The Institution of Engineers (India) is a prestigious organisation with more than one million members in 15 engineering disciplines in 114 centers or chapters in India and overseas.

Yet, it doesn’t prefer to publish its journals itself. All of its journals are published by Springer. This concerns me slightly because it helps in maintaining the monopoly that publishing houses have on research publications.

Why do even such large and reputed institutions not choose to publish on their own?

Well after the initial abstract get accepted in conference, then the conference committee decide wether im going to talk ot submit poster…. Now the question is i need to write a full paper since they said “special edition on conference papers will be published by springer”.
If its not necessary to provide full paper does the poster /abstract get published instead?

The Springer template is by far the most bizarre out of all of the LaTeX templates I’ve seen so far. There is no problem as long as you stick to the two-column option, but the appearance of the single column option is just crazy.

The main problems are the following

  • The right margin being outlandishly wide compared to the left margin.
  • Smaller font size in main content
  • Bigger font in reference section

These issues can be corrected to make the format look identical to the published papers in the same journal. However is it necessary?

I would especially like to know from people who have published papers in Springer who have submitted it using the standard LaTeX template provided by the publishers.

This is particularly about Multimedia Tools and Applications, but I’ve noticed this problem in other journals sections that use the same template.

I, and my collaborator (coauthor) from a different university had finished a work last year. We had submitted the full research article to one of the journal published by Springer. My coauthor was the ‘corresponding author’ for the same. We both had contributed equally to this work over a span of 4-5 months.

The article was submitted on March, 2016. Just after few days of the submission, the paper status remained as “With Editor”. Till today (now) the status has not changed at all (not even the date of the status).

I have been trying to convince my coauthor (who is also the corresponding author) to pull out the paper from such a badly managed venue and submit it somewhere else. However, he is reluctant and not interested to listen to me at all.

Moreover, I can’t (shouldn’t) directly write the e-mail for the withdrawal of the paper, as I am not the corr. author. Moreover, it may create conflict of interests.

I have been thinking to step back from this collaboration. Is it a good idea?

I have been confused with the present status of my manuscript whose status follows the following timeline:

  1. Manuscript initially submitted through Editorial Manager (Springer): 25 Jan 2017
  2. Under Review: 27 Feb 2017 till 9 Jun 2017
  3. Reviews completed: 10 Jun 2017 till 22 Jun 2017
  4. Editor assigned: 22 Jun 2017

The journal is in the field of Computer Science and Computational Mechanics (Applied Computer Science).

My inferences from the above strange timeline:

  1. The reviews have been completed and the system administrator or the journal manager assigned the editor (who is assumed to be associated with it earlier) to take care of the review reports and make a call.
  2. The number of review reports is not sufficient. It would be re-reviewed and handled by another editor.
  3. It is a software issue or a bug.

I have the following questions:

  • Whether is my inference correct?
  • As one can see, it has been 6 months already. Is it too early to send a gentle reminder to the editor-in-chief to look after my manuscript?
  • Is such a timeline of manuscript ‘strange’ at all? (Although it is difficult to answer this unless the editorial manager software is understood properly.)

Related posts and questions:

Springer’s self-archiving policy ( ) says:

By signing the Copyright Transfer Statement you still retain
substantial rights, such as self-archiving: “Authors may self-archive
the author’s accepted manuscript of their articles on their own
websites. Authors may also deposit this version of the article in
any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months
after official publication or later
. (…)

Prior versions of the article published on non-commercial pre-print servers like can remain on these servers and/or can be
updated with the author’s accepted version.

So if I’m understanding correctly, if you have not uploaded the paper to arXiv or other repositories beforehand, then a 12-month embargo applies before you are allowed to publish the accepted manuscript in any repository. However, if you have uploaded the paper to arXiv or some other repository, then you are allowed to post the accepted manuscript there with no embargo as an update of the previous version.

Not that I understand why such a policy can make sense, but my real question is: how should “prior” be interpreted there? Prior to paper acceptance or prior to the first submission?

That is, for example: is it OK to submit a paper to one of these journals, be asked for major revisions, then do the revisions and submit them to arXiv in addition to the journal, and finally update the arXiv entry when the paper is accepted?