Say I have three names viz… Firstname Middlename Surname. My first name is quite long. My supervisor is requesting that I only use my Middle and Surnames. This occured with my first manuscript with him (he has two short names). Although, I have one publication (with my full three names) before studying under my current supervisor, I have tried to do this. My ORCID account contains the three names. IEEE membership name emphasizes my Firstname and Surname. My question is if I would like to use only my Middle and Surnames now, what are the things I must do and precautions to take to ensure consistency and avoid complications in the future.

This is a respected conference. Reviewers accepted but commented this

Novelty of the topic! Abstract could be better
explained and have figures.

Ok, I understand that I need to highlight novelty and more info, but having the figure? what does that mean? Graphical abstract? graph from research results? I am ashamed to ask reviewers because they are well-known names in the field. ( H index over 50 and 30)

Previously I submitted my paper in MS Word format to arXiv. Now after almost two years, I decided to submit an updated version in LaTeX format.

To create the LaTeX version of the document, I downloaded a template from here that added a line at the top of each page saying:

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2016

Do I have to remove that notice, or is it OK to leave it as is?

Previously I submitted my paper in MS Word format to arXiv. Now after almost two years, I decided to submit an updated version in LaTeX format.

To create the LaTeX version of the document, I downloaded a template that added a line at the top of each page saying:

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2016

Do I have to remove that notice, or is it OK to leave it as is?

A month ago, I submitted a paper to a prestigious journal. In that paper, we proposed a method A which is quite general, which based on it, we further proposed a set of methods for doing some work. Because, I am a Ph.D. student for graduation, I have to work on another paper, which relies on method A for submission to a less prestigious journal.

I didn’t find any policy regarding referencing to a submitted paper in the second journal (from Elsevier).

Is it a good idea to very briefly describe the method A in the second journal paper and also referencing it as a submitted paper? The method A has some proofs, which I will not restate it in the second paper.

In this way, the reviewers are able to do their work. Note that it is very important that I don’t want to hurt the chance of acceptance of the first paper or my reputation in any way.

In other words, How to describe a result from a submitted paper such that the reviewers can do their work?

What will you suggest for someone like me which have to submit another paper (for faster graduation) in this situation?

I received the editor’s comments as follows:

The revised version of your manuscript xxx has been reviewed by our referees. Referee A is now satisfied with your paper, while Referee B is more or less satisfied but supplies a long list of remarks that need to be taken into account. While we cannot make a definite commitment, we will probably accept your paper for publication, provided you make changes that we judge to be in accordance with the appended comments (or other satisfactory responses are given).

I have revised my manuscript and prepared a detailed explanation of how I have dealt with all of the comments of reviewer B. Actually, there are just 7 comments on the manuscript.

Now, I am going to reply to the editor. Could you suggest me how to write a reply to the editor like this, such as ”While we cannot make a definite commitment, we will probably accept your paper for publication, provided you make changes that we judge to be in accordance with the appended comments”? And What should I need to notice?

Thank you in advance.

Imaging that I am a student from College A and cross-registered in Institute B. I am a college kid so I receive very little care from the professors from my own school, and I do not have an official supervisor. Most of the works are done
in the library and computer lab of B, and I discussed my ideas very often with professors in B. However, I do not have department affiliation with B. My formal status in B is something like “exch. stud.” I guess it means exchange student.

What should I list as my academic affiliations in scientific publishing?

I recently submitted a paper to a journal. It came back with a “revise and resubmit” recommendation and two referee reports. Both of them were quite positive. One of them suggested that I remove from the paper a certain topic and publish it separately in order to give it more visibility. The other referee and the editor did not say anything about splitting.

The referee’s suggestion seems reasonable, but I am not sure how it should be done technically:

  1. Should I submit the two sub-papers into the “resubmit” form? (but what if the other referee does not agree to the split?)
  2. Does the other paper have to go again through the entire review process, including finding new reviewers?
  3. How much additional work does this split entail for the editorial board, the reviewer and the authors (in addition to the obvious work of writing a new paper)?