I'm a first time submitter to arxiv. I suspect it has to do with how the bot said my paper should be submitted under AG but I still picked number theory (which is the actual subject of the paper)

I saw people complaining about 20+ days wait it's honestly depressing

Edit: I'm confused about lot of things including why this post got downvoted

Fellow scientists,

The scientific world is evolving really fast. We saw what happened to math - where multiple millenium prizes were solved overnight - and how that is discouraging a generation of new scientists in pursuing math formation.
I read Terence Tao’s letter on nature (will upload link in the comments if you haven’t) and I thought that should be the approach for other branches of science too. I can now prepare and publish a scientific paper for a Q1 journal in a few hours. And I say cause I did it, and multiple got published (in respectable journals in my field), just using Claude code in an efficient way and knowing what journals are looking for. Yet, I don’t comprehend those papers as the ones I wrote back in the days, where I had to put sweat and tears on methods and understanding results. But I also find those paper more rigorous, and as one reviewer mentioned “honest”. That because I included in the “instructions” just how I want to read it as a reviewer.

I don’t want to read another 40 page paper anymore. I’m tired. We will always be outpaced by the machines if we just have to read, just because they can read and understand faster. This means that I will never read and I will just upload on whatever LLM a file, and say “summarize”.
Yesterday, I was reading a study where the intent was clear by the title. To find the answer I needed, it took me a long time. And that was just one phrase that could have been added to the abstract, and it wasn’t.

I wrote a code that I needed for a research. It is itself useful and I want it to be recognized. And I do not think it needs any peer review. But would it be accepted? It literally just does what the name says it does, and it does it well. Can I feel like that is a good work even if I didn’t go back and forth with an editor for 9 months? The current state is (in the way I feel it) that if you don’t publish it, it doesn’t exist.

There has to be a better way of showcasing science. Conferences you will say? I can’t go every week. Online? Scholar is flooded with junk. Researchgate shows papers in a full form and it is not a social in Any aspect - zero functionality. I am finding LinkedIn more useful for the way you can interact in there, if I have to be honest. Unfortunately, the amount of spam in there is wild.

I do not have an answer nor an actual question in this post. I’m just an academic that is wondering what the scientific world is going to be like in a few years. I’m not talking about “we are doomed” cause we are not. I am being addressed as “the most productive” and I work a fraction of how much I used to. But the future has to be drastically different.

If you took the time to read, and you have a comment regarding this, I thank you and I will read it even if it is very long.

Cheers,

- fresh graduated doctor

I previously made a post asking how explicitly I should state, when resubmitting a revised version of an article, that an earlier submission on the same topic had already been desk-rejected: https://www.reddit.com/r/academicpublishing/s/47PkvLs3Yl

You might be interested in the follow-up. I explicitly disclosed the previous rejection and referenced the manuscript ID, only to receive another desk rejection.

Among other things, the editor noted that they do not accept commentaries discussing articles published in other journals, even though the journal's website clearly states that such commentaries are accepted.

Hi all,

So I'm currently working on an independent research project on a plant and defining it's ecological niche using physical parameters (like temperature, humidity , microclimate in general. kept vague for privacy) I am writing a paper now that it has given quite important results and as this is my first ever experience writing and submitting a paper to a journal.

My questions to whoever reviewed before, particularly in plant and ecological sciences:

- what makes a good paper a good paper?

- what makes a reviewer reject a paper... or at least what makes a paper weak?

- How much weight do they put on the “so what?” / broader significance part when the study is pretty focused?

The purpose of academia.edu.

A few years ago I joined academia.edu. I've been pretty successful there as SeanWhalen8, but though publishing papers online (whether already published or original, drafts, notes, etc.) has the purpose of sharing information for free, its use as a stage where authors can evaluate this work is less effective. Though there is a system for messaging colleagues, etc., it has barely been useful. For the reason, I can hardly imagine, but I put this up there:

Putting papers online has the purpose of sharing information for free, etc., but becoming part of a community that shares this way should also lead to communication between authors about which theories seem to be improvements, which don't, & which might be partly true or promising but need more work. Opinions about which are which could clearly vary. In this context, it is odd that in communicating with others here I almost never get any response. This is true in response to both simple questions & praise. When I agree with all or part of a paper, the standard response is silence. In some cases I find later that I've been blocked by one author. There is no message that comes to inform a person that he's been blocked, so going to a homepage or paper & finding it blank is the only way to know (and this can happen due to some computer problem at times, so you have to continue going back to tell). Though I won't name them here, almost all people who've blocked me have done it in response to a message that praises their work & asks about more, gives more ideas or specifics, etc. The vast majority are Slavic or from Scandinavia. What reason for this pointless unwillingness to here any ideas even slightly different from one's own could exist? The lack of communication between people who have new or disputed ideas can not lead to as much knowledge as a willing exchange could. I suspect that most don't care anything about what an amateur believes, or a believer in a disputed idea (though they almost always believe in a DIFFERENT disputed idea). I can only ask that professionals with less bias at least ask their fellows to try to be a little less judgmental.

We’re working on LumaCite, which captures references from academic websites and lets you check or update their metadata in an online library.

Before submitting a manuscript, which fields do you most often have to correct after import—authors, dates, journal details, or something else?

Capture & Cite Chrome extension

Is the year a paper is made available in early access the same year as it was submitted to a journal?

Hi all.

I have an article under review with a pretty high journal in my subfield (humanities). The system says my article is with one individual, a Managing Editor, and is "awaiting reviewer assignment."

What I am trying to determine is 1. if my article is most likely past the desk rejection phase, and 2. Where my article will go next, if it isn't desk rejected.

I have Googled the journal's board, and been led to believe that the journal has five tiers of editors, in this order of hierarchy:
1. Senior Editor (1-2 people)
2. Editors (10-15 people)
3. Advisory Editors (15-20 people)
4. Associate Editor (1-3 people)
5. Managing Editor (1 singular person)

The individual my article is sitting with is the Managing Editor, though they are also in my article's topic area, so well-suited to review.

I know essentially nothing about journal editing, despite serving as a peer reviewer for a few, and because this journal is so high up in the field I am expecting a revise and resubmit at the very best.

Is it at all possible that my article is past a desk rejection phase? If it is, does anyone have any ideas about where it may go next? More specifically, if the system updates to say my article is with an Associate Editor or an Advisory Editor, should I assume I got past the first round, or should I assume the Managing Editor is not vetting my quality at all and is just doing some grunt work for the journal?

Thank you for your time - I know this is a rather stupid, anxious post, and that knowing the process in more depth will not change the outcome here, but I am applying for jobs and am worried I'll get a desk rejection before any possible interviews.

The IUCr posted a notice on 7 October about moving the journals to Wiley's Research Exchange platform, starting with Acta C, Acta E, IUCrData and IUCrJ. https://www.iucr.org/news/notices/announcement/iucr-wiley-publishing-partnership-announcement

I would like to hear how people in the community see it. I was in the Calgary Congress but I didn't hear anything about this, seem like a big move. Did anyone at the Congress hear this discussed beforehand? How much does the CIF and checkCIF workflow matter when you choose where to submit?