When a paper is accepted to be published in an IEEE journal, the publishing system sends by email a PDF file of the author’s version
(for an example of what PDF file I’m referring to, see https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1710/1710.01077.pdf).

(1) Is this PDF file the ‘Accepted’ version which can be uploaded to arXiv?

(2) Since in this case the authors do not have the source files of this PDF file, it is OK to bypass arXiv LaTeX detection?

a couple of questions 🙂

  1. what journals normally accept and publish history related research? (history of medicine)

  2. It is not short… at the moment at least. Split in two? Of try to cut anyways?

  3. My research tells the story of neonatal medicine in country A. There is a medical journal in country A, yet the impact factor is not great. Will journals like NEJM, Nature or other countries medical history related journals accept it?

Thanks!

A colleague of mine has recently edited a book whose subject I find very interesting (I know several of the authors personally as well). Unfortunately, like most things published in academia, the copies available from the publisher are quite expensive (and I would have to pay with my own personal money). Is it OK to message him and ask for a soft copy?

I’m not sure as to what is the usual publishers’ practice in that case. Would I decrease my colleague’s revenue if I don’t buy and thus asking for a copy would be considered rude? Or maybe by the time of publication the editor has usually already received her remuneration?

I was recently asked to review for an MDPI open access journal. Is this a reputable publishing company? Their website suggests that they are 15 years old, and only do open-access publishing. The journal has a 3-year impact factor of around 2, which is not unreasonable for my field.

I’m curious to know whether it is worth putting the review on my CV.

Continuing How to satisfy the publisher when making an article available on a personal web page? :

Copyright agreements of certain publishers such as Springer and IEEE request that if an author archives a published paper on his/her web page, then a link to the publisher’s site must be provided, e.g., “The final publication is available at [Web site of the publisher]”. Is this request a legally valid one according to German / US legislation? Why / why not?

An aside: this is probably a very standard question, and someone in the community is very likely to have already seeked legal advice on that. I would expect that at least the legal departments of huge universities know the answer.

I’m a graduate student with, so far, one published article in a peer-reviewed journal. Since the article came out, I’ve been receiving increasing amounts of “academic e-mail spam” from people wanting me to attend their conferences, publish in their (usually pay-to-publish) journals or order research supplies from them. (The latter kind tend to be the easiest to filter out — even though my field is biomathematics, it doesn’t mean I have any use for frozen mouse embryos whatsoever.)

Some time ago, an e-mail turned up asking me to review a manuscript, conveniently attached to the message, for a pay-to-publish open access journal in a somewhat related field. Googling for the name of the publisher, I found them described as e.g. “a borderline vanity press”.

At the time, I wasn’t really sure how to react. On one hand, I could think of several reasons to just go ahead and review the manuscript:

  • The main complaint about the publisher seems to be that their peer review is insufficient — a claim supported by the fact that they seem to be picking random grad students as reviewers. Still, given that they’re at least making some effort at peer review, surely I should encourage them in that? After all, if nobody agreed to review manuscripts for them, how could they ever improve their review process?

  • Declining to review the manuscript might deprive the authors — who, if the journal is indeed a “scam”, are presumably the victims here — of useful feedback. Surely they at least deserve that much return for their time, efforts and money?

  • Also, if the manuscript did get published in a scientific journal, no matter how dubious or marginal, it would enter the body of scientific knowledge, and might be used as a reference by others. Given that, surely it is my duty as a scientist to try, given the opportunity, to do what I can to ensure that it is at least correct?

Still, despite these arguments, I initially found the idea of willingly responding to spam to be deeply unsettling at a fundamental, almost visceral level. Also, I felt concerned that, by doing volunteer work for a possibly unethical publisher, I’d be supporting their business model and perhaps lending them an undeserved appearance of legitimacy.
In particular, given that the subject of the manuscript wasn’t that close to my own field, I worried that it might have errors that I would not be capable of spotting, and that, even if I made this clear in my review, the publisher might still use the review to support the publication of a possibly flawed article.

(Edit: Just to be clear, I wasn’t worried that they’d reveal the names of reviewers, just that, even if I was the only one who sent back a review, they might still use it to claim that “yes, the paper was peer reviewed.”)

In the end, the decision was actually rather easy: after a cursory glance at the manuscript, it became clear that there was no way I could support its publication as written, especially given that large fragments of it were clearly plagiarized, and I wrote back to the journal stating as much.

However, if I ever receive a similar request again (and I assume I probably will, sooner or later), what do you think I should do with it?

I was reading few journals (in Elsevier) in my field (Biology) and I noticed the time of acceptance period from the revised version is received “Received 8 November 2016; Received in revised form 17 April 2017; Accepted 18 April 2017”. Does this mean that the revised manuscript received today is immediately the other day? Or is there any other interpretation for this?
Thanks!

I was reading few journals (in Elsevier) in my field (Biology) and I noticed the time of acceptance period from the revised version is received “Received 8 November 2016; Received in revised form 17 April 2017; Accepted 18 April 2017”. Does this mean that the revised manuscript received today is immediately the other day? Or is there any other interpretation for this?
Thanks!