I have seen the other questions regarding which publication date to use, and it seems clear to use what the publisher uses. But what if the publisher provides several dates such as the following?

  • Issue online: 25 January 2016
  • Version of record online: 25 October 2015
  • Accepted manuscript online: 7 October 2015

I find these definitions confusing. Which data should be used as the official publication year? What does version of record online even mean; is it important?

I have recently read an interesting article on number theory, published in a well-known mathematics journal. As a keen amateur mathematician, I have tried to develop some of the ideas presented in the paper. Surprisingly, I have come to a remarkable conclusion that might be worth publishing. Naturally, I first wanted to make sure that this has not been published before, so I tried to find papers that referenced the original article.

The issue is that websites that index or catalog scholarly material are off-limits to non-academics. In particular, in order to find references to certain papers or authors, one must first log in with an institution’s credentials, which obviously I do not possess. What are my options? Do I:

  • write up my research anyway and try to publish it, with the risk of wasting everybody’s time if a similar publication has already been made,
  • waste the original author’s time by asking him to send me a list of references to his article (with a high probability of having my request immediately discarded), or
  • pay a high subscription fee to these cataloging websites in order to find what I’m looking for?

Is there another way for me to go about this?

I’m working on a draft paper which will likely have no coauthors. I’m wondering how to phrase my paper, and the abstract especially, in terms of voice. Which of the following should I prefer?

  • “We present XYZ …”
  • “This paper/this work presents XYZ …”
  • “I present XYZ …”

The former sounds a bit too “royal”, the second is the passive voice which I tend to avoid, and the third seems overly presumptuous.

What should I go for? Or – am I missing a fourth option?

Note: In case it matters, the paper is in some branch of applied Computer Science.

Our paper is rejected, but we are invited to submit a poster. We are given two options:

  • Poster with 2 pages proceeding.
  • Poster without a proceeding.

Another option is, of course, not submitting at all.

We still want to submit the full paper. What is potential risk of submitting a poster, with or without proceeding? All the conferences we want to target adopts double-blinded review.

I’m in software engineering.

I used to work in academia. I was lucky enough to publish important papers in peer reviewed journals that now regularly get cited by other papers in peer reviewed journals. I have left academia to work in the private sector, so every time I get a notification that my work has been cited elsewhere in a non open access journal, I can’t even see how it was used. I should be able to ensure my work isn’t mis-quoted or wrongly interpreted, but I can’t without paying extensive fees for each and every article…

Is sci-hub my only non-option because I refuse to use illegal means?

I would like to ask you for a piece of advice concerning the justification of the classification framework in a systematic review article.

I am writing an article in a retailing context and I want to classify from a marketing perspective. I managed to classify some of the articles. However, I do not know what approaches I can use for the classification.

I was thinking to categorize the articles into sub-disciplines such as consumer behaviour, innovations etc. but I am not sure if there is a way to justify the subjective criteria.

Moreover, probably similar categorizations have been already used even it is in regards to other concepts, not those that I want to explore, so I am afraid if I can prove my contribution in my paper.

How should I proceed?

I am writing a journal paper and I am the main and first author. The author bio section of that journal has only 100 words and we are 6 authors in total. The word limit is very short to describe the research area of each author. Will it be a good strategy to only include the first author description and research area in the author bio ( with the consent of other co-authors )? Will it look good in general from the reader perspective?

I also looked into some papers from the journal. Some have only the main author description And some papers have the research group description. The authors in my paper are not from the same research group and hence we don’t have the same research focus expect the research presented in this article. So not sure what is a good strategy to handle this