I got an invitation to review a scientific paper from a journal. I accepted the offer to review but was wondering what benefits I might get if I review a paper? Can I write it in my CV as I will be applying for a Ph.D. position soon? Someone told me if I write it in my CV that I reviewed an article, no professor is gonna hire me thinking she already knows so many things and it will be hard to control her during the whole Ph.D.! Still, I accepted the offer out of excitement. Also, if my review is not up to the mark, is it like the editors will never give me anything to review again?
66448
I do not understand what good it does them. A professor said it gives opportunity to read papers he would not read on his own. I am sure there is more to it but I do not see what they gain by participating in peer review process. It takes time, it is not paid and not even publicly acknowledged. Why do they do it?
10098
As someone supervising postgrad students, I wonder what is the best way to train these students to write high-quality research papers?    The best way seems to be through coauthorship but ...  On the one hand I can be hands-off and rather give them feedback as best as I can but let them do most of the work themselves, sort of like a "sink or swim" strategy.  On the other hand I can be hands-on and rewrite the paper (or large parts of it) and hope that they learn from the example I give.  On the one hand I want them to learn to write papers without me some day and I want them to learn as quickly as possible to take load off me.  On the other hand I want us to publish in the best place possible with as little stress as possible.  On the one hand I want them to see the peer review comments from what they themselves have written.  On the other hand I do not want them to be discouraged by the peer review system early on and do not want to submit papers I know we could have written better.  On the one hand I want them to get confidence by being published and presenting work at good venues.  On the other hand I wonder if they need to get there themselves to get that confidence boost.    At the moment I'm very hands on. There's a few factors for this: I don't like submitting papers that are not up to a certain standard, I'm a native English speaker in a non-English speaking country with non-native speaking students, publications are a high priority for me, etc.  But recently a friend/colleague warned me that I should not be so hands-on with the writing of the papers of my students. He pointed to recently graduated researchers in my area that published good work as students but who struggled after leaving their PhD supervisor saying their supervisor did them no favours in the long term ... that by being so hands on, while the students have success getting published and so forth with me, I'm not really doing the most important thing a good supervisor should do: making myself obsolete.    My question is how to train students to write good research papers and in what ways can I balance being hands-on and hands-off?  I'm also interested in methods not directly involving coauthorship.
81865
In my field (I am a condensed-matter theoretical physicist) it is such a normal thing to put papers on the arXiv, that people sometimes look at other people's arXiv list of papers instead of their publication record to get to know what they do, etc.  It just so happens that a few years ago I did a PhD with a supervisor that does not like the arXiv that much (he apparently had some conflict with some authors of a paper that was very similar to one of his papers, but one was already published while the other was just an arXiv preprint -or something like that). As a result, from my list of less than 20 publications, there are four of them from my PhD that are missing on the arXiv.  I was thinking of submitting the latest versions I have of them as arXiv preprints now, four years after their publication. For this I already have the agreement of all co-authors (including my supervisor), and all the journals involved seem to allow to put preprints of the material they publish. Do you see any problem with this? I fear that some people might take it as a way to advertise as new something that was already published a long time ago (though I would of course give the full reference to the published version). There may be other issues I am not aware of. The reason why I would like to do this is that I am applying for fellowships, positions, etc. and I am afraid some of my (best) publications may go unnoticed if somebody looks me up on the arXiv.  Thank you, Stephen
90578
I am in the early stages of my PhD and I am trying to put together a literature review of my topic. My intention is that this review will eventually be included in my thesis, something like "the chapter that describes the state of the art in the domain."  My subject is soft matter physics and a large number of theses have already been written this topic. When looking at the literature reviews included in these other works I've noticed that:    The sequence of ideas is often the same (this makes sense, so why not?) Cited papers are always the same, even though 20 years elapsed between the first and last thesis. Moreover, papers from the 30's are cited but no one in my lab seems to have a copy available?    My hypothesis is that these theses are derived from some sort of a Mother of All Thesis, and that paraphrasing the work of the previous student is OK.   So, what makes a good literature review?  How do you notice that a literature review is sloppy?   PS: I posted this question because I assume many of you have experience with this process either in your own PhD work, or as a supervisor where you have had to deal with paraphrasing of your students.   PS2: I am not asking about making proper citations, LaTeX+BibTeX handles that like a charm.
21102
I'm in/from the US. I'm finishing my PhD this semester. I've been offered a research postdoc, via email, by the dept. chair at one of my top choices, but outside the US (would rather not give too many details). I replied to say I'm accepting the position. Everyone seems very happy: me, the chair, the professor I intend to work with. But I have nothing in writing.  In the meantime I have an offer for a teaching job at another place much closer, which I would definitely take if I were not getting the above postdoc. I don't feel comfortable turning this down until the other setup is official.  I emailed the postdoc place asking for an official letter. They said they would send it out by mail, but ignored my request for a scanned emailed copy, and I need to give a yes or no answer to the second place before their alleged letter would arrive. I emailed them again about the scanned copy and no response though it has only been a couple days.  How confident should I be that this postdoc is really happening? How common is it for informal agreements like that to be backed out of? Are scanned emailed letters less customary outside the US? It would be terrible of I turned down the teaching job and then the postdoc fell through.  Also, what should I say to the other place if I am still unsure about the postdoc by the deadline for my yes/no?  Update: I got the requested scan of the official letter today. I ran it by my adviser and he says this seals the deal and I can cancel any other interviews. Whew!!!
61092
Suppose I write a paper and submit it to a conference. The paper gets some weak rejects and weak accepts and lots of criticism, but the conference is not that prestigious, so they accept it anyway.  Obviously, if I agree with the reviews, I will want to change the paper (which is in part what the reviews are for). But how far can I go with these changes? If the paper is computer science, for instance, I may easily run additional experiments, or slightly change the setup and re-run the existing experiments. If I submit the paper with these results, I will basically be publishing experiments that have not, in their current form, been peer-reviewed.  At what point do changes to a submitted paper post peer review become unacceptable?
41806
This question is, honestly speaking, probably somewhat opinion-based, but I still want to give a shot.  A professor acceded to my invitation of writing a reference letter for me. Nevertheless, unlike the other professors who also acceded to write a reference letter for me, he asked me to draft it on my own. Originally I did not feel anything "wrong", and I just felt embarrassed to recommend myself. But yesterday a friend told me that a professor would ask you to write her reference letter for you when she does not actually think that you are "worthy" enough for her to write you one on her own.   What is the probability that such viewpoint is true? Any opinion is greatly appreciated!
82653
I'm currently reviewing a paper that has an uncommonly large number of references compared to the average number for that particular venue (more than 60 versus around 30). This is a regular paper, not a survey one, and although there does not seem to be wrong references, it feels like some are not really necessary, and the fact that one particular author is cited more than 15 times makes me worry that this paper is used to inflate the number of citations of that author (the submission is anonymous).   Should I mention this in my review, and try to examine which submissions are "abusive", or just let it go?
121147
The two journals I am considering for my paper each demand that the paper be submitted exclusively to their journal for consideration.  What do I win if I don’t keep this rule?   If I get rejected by both, I will have found out earlier that the paper is not worthy of publication. If I get accepted by one of the journals, this is very good. I will have found out faster which of the two journals is willing to publish me. If I get accepted by both, this is really a dream. I should probably find a reason (excuse) to withdraw the publication from one of them.    In any case how can submitting to two journals negatively impact my reputation more than the gain by being actually accepted? (More so considering I will probably leave academia after my PhD dissertation.)  What can I lose if I don’t adhere to this rule? What sanctions, if any, can I expect?
89329
Alice and Bob have co-authored a paper together. The contribution (data collection, analysis, writing) was 100% Alice and 0% Bob, except that the original idea was initiated during a conversation between Alice and Bob. Bob acknowledged several times in private that he did not contribute to the project, but he claimed co-authorship for the idea and Alice did not object to that. Alice spent almost an entire year working on the project. Bob spent less than a couple of hours in total. A manuscript with both names has already been circulated, submitted and rejected from one journal.  Bob is now trying to block the publication of the paper due to a personal conflict with Alice. In the meantime, Bob became envious of Alice's early successes and decided to do everything to slow down her career, even at the expense of his own publication record. Bob is already tenured and has no pressure to publish. Alice, by contrast, needs more publications for her forthcoming tenure review. Of course, Bob never explicitly refused to submit the paper. But instead of sending it to a prestigious outlet (where the paper would have a good shot) he insists that they send the manuscript to a non peer-reviewed and unknown journal, which would not help Alice's tenure case. Of course he makes no effort in trying to find an agreement, as he would be happy not to submit the paper at all. Clearly, his decisions are driven by spite and malevolence only and he takes great care into not writing anything incriminating for him.  Is there anything that Alice can do in that situation? Does she have to resign herself to never publishing the paper? What are the risks for her if she removes Bob's name without his agreement and submits the manuscript on her own?  PS: as a response to Captain Emacs' comment, Bob's only contribution was to say "why don't we study the causal effect of X on Y?" in an informal conversation. Alice did absolutely all the rest (literature review, design of the protocol, data collection, analysis, conference presentations, etc.). But there is no evidence of this, other than the fact that Bob would be unable to answer any question that goes into the detail of the paper.
54201
Is it common to supervisors to email their students papers to review (which were apparently assigned to the supervisor, and not to the student). The field is Computer Science, but I  would also like to hear from the other fields.
7901
I have recently published my first research paper and have already received a request to review a manuscript. The journal's impact factor is low, but it is open access, and the paper's topic is relevant to my field of study. What factors should I keep in mind when deciding whether to accept or decline the request to review? What level of expertise is typically expected from a good-quality review?
87301
I am talking with a professor to apply to a postdoc program. I sent a cold email earlier this week and we have exchanged a few emails. In his last email he sent me some papers to read. The thing is, I might end up sending my answer on Saturday, after I read the papers. Is this a problem? Should I just send it and wait until Monday for his answer? Maybe send it but include an apology for writing during the weekend? Or should I just wait until Monday to send it? I usually text everyone during the weekend including my advisor, but I'm not sure if it might be considered rude, and as I do not know the person yet I want to be as careful as possible with etiquette. Thank you.
85418
I submitted a paper to an internationally reputed journal. Two months after submission I was asked to suggest possible reviewers, which I did after a couple of days reflection. Since then it has been 4 months and the paper is still "awaiting reviewer invitation." I sent an email to the editor-in-chief as this was the only contact information given for queries. It has been almost two weeks without any reply. The day before yesterday I emailed the managing editor to know if the paper is under review or still awaiting reviewer invitation, but still I have received no reply from either editor.   How should I get in contact with the journal regarding my paper's review status?
31833
I'm applying for graduate school (PhD in computer science), and I'm considering writing to faculty whose research areas match with what I intend to pursue, to understand:   Whether they'd be looking for new students at all in the coming year? If they did, would they be potentially interested in my profile (I know no-one would guarantee an acceptance without me going through the process of application), but it would help to know if they would not be interested at all in me - which would leave me  free apply to other schools in which I get a neutral/positive response.   Keeping the above in mind, what would be the best way to introduce myself in the first mail?   What should be the salutation - I know "Respected Sir" sounds archaic, but was wondering if "Dear Professor X" sounded too informal or not! Do I state my credentials (details of where I did my undergrads/masters) first, or do I state my purpose in writing to him/her? How to mention my background concisely, without giving too much details, while at the same time not "underselling" myself as a potential grad student? I want to give a link to my resume/profile hosted on my website - should I embed the hyperlink, or is it better to write the link in plain text? How do I end such a letter - the obvious ones (such as "see you soon" or "till we meet again") being not quite suitable in this case)?   I'm basically afraid of saying too much (causing vexation) or too little (resulting in no response to my missive). I understand that the faculty are accustomed to seeing their inbox flooded with such mails each year, few of which ever get a positive response - which may not always be due to lack of an interesting profile, but the manner in which the mail is worded (Many professors have explicitly mentioned on their websites that they would not respond to generic "Do you have funding" type of queries no matter what the credentials of the student are!).   Though my interest is specific to CS, I believe it would apply to other fields as well. Also, I would be interested in the opinions of both present faculty members (who have to sort through such mails), and past applicants to grad-school (who have the experience of successfully writing to their advisers before applying)...
36540
I have received a manuscript to review for a journal. The interesting thing is, I had already reviewed this article (exact same title, abstract and author list, almost exact same content) for another journal a few weeks ago where I recommended that it be published, but only after major revisions of both form and content. When I first reviewed it, I wrote a two-page review, listing some questions and several “actionable” comments, ranging from some concerns about exactness of the text (some conclusions didn't seem fully backed by the results) all the way down to trivial stuff (grammar, a few typos, graphic issues with the figures, etc.).  Now, the manuscript has come to me for review again, but it is almost unchanged from the first version. None of the serious stuff has been addressed, and even most of the trivial stuff was not fixed (there's at least one remaining typo, and the figures still aren't fully legible). However, I think this behavior from the authors is clearly a bad signal, which should be somehow conveyed to the editor: they're not willing to amend their work, and would rather do some journal-shopping.  What would you suggest me to do? Should I just re-send my earlier review? Add a note to the editor about my knowledge of the “history” of the paper? Or maybe even include it in my review, so the authors are aware that people know of their behavior, and maybe feel bad enough to change their ways?    PS: I wrote it in the present tense, but it's actually a story from my past. I'm not sure I did the right thing at the time, and I think it's better to actually formulate it as an open question…
86569
I think the title asks the question, but once again in more words:  Suppose you submit a paper to a journal and it is accepted by the journal.  By this I mean that the journal tells you that they have decided to publish your paper but you have not submitted or examined final proofs and -- especially -- not signed any paperwork allowing the journal to publish the paper.    I wonder how people feel about the ethics of deciding not to go through with the publication because you now feel that the paper could be published in a better journal?  This could happen either because of outside feedback you received in the meantime or because of feedback from the referees/editors of the journal itself.  (Added: In case this was not clear, I am assuming that upon submission one was seeking to publish in that journal conditional on not learning that one has "shot way too low".)    As far as I can see, it is absolutely legal to do this, so I am not interested in the legality of it, but rather its ethics and ramifications as an academic practice.  I also think I will get better answers if I do not telegraph my own feelings about this; I will be happy to document them later on.  Let me just say (i) this is a hypothetical question, but (ii) based on my own experience it is not ridiculous that it might be in the interest of the author to engage in this practice, if it happened to be kosher to all parties involved.  Note: I had previously asked a related question, at the time wondering whether it would be better asked separately.  Based on the way things have gone thus far, I now think it is better to post this followup question separately (not necessarily right away).