In mathematics, it is usual to call terminal results “theorems” and intermediate results “propositions” or even “lemmas” depending on importance and place in the overarching proof. Suppose that one is refereeing a paper where the authors have decided to call almost all their results “theorems”, making a paper with a large number of “theorems” that even emeritus professors don’t usually reach by the end of their career. (Such theorems include computation that could conceivably given to as end of year exams to master students. Not to diminish the importance of the paper, the actual theorems are good, but the 20 others are not theorems. There are more theorems than pages.)

Would it be acceptable and well-received to suggest toning it down? Or would it be overstepping and rude? This is not just a philosophical question: I truly believe that it makes the paper harder to reader, because it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to say. A reader does not know what is important and what is not.

In mathematics, it is usual to call terminal results “theorems” and intermediate results “propositions” or even “lemmas” depending on importance and place in the overarching proof. Suppose that one is refereeing a paper where the authors have decided to call almost all their results “theorems”, making a paper with a large number of “theorems” that even emeritus professors don’t usually reach by the end of their career. (Such theorems include computation that could conceivably given to as end of year exams to master students. Not to diminish the importance of the paper, the actual theorems are good, but the 20 others are not theorems. There are more theorems than pages.)

Would it be acceptable and well-received to suggest toning it down? Or would it be overstepping and rude? This is not just a philosophical question: I truly believe that it makes the paper harder to reader, because it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to say. A reader does not know what is important and what is not.

My last paper evaluations in journals (rejects/major reviews decisions) emphasized I should make more clear the novelty and strengths of my work in comparison to the state of the art.

Which style is preferred?

  • After presenting each related work, make a brief comparison with my work when possible, or:
  • Make a summary of the strengths/novelties of my work as the last paragraph in the “Related Works” section, and point the differences and advantages over the cited works

What steps does a manuscript typically go through from submission to publication (or rejection) in a typical journal? How are these steps referred to, in particular by editorial systems, and how long do they each typically take?

Note that this question is about the typical situation and hence not about:

  • Journals with an atypical workflow, e.g. those that allow for an instantaneous reviewer–author interaction.
  • Exceptional steps or rare occurrences such as withdrawal or clerical errors.

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 question about plagiarism.

If a peer reviewer writes a negative review of a paper and rejects it, so that he or she can use the idea of the paper in their own work is that considered plagiarism?

Similarly, if a peer reviewer lifts sentences from a submitted, but rejected manuscript into their own paper is that considered plagiarism?

And if you have a strong suspicion either of those two have happened (e.g. you see a publication appear after a while with exactly the same phrasing as your submitted manuscript), is there anything you can do about it?

What steps does a manuscript typically go through from submission to publication (or rejection) in a typical journal? How are these steps referred to, in particular by editorial systems, and how long do they each typically take?

Note that this question is about the typical situation and hence not about:

  • Journals with an atypical workflow, e.g. those that allow for an instantaneous reviewer–author interaction.
  • Exceptional steps or rare occurrences such as withdrawal or clerical errors.

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.

When submitting papers to journals, I understand from experience that acceptance can take quite some time (on the order of several months), even when a reviewer is immediately assigned to the paper. But can a referee usually tell fairly quickly if the article should be rejected? Are there any horror stories of waiting several months after a reviewer agrees to look at your paper, only to get a rejection letter?

Although there is system for writing comments on an article by proper submission through editorial system. But sometime, we feel need of commenting on article like; the content is very good or content is lacking in certain aspect etc. I think, if there is provision of writing comment directly on the online published copy of article, it would be very useful for both the author and the readers.

In cases when the authors would like to make their code available online after it is published, is it recommended for authors to make their code available for review when they submit technical papers for review and possible publication?

Side Note: The author may not necessarily choose to include his code for review because he is “hiding” something. The author may have questions like: (1) Is it the responsibility of the reviewer to review code? (2) What if one of the reviewers proves treacherous with the code? Even if he doesn’t replicate the idea, he could add a few things to it and publish it without approving the initial submission for acceptance. For instance it had happened that a reviewer rejected a paper and now wants to publish an extension of such work. The rights of the author has to be respected to the letter especially for example a PhD contribution. The author must be confident that all these are addressed. Also, it is usually assumed that a good research is reproducible even when the code is not made available. Besides, several papers have earned the “respect” of researchers far and wide – and their source codes were not published.

a month ago i submitted my paper to double-blind review conference, and their notification date is one month from now.
However, i had presented the work (in an abstract way) 3 months ago in a small symposium as an ongoing work, and i forgot to remove the slides till yesterday. This means if the reviewers had checked my home-page before yesterday, they could have found that i’m the author of this submission.

My question is if my paper is decided to be rejected due to that fact (without any review), would i be notified now or i have to wait until the notification date?

Because if it is already rejected without any review and only due to that issue, it is fair that i could be notified now, so i could send it to another conference around the corner.