Biomed Central is an open access publisher with a list of journals belonging to the BMC series, where they state that:

The BMC-series subject-specific journals do not make editorial decisions on the basis of the interest of a study or its likely impact. Studies must be scientifically valid; for research articles this includes a scientifically sound research question, the use of suitable methods and analysis, and following community-agreed standards relevant to the research field.

All these journals start with BMC in their name (e.g. BMC Bioinformatics). While I understand this statement that they will publish anything that is not utter bullshit, they also have highly selective BMC journals (e.g. BMC Medicine).

On the other hand, they also have highly selective journals without the BMC tag, e.g. Genome Biology.

My question is, how reputable are BMC journals? How selective are they? Is this really journal dependent?
Many of their journals have quite high impact factors and are ranked high on scimagojr

I recently submitted a manuscript to a journal that focuses on short papers about software packages. One reviewer gave a very detailed (and helpful) critique of my software/paper with one major objection: another package already exists that has similar functionality. S/he mandated that I clarify what my package offers that the other package does not.

Unfortunately, I was not aware of the other software package when I started my project (which I’m pretty embarrassed about). On further inspection, I realize that this other package is far superior to my own in terms of functionality and performance. I’ve come to the conclusion that my project is not salvageable. This is disappointing but not soul crushing as it was a side project that is only tangential to my dissertation work. Frankly, I don’t have time to improve my software to point of being a significant contribution, and I’d only do so for the sake of “getting a publication,” which does not seem fruitful. Improvements wouldn’t be immediately useful to me. and thus I don’t have the motivation to submit a revision.

That said, I’d really like to submit a genuine word of thanks to the anonymous reviewer for their detailed critique of my paper/software. Through their comments and working through a revision I learned a lot (how to use Docker, sharing and recording terminal sessions through
asciinema/asciicast, general improvements to my writing, etc.) Do editors allow authors to respond to reviewers even if their manuscript is essentially rejected? It seems as though editors would generally disallow this since authors responding to a rejection may often want to say something nasty. Would it be best to email the editor directly with my request or respond through the submission system?

I am currently in the process of waiting for PhD verdict. I have submitted the thesis last 2 weeks for examination and I am thinking while waiting for PhD verdict, I want to write a review paper on my subject. The reason is because I have ran out results from my PhD study for publication and I reckon why not try on reviewing the subject I am studying. My area of research is biological science. My question is whether it is possible to write a review to journal without being invited to do so.

I have been following the review process of a replication journal

In particular, it has an open review which can be seen.

On a particular submission they are having a debate about whether copying equations and their explanation in a paper counts as copyright infringement.

I would like to ask this question here, since the answer seems non-obvious.

Equations, by themselves, since they are ideas, should be free from copyright infringement. But to have equations, explanations, replica of figures, and discussion, would basically be a copy of the paper, and I imagine that would be copyright infringement. Where exactly can a line be drawn?

Note: There are questions on stack exchange which ask similar questions, but often in context of building up on previous research. Since the point of such a journal is just to replicate, it would seems that the aim is to build a freely available copy of the existing (perhaps paywalled, copyrighted) material, that can be freely accessed, and this is different intent than regular articles.

Also, answers regarding plagiarism aren’t much help in this case as the point is to do “explicit plagiarism” with proper attribution.

Crossposted to law.SE

I have been tasked with extract Text out of PDF made out of images, that is, it is not possible to copy past or in general gather all of the text.

There are several tools that do this, and I am in the process of testing some of them. I’ve been told by the previous person in charge that they were using Tesseract, and reading documentation about it, I thought, ok this is a really complex matter, there has to be studies about this issue.

So I am reading stuff like Comparison of Text Extraction Techniques- A
Review

In which I can see someone has done proper research on what works in which cases.

Now to my question. How do I go from this to, ok, I would like to test this out. Are this tests and performance ever released in program form? Is it something possible to track, which technique is a program using, to see if it’s the one that has been theoretically defined to my particular case?

Because I understand that it is not always going to be possible to do so, but I find 0 implementations, and I have to wonder, what good is it to develop this techniques and studies, if no one else can use them?

Is there other way to go arround this? Because I obviously do not have years of experience nor I am writing a paper/thesis on this issue, so even if I were to start from scratch, I doubt I’d get to, say, 98% accuracy, as stated in some cases. I need the best tool possible, and I am being told that there are, indeed, people that were able to do this.

So is it possible for me, at least in some cases, to recreate what they have done? And if so, how do I find it?

I am currently in the process of waiting for PhD verdict. I have submitted the thesis last 2 weeks for examination and I am thinking while waiting for PhD verdict, I want to write a review paper on my subject. The reason is because I have ran out results from my PhD study for publication and I reckon why not try on reviewing the subject I am studying. My area of research is biological science. My question is whether it is possible to write a review to journal without being invited to do so.

I have been tasked with extract Text out of PDF made out of images, that is, it is not possible to copy past or in general gather all of the text.

There are several tools that do this, and I am in the process of testing some of them. I’ve been told by the previous person in charge that they were using Tesseract, and reading documentation about it, I thought, ok this is a really complex matter, there has to be studies about this issue.

So I am reading stuff like Comparison of Text Extraction Techniques- A
Review

In which I can see someone has done proper research on what works in which cases.

Now to my question. How do I go from this to, ok, I would like to test this out. Are this tests and performance ever released in program form? Is it something possible to track, which technique is a program using, to see if it’s the one that has been theoretically defined to my particular case?

Because I understand that it is not always going to be possible to do so, but I find 0 implementations, and I have to wonder, what good is it to develop this techniques and studies, if no one else can use them?

Is there other way to go arround this? Because I obviously do not have years of experience nor I am writing a paper/thesis on this issue, so even if I were to start from scratch, I doubt I’d get to, say, 98% accuracy, as stated in some cases. I need the best tool possible, and I am being told that there are, indeed, people that were able to do this.

So is it possible for me, at least in some cases, to recreate what they have done? And if so, how do I find it?

I have submitted a mathematical-physics manuscript to Journal of Mathematical Physics, and I am in a situation similar to the one described here: It has been two months since I submitted, and the editor still cannot find reviewers. I have asked the editor what happens if he/she keeps trying and will still be unable find any reviewer, but he/she refuses to answer me.

The manuscript is in the field of celestial mechanics and is quite specific. However, two months seems a pretty long time to me, and I am incline to think that this is the journal’s fault, i.e., the journal or editor is not known enough, he/she does not have a good network of referees, and I feel that I am wasting my time and should withdraw my submission and submit it to another journal.

Do you concur with this? According to your experience, what is the best decision to make sure that the manuscript is published in a reasonable time in this journal, or in another journal with similar impact?