I was part of a university project team, and at the end of the semester we decided to submit a review paper related to the topic of our project. Our advisers gave us feedback and made suggestions on our draft. We submitted our draft to a journal and many months later, one of my team members got a notification that our paper needed to be edited to respond to reviewer comments and resubmitted. However, he did not contact us until a few months later, when he said he thought we should not submit because the necessary edits were too demanding. However, when he went to talk to our advisers, some of them decided to continue working and resubmit. The other student did not let any of the other team members know, and told the adviser no one wanted to help him without consulting us.
A month later, we were all notified that they were resubmitting that week and they needed our consent to remove us as co-authors. They have made very significant additions to our paper, adding more sources and detail to our claims and rewording the majority of it. However, the overall idea of the paper is quite similar and there are aspects of the paper that resemble portions we wrote. I feel it is quite ungenerous of them to cut us all out from being co-authors, when we wrote the majority of the initial submission, even if the final draft is quite different. Did they do the right thing?
EDITS
To clarify some points –
The main issue is that they have to resubmit in a few days, so any changes in authorship need to be approved by everyone very soon. I agree that our adviser should be changed to first author, but there’s no time to get everyone’s consent for that, unless he can get an extension.
The adviser has not been hostile in any way and I don’t want to make things too awkward, but I don’t quite feel comfortable signing off on cutting us all out.
I guess my real question is should I insist they include us? How much of the initial draft must be modified before you can just remove co-authors.

I have been currently conducting a systematic review. I used the classification framework approach, and I organized the articles in my field into three main categories (e.g. A, B, C). However, I am struggling to properly analyze the findings by summarizing the main ideas instead of separately/individually analyzing each article.

Can you give me some practical advice on how to better group the ideas? I tried with a systematic matrix.

For the first time, I had to review a revision of an academic paper (I have already reviewed several other papers, but they were all rejected after the first round). While the authors had clearly improved the paper (after the first round, major revisions were requested by the editor (and myself)), several major issues mentioned in the first round of reviews were still not (or not correctly) addressed. Furthermore, due to the improvement in writing and structure, the paper was easier to read, and I was able to identify several flaws or strong limitations that I did not report in the first round. Consequently, I, again, recommended major revisions (while I hesitated with rejection due to the major flaws).

After having submitted my review, I received the reviews of the two others reviewers. To my surprise, both were positive (1 line comment such as “Issues have been addressed and I have no further comment”) and the editor requested minor revisions.

In view of this, I am wondering if I have misunderstood how I should review a paper after revision as I did not make a real difference between round 1 and 2. Therefore my question is how far can/should we go in reviewing a paper? If at each round, improvements are made but new flaws or mistakes are spotted, should we stop mentioning them at some point?
This process might be theoretically infinite. Furthermore, as an author, I know that several rounds of reviews are exhausting and stressful so I do not want to be “that reviewer” (the one who is too picky and who completely slow down the publication process).

I am writing a review paper in the field of engineering.

At the moment the paper is 20 pages and I am afraid that this goes up to 80 pages when it is finished.

I was thinking about making it open access. However, I am afraid to break the paper into several parts and pay the open access fee multiple times which I definitely could not afford.

Could anyone please advise how much is the page limit for an open access review paper in IEEE and Elsevier. If my paper is not publishable there, where else could be a valid and feasible journal for me?

Can I write a survey on a ‘Broader’ subject of a technology, discussing how literature has discussed the technology, instead of a particular aspect?

For example in ‘cellular communication for vehicles’ there can be a number of ways to explore the field, including ‘implementation challenges’, ‘Resource allocation’, ‘security’, ‘coding’, ‘vehicle-to-infrastructure communication’…and the list goes on.

Is it necessary that I present the survey on any one of this narrowed field. During my Ph.D. I have read a lot about almost all of these topics, can I combine them into a survey on the lines of “Survey of communication technology in Vehicles” etc. which details all these aspects?

Can I write a survey on a ‘Broader’ subject of a technology, discussing how literature has discussed the technology, instead of a particular aspect?

For example in ‘cellular communication for vehicles’ there can be a number of ways to explore the field, including ‘implementation challenges’, ‘Resource allocation’, ‘security’, ‘coding’, ‘vehicle-to-infrastructure communication’…and the list goes on.

Is it necessary that I present the survey on any one of this narrowed field. During my Ph.D. I have read a lot about almost all of these topics, can I combine them into a survey on the lines of “Survey of communication technology in Vehicles” etc. which details all these aspects?

I am writing a detailed literature review of some twenty papers available on a newer topic of interest, which form the core of the topic. I am extensively using data from all of those twenty papers.

I want to know whether there is any limit to the amount of data that can be taken from a research paper (with proper citations and referencing) for writing a review paper. Will the excessive use of data (methodology, experimental results, author’s proposed and unverified hypothesis etc.) from a research paper be called plagiarism?

There is a research Paper Y which presents some experimental result. The author has cited Paper X to justify and explain the reason of that result. I am writing a review paper and included the result of Paper Y.

Can I cite Paper X in the review paper to give the justification of the result by Paper Y as already done by the Paper Y itself? Or will it be somehow called mindless copying from Paper Y? And should I cite Paper Y also (along with X) while including the correlation between result (Y) and the reason (X) as the author of Y was the first to correlate the two?

There is a research paper ‘Y’ which has got some experimental result. The author has cited paper ‘X’ to justify and explain the reason of that result. I am writing a review paper and included the result of paper ‘Y’. Can I cite paper ‘X’ in review paper to give the justification of result by paper ‘Y’ as already done by the paper ‘Y’ itself ?Or will it be somehow called mindless copying from paper ‘Y’? And should I cite paper ‘Y’ also (along with ‘X’) while including the correlation between result (‘Y’) and the reason (‘X’) as the author of ‘Y’ was the first to correlate the two ??

I am about to defend my PhD thesis in computer science and so far I have being asked to subreview 5 or 6 papers of different conferences.
At the beginning, it was exiting because it was a new experience in my career. However, at this moment I am a little bit snowed under work and I have being assigned with 2 subreviews from the same conference.

I do not want to turn down the opportunity of expanding my knowledge and experience, nevertheless, this situation has brought to me serious doubts about the usefulness of subreviewing.

Apart from the acquisition of knowledge and experience,

  • Which are (or could be in a future) the benefits of subreviewing?
  • Is there a moment in your career that it is not worth it anymore?

Thank you.