I have been working on a particular algorithm. It has many applications and I have found one for which a dataset is available as well as other algorithms used to parse that dataset. But the algorithm I am studying hasn’t been applied to that dataset as far as I know. If I implement that algorithm on the dataset, I don’t think I will be making significant changes to it. Will it still be considered as enough of a result to publish a paper?

I am an undergrad; if that is relevant.

I had a few medical cases that I presented in conferences as an eposter, I sumbitted the case as eposter, It was presented as a slideshow in big screens in the conference
My understanding is that eposters are not considered publications; so can I submit these cases to journals?

Some journals specify as a requirement that the case submitted should not be published before on other journals or electronically. Where do cases presented as eposter stand on this?

I am a bachelor-level (software engineering) student. I made a GitHub repository more than a year ago, where I use machine learning and deep learning to identify movements in accelerometer signals.

As of now, the GitHub repository has a thousand stars. There is already research being made derived from my work. As a practical example, here I collaborated with someone to write a paper.

I wonder: Should I write and publish a paper on the first project, even though it’s a year old? What are my options, if any?

I am a bachelor-level (software engineering) student. I made a GitHub repository already a bit more than a year ago, where I use machine learning / deep learning to identify movements in accelerometer signals.

As of now, the GitHub repository has thousand stars, which isn’t nothing. There is already research being made derived from my work. As a practical example, here I collaborated with someone to write a paper.

I wonder: Should I write and publish a paper on the first project, despite I made it a year ago already? What are my options, if any?

I am currently writing a paper that I wish to publish in a mathematics journal. During the course of my research, I have discovered a result that is aesthetically pleasing, i.e., contains a form of symmetry in its definition that can be seen by some as “elegant”, and moreover connects several distant theorems together. However, this result turns out to be useless for practical use, furthermore it adds nothing to the other proofs and theorems presented in the paper. Is it worth publishing/mentioning, even as a corollary?

As a new researcher, I am in the following situation in mathematics research:

I read paper X, a short paper published in a low-mid tier journal, and found a way to improve and extend the result. The technique I used to extend the result is a different approach to the problem, but not that mathematically technical. However, even though the mathematical extensions are (arguably) trivial, the extensions open the door to a much broader approach to my field. They also open the door up for interesting simple examples that were previously unable to be produced.

I am currently writing up my findings of the original extension in a paper. In this paper, I correctly reference paper X when necessary. From an ethical point of view, it is crystal clear what I did and didn’t do.

1) Is it bad to compare to one single paper often in a paper?
2) What is a good way to tell whether a result is incremental or not?
3) Some of the arguments in paper X need slight modifications under my extension. Is it okay to repeat some of their ideas in my proofs (with clear citation/credit of course)?

Another problem arising from 2): I have another, much more interesting result because of this extension that I have not published. However, this result moves in a different mathematical direction and therefore, I sort of want to write a separate paper on it. I am faced with the following dilemma. I could reasonably do one of the following:

I) Write a longer paper and work to bring the ideas together.
Pros: My separation from paper X is much more obvious and seen as less incremental.
Cons: I mix two different ideas and risk the paper telling too many stories.

II) Vaguely hint at the second result in the first paper. If I do this, the problem is that if my hint is too vague, it will make my first result seem uninteresting. If it is too specific, I risk showing someone else my idea and having them “beat me to the punch.”
Pros: Sticks to one story, but provides additional motivation.
Cons: May make the first result seem too weak.

I apologize if this post is nonspecific, but I imagine others have faced this problem in their relative fields. How did you resolve this dilemma? I realize I have to figure out the answers myself, but how did you figure out the answers to these questions when you were facing this dilemma yourself?

Thank you.

Many academics believe peer review is a black box and needs transparency. The theme of this years peer review week is transparency and is meant for getting academics opinions around issues with current peer review process.
What do you think? What would you do if the jnl you review for states it will publish your review alongside accepted paper. What will you say if the jnl asks your consent to reveal your identity? Please mention your subject area in your answer

I need to provide “doctoral level research” in order to stay in my current PhD program. Although I haven’t got an undergraduate or masters thesis from before, I have some experience with that level of research (far from publishable).

I also have a year-long exposure to literature in my chosen topic. Now I need to bring an original idea into the stream of literature from a broad area (decision making). For that I should further narrow down on a question, and I had trouble identifying an advisor.

How can I better assess my methods and self-prepare to propose a PhD level research plan? Would you suggest some steps and resources to guide my search towards a specific, targeted question?

Thanks for taking the time to read, I will have a group review my progress upon proposal but they will not guide me until I shape the proposal targeted to eventually become publishable research.

Many academics believe peer review is a black box and needs transparency. The theme of this years peer review week is transparency and is meant for getting academics opinions around issues with current peer review process.
What do you think? What would you do if the jnl you review for states it will publish your review alongside accepted paper. What will you say if the jnl asks your consent to reveal your identity? Please mention your subject area in your answer