, sometimes an of London is included in the name, and I have seen the journal’s name abbreviated as both:

Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc.


A prominent example is the Wikipedia page of the journal, citing amongst others:

  • Maxwell, J. C. (1865). “A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 155: 459.

  • Hawking, S. W. (1983). “The Cosmological Constant [and Discussion]”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 310 (1512): 303.


Should I simply remove the of London (resp. the Lond.) whenever I see it in order to be consistent? Or is there any specific reason to include of London in some cases?

Remark on standardized abbreviations

According to Wikipedia, the ISO 4 Abbreviation of the journals in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society series is

Philos. Trans. Royal Soc.

This raises three sub-questions:

  1. Why do I see Royal abbreviated to R. so often? Is it wrong?
  2. What is the correct way of including the series names (such as B: Biological Sciences) in the abbreviation?
  3. Was there another official abbreviation in the past, possibly including Lond.?

I submitted a paper to a journal, and I suspect that it is handled too slowly.

  • How can I decide whether my suspicion is correct? What handling times should I expect?

  • Given some expected handling times, when should I act? How much leeway should I give?

  • How should I act? Whom should I contact and what should I (roughly) write?

Note that I am interested on how I should approach this situation in general, and do not seek specific numbers for my specific situation.
I am therefore looking for general answers that are independent of such factors as the field or individual journal (but mention them if they are relevant factors).

This is a canonical question on this topic as per this meta post. Due to its nature, it is rather broad and not exemplary for a regular question on this site. Please feel free to improve this question.

I have a work ready to publish with good results and proper mathematical arguments to justify it. I liked to try top conferences like ICML, IJCAI, CVPR, ICCV … which are related to my field (machine learning and vision), but their deadlines are already passed or not reachable.

My supervisor has the idea of sending extended version of the paper (with extra mathematical proofs and experiments) to a top journal like JMLR or such.

But i’m not sure if it is a good idea, because it may take 6-8 months until i get the review and revise it and maybe 1 year until it gets published if they accept it, and my PhD will be finished before that!!

What if i send the paper (small version) to a medium conference which has a deadline in a month from now and also sending the extended version to a top JR? But i’m afraid by doing that i may undersell my work to medium quality expectations.

1- Is it allowed?

2- Is it a good plan?