I want to submit two separate works to two different conferences in CS field. The conference deadlines differ only by 3 weeks and one of them would be held in November while the other in September.
The problem is that i designed an algorithm and used that in both of the works. This algorithm is not the essential part of these papers, so i can introduce it completely in paper A as a novel method and just cite and use it in paper B; or vice versa!
But the problem is that at the time of submission, both of them are just submitted works, and i’m not sure if citing a submitted work is acceptable? Especially because if i only cite and use it in paper B, the reviewers cannot read paper A to see the complete proofs.
And even i’m not sure which paper may be accepted/rejected!
Also if i introduce the method in both papers as a novel method, then if both of them get accepted they will consider it plagiarism!
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 am currently a postdoc in computer science. Last year I completed my PhD. I have published one research paper during my PhD with my research supervisor. I am trying to work on that paper. I mean I have got something and I think it is going to be an incremental result of the previous research paper.
Question: Do I need to get permission from my past supervisor to publish a paper that builds on our previous co-authored paper?
This question already has an answer here:
I submitted an article 10 days ago. First at the dashboard, they put under review. After one week, the dashboard put Awaiting EIC Decision. Is that bad?
I finished my PhD in natural sciences in 2015. At some point during my PhD studies I did some measurements for some other scientists.
Now they are about to submit a paper containing my data, and I am listed as a coauthor.
I barely remember the experiments. I did not read the paper (yet).
Do I have to read that paper? Do I have to read it often enough to fully understand it? Should I disagree being listed as a coauthor?
I’m collaborating with some others on an appendix to a historical paper for submission to a high profile journal. In the field the convention for authorship appears similar to mathematics (see also this discussion) in which authorship can be split between the main paper and appendices. Since the basic rule of thumb is that the CV should include all intellectual products what would be the proper way to include the appendix? Would it be appropriate to just include it as a publication, e.g.
Author, A., Author, B., Author, C., “Appendix: Neat Computer Simulation Justifying Historical Argument.” Appendix to Author, C., “Historical Argument.” High Profile Journal, vol. XX, no. XX, pp. XX-XX, XXXX.
I download the pdfs of the articles that I want to read and keep them in separate folders according to their category. For example, I have some papers in a folder called “Object Tracking” and others in a folder called “Action Recognition”. Inside these folders, I name the files using the following convention:
For example if the author’s name is Jack Jones and he published a paper at CVPR in 2014, the file name would be: Jones17_CVPR. I also use Mendeley to organize and store the metadata of all my papers.
Do you think that this file naming convention is appropriate for storing a large number of papers? Or is file naming not relevant at all if I’m using a reference manager like Mendeley?
This question already has an answer here:
I wonder if anyone has any answers to this? I am quite worried! I submitted my manuscript to a top international relations journal and it went through the usual admin checks and one day went to ‘awaiting referee selection’. The next day it went to ‘awaiting decision’!
I wonder if they made an error and decided to now make an editorial decision instead of sending it out for review? It seems to have skipped ‘awaiting referee assignment’ -> ‘awaiting referee scores’.
Any info would be most helpful! Thank you!
Suppose that a paper has just got online in a journal without any previous submission to the arXiv. But the authors have spotted some minor typos and are also not satisfied with the typesetting of the online version. Can they put a newer version of the paper on the arXiv that contains some typesetting edits and minor corrections of typos?
I am a student who is very enthusiastic about open access and sharing research. When I worked with my former supervisor, we would write a paper and then post it to a preprint server (e.g., arXiv) at the same time as submitting it to a venue. My current supervisor, however, is of the mindset that we should post a preprint after receiving confirmation that the paper was accepted to some venue.
Is there a generally-accepted time to post a preprint?