I received a review report on my magazine article (Impact Factor 7.6). Based on magazine restriction we can not use more than 3 mathematical equations. But the idea I presented in article require some mathematical evaluation as well. The reviewer suggested that we should publish relevant result and cite them in magazine article. They didn’t mention whether the results should be peer reviewed or not.
My question is for such a high impact factor (in my research area the magazine is listed as 99 percentile in JCR) magazine article is it acceptable to refer something which is not peer reviewed?
If its ok then what is best way to do so? I don’t have personal website and my school don’t have publicly accessible repository and arxiv accept only the full articles not just some kind of mathematical evaluation.

Is it fine to use researchgate to publish mathematical results?

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’m in a unique situation. I do my investigations on my own. It means I’m not affiliated with any institutions and am not taking money from anyone. But it also means I have no one to turn to when I have my troubles and I need a guiding light. It means that instead of running to the advisor next door in some educational institution I have to rely on tracking, making contact and explaining my situation and problems to new people whom I meet primarily online.

I have my acquaintances in the universities of my home country and sometimes talk to them but they aren’t capable of supporting me. At least I have a link to the scientific search engines and can get the literature I need to continue the development of my interests. I have my dream of building enough materials for a PhD thesis and I have an university degree in science, but in order to turn it into reality I need contacts with people from other countries who can help with the questions the locals are unable to respond to. This is how I proceed for quite some time.

There is this person who may be able to help me but is also on the editorial board of a journal where I might have an actual chance to publish a paper. When I contact this person I’m not intending s/he to actually advice me how to publish in his/hers journal but the idea comes naturally as s/he seems to like what I’m working on and I have been searching for a place to publish for quite some time. I didn’t intended originally for this to happen but if s/he is indeed seeing something interesting in my work and is thinking the journal where s/he is editing may be the right place to publish should I deny this long awaited chance for me only because I have presented this research to its potential editor and now s/he may have agreed to help me format it in a way that will make it publishable at his/hers particular venue? Am I doing something morally wrong or unacceptable here?

The problem is this journal seems more like a friendly circle pamphlet than an actual academic research journal. It is peer reviewed (by its creators) and as far as I know it is indexed by at least scopus but its impact factor is something extremely low and it has very few papers published in it even on an yearly basis, so it is not exactly “guiding” the development of any field. My prime worry is that if my paper appears in this journal and I mention one of its editors in the acknowledgements as the person who helped me write my paper I fear this may have a negative feedback not only on myself but on the journal as whole. As I said it has very low impact factor and I think researchers (other than its editorial board) already regard it as somewhat dubious publication medium. And if now articles where the editors are acknowledged by some known-by-noone guy who claims to be a scientist but has neither a PhD, nor is affiliated to any university and comes from a non-Western country, start to appear, may be it will damage not only my non-existent reputation but also the reputation of the journal as a whole. Do my fears have any base in reality or am I thinking too much and blocking what is now my best chance of finally publishing my ideas? Are my fears real or am I shooting myself in the foot?

Does the previous contacts I have with the person who will potentially review my article constitute a conflict of interests between me and this journal?

P.S. I have thought of several ways to avoid the embarrassing situation but it seems nothing works. I thought of advising my article to be reviewed by some other editor but it seems like I know all the editors of this journal and they are all connected to each other by long years of friendship relationships, so they all know me and the person I’m talking about and what this research is about (it is quite unique, this is why it is something they just can’t take as someone else’s ideas), so whoever reviews it s/he will know who is helping me and what is this research about even before I submit my manuscript. As I told you the editorial board of this journal is extremely small (smaller than the number of the fingers on your hand) and they all know each other and I’m quite persistent “thorn in the foot”, so it is no secret for any of them who am I, what I am doing and who is helping me. I fear if this research goes through the “blind” review process the only “blind” thing that will remain s the number of people I would have to include in the acknowledgements, not the material itself. On the other hand, however, I feel like I need these people’s help because I haven’t been able to master my writing style on my own and they may be my only chance to actually get some professional help and finally format a descent publication. Should I be blowing away my best chance now because of fears I’m breaking the rules of the peer-review process? What steps should I take to keep it? Should I abandon my publication there because I have already made contacts with the editors and told them what would my paper be about and they had agreed here id the right place for it and now the only thing that remains is only to format it properly and fix my writing style so it can go online? Would this actually harm the journal’s reputation?

I have also considered proposing the editor to make a joint paper with his/hers name after mine, but the reply I got was it was my work here and I did the job, not him/her, so it would be unfair to prescribe him/her with such credits. Only a place in the acknowledgements will suffice. I feel like I may be doing something wrong here but am I? I have no publications and I have always been rejected due to various reasons up to now, so, I wonder what am I getting myself into, but see no other options left but to either agree with their advice an make the corrections they want to submit my article in their journal or to give up completely and search for other place to publish (may be some day in the distant future). What should I do?

I’m really wondering am I “screwing” the peer review system with what I’m doing?

Peer-review is an important part of decision-making in academia. Journal reviewers do not get paid.

BUT funding agencies pay for the same peer-review (of research proposals). OR universities pay the external referees for reviewing PhD dissertations.

My question is: if peer-review is voluntary and a professional duty, why isn’t it the case in other reviewing processes?

I have been asked to referee a paper for a middle-tier physical science journal. I have reviewed for this journal many times before, although it was several years since I had gotten a paper sent to me by this particular editor. (I thought that this editor disliked me, since I was fairly critical of one of his own research papers.) However, some weeks ago, he sent me a paper to referee, and I sent promptly sent back a report.

The peculiarity came the second time that I was sent a draft of this paper. After the first round, I asked for some significant clarifications, since the work being described in the manuscript seemed to have been done properly, but the justification was very poorly explained. The editor was not able to find another scientist to provide a second report, so the revisions were based solely on my comments. The authors made some changes, which I have not combed through that carefully yet, but they are probably satisfactory.

However, this editor told me explicitly in the letter he sent me that he will definitely accept or reject the paper, according to whatever “verdict” I return. This makes me a little uncomfortable. On the one hand, I am honored that he trusts my judgement sufficiently to put the entire decision effectively in my hands. On the other hand, I feel a nagging concern that the editor is, to some extent, shirking his own responsibilities in this case. Not that I would ever really expect him to go against my recommendation, but I am sort of uncomfortable with the level of responsibility that he has implicitly placed on me.

As a general rule, the way this editor works is somewhat idiosyncratic.
For example, the journal has an online system for submission and refereeing, but its use is apparently optional for the editors. Every other editor I have worked with on this journal has used the Web-based system for assigning and collecting reviews, but this guy does everything entirely via e-mail. His e-mails can be rambling and mix personal and professional communication, quite different from most e-mails I get from journals, which are almost all boilerplate.

So I guess my question has two aspects: First, is it reasonable to be concerned about what the editor has said? Second, is there anything I can (or should) do about it?

I have done my own research independently from any academic institution. The theses are mainly biochemical, and aquaculture. I would like to have the work peer reviewed.

I tried to use researchgate.net but they have created a barrier to entry for autodidacts, and non-institutional researchers. The question answer format for stackexchage is also unsuitable.

Are there other web-portals specifically for independent, non-institutional, autodidact researchers?

I am a Ph.D. student in computer science and still in my first year. My professor just assigned a review task of a A-ranked conference to me in order to review research papers submitted by original authors (almost 8 papers).

So far, he wants me to take over the coordination with my fellow Ph.D. colleagues in my department to finish this task asap. So I have to distribute the papers with the right colleague according to his/her research interest and experience.

But, since I am still in the first year (even I am doing well ‘as my colleagues say’ and published two research paper in peer-reviewed conferences), I want to ask if is it common and normal thing in academia to let junior researchers review high-quality A-ranked conferences research papers, and whether the conference editorial chairs know about this conduct from assigned committee members as external reviewers.

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 been given my first manuscript to review for a journal. The topic is a very good one, it fills a research gap nicely and is an area that I specialise in. However, the execution of the paper is lacking. I am about halfway through making comments on it. The English is consistently poor in both spelling and grammar, and the structure is dire, which makes it hard to follow the main arguments. I am aware that bad English is no reason to reject a paper, but the English in this paper is very confused in many places, sometimes multiple times per paragraph, and it’s a trial to follow.

I believe that the paper could only be salvageable after a rewrite, but by a third party. I don’t believe the author’s English is good enough to bring it up to standard. I do not care about being ‘kind’ to the author, but the topic is so good that I would love to see it go through, but I am torn between accepting it with majors or recommending rejection. My PhD supervisor has advised me to recommend rejection, but I am still unsure which way to go. Should I recommend acceptance after major revisions in the hope that it will improve based on my [now extensive] advice or just recommend rejection?