r/academicpublishing

Hi everyone,
I’m currently navigating the waiting game with a manuscript submitted to Wildlife Research published by CSIRO (So Australian based journal) and could use some perspective from anyone who has seen a similar pattern in the portal. Mind you, its my first manuscript, so if i sound confused/green/novice please do excuse me.
I submitted my paper on May 26, and it went into “Under Review” after a few days. On August 3, the status changed to “Decision in Process,” although “Under Review” was still visible beneath it at the time. Then, yesterday (August 18 EU time), the status updated again—“Under Review” completely disappeared, and now the portal only shows “Decision in Process” and lists the name of the Editorial Assistant (EA).
Around the same time, I received a mass administrative email about APC discount codes for submissions made before August 13, though the email explicitly mentioned applying the code “after acceptance.”
It has now been nearly three weeks since “Decision in Process” first appeared, and the final removal of the “Under Review” status only happened yesterday. I’m trying to figure out if this specific sequence usually signals that the reviews are finalized and the editor is now just drafting the final letter. Also, is a three-week window for “Decision in Process” common, or does it typically suggest a more complex decision, like conflicting reviews leading to a Major Revision?
And finally, does the appearance of the EA’s name at this stage usually mean the manuscript has moved to the final administrative checkout?
I’d really appreciate any insights or similar experiences. Thanks!

As a PhD student, I did not expect my dissertation would be read by people outside of my committee. Although I published it on my institution's open access repository, I thought it would languish on a server -- like a book collecting dust on a library shelf.

Today, I went to the repository to confirm my expectations. I was wrong. My dissertation has been downloaded over 1,800 times and viewed 289 times since it was uploaded in March 2023. For someone who had low expectations, those stats are huge. I doubt that I would have gotten those numbers had I published my work through a university press.

I am happy that I chose the open access route. As an academic librarian, I advocate open access to information. I was never going to lock my work behind a paywall.

I advise doctoral students and PhD holders to share their dissertation through open access, if they can. Having one's dissertation disseminated freely translates to more readers and potentially more impact in the field.

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for advice about a situation involving a journal publication and university funding.

I recently had a research paper accepted by a journal after a very long review process. The paper was originally submitted about two years ago, when both co-authors were still students and working at the university. Since then, I have graduated, and another co-author of mine has left the university. We are no longer affiliated with the university.

The research was a university project and was funded by the university. The university funding information was included in the manuscript/print preview, as required. However, now that the paper has finally been accepted, the university is refusing to provide/confirm the funding because neither author is currently affiliated with the university.

The situation is frustrating because the research was conducted while I was a student, and the funding was provided for the project at that time. The fact that the paper took two years to get accepted was largely because of multiple rounds of rejection and substantial revisions. The reviewers were demanding, but we put a lot of time into addressing their comments and improving the paper.

If the university refuses to provide an official funding statement, what should we tell the journal? Would it be appropriate to explain that the research was funded by the university when the work was conducted, even though the authors are no longer affiliated with the university?

In the publication funding option, write that it will be funded by the university.

I would really appreciate any advice from people who have experience dealing with university-funded research that was published after the authors graduated. In particular, I would like to know what the normal academic/research administration practice is and what documentation I should try to obtain.

Hi everyone,

I'm a pharmacist and currently doing my MSc. I worked in medical content writing for around 5 years, mostly general medical/SEO content, but lately I've been thinking about moving more into research and scientific writing.

I'm still trying to understand what kind of jobs actually exist in this area. I'm more interested in working with research papers, literature reviews, manuscripts, publications, etc. rather than writing health content for websites.

I came across companies/publishers like Elsevier and Springer Nature, but I'm not sure if that's actually where medical writers work, or if I should be looking at completely different companies.

For anyone working in this area, how did you get into it? What job titles should I be searching for?

Also, what skills would you recommend I work on during my MSc if I want to move in this direction later?

I'm based outside the US/UK, so I'd also be interested to know if remote work in this area is realistic.

Would really appreciate any advice, especially from anyone who came from pharmacy or a similar background.

Salve, sono una dottoranda e da circa 3-4 mesi sto cercando di pubblicare il mio primo articolo scientifico (campo STEM). L’ho inviato già a circa 4-6 riviste medio alte ma ho sempre ricevuto un transfer pending senza nemmeno essere revisionato. È capitato anche a voi? Cosa mi consigliate? Se si va raccontatemi le vostre esperienze

Hi all. I’m a PhD Research Scholar in Law. I’ve completed my research and thesis writing. However, until and unless I have 2 papers in scopus indexed journals, I won’t be allowed to go for my synopsis presentation and defence.

I’ve gotten one paper published and indexed through BMC Research Notes. Since the process seemed user friendly with my first paper, I submitted my second paper in the same journal. For about 6 months, I got a template feedback. Now it’s stuck in a forever review loop and I haven’t heard back since three months, despite sending multiple emails asking for status.

I’m afraid that I won’t complete my PhD at all due to this requirement. This is mandatory and my university will not let me proceed without the second paper being published and indexed in scopus.

my_qualifications
PhD Research Scholar in Law, part time, completed 3 years (most journals treat law as a social science)

Can anyone suggest scopus indexed journals that have a high acceptance rate and fast review and publication time?

I’m desperate. Help!!

I built an open tool for researchers to write manuscripts, auto-format citations into 35+ journal styles (IEEE, Nature, APA), and export directly to Google Docs/PDF. Would love feedback from fellow PhDs!

https://citeable.ai.studio - use cite-able and give me remarks to better your experince .

I saw in a old Theories of Everything podcast with Sabine Hossenfelder where there was discussion on how hard it is to navigate academic publishing, which has only gotten worse.

And I've read a few threads on here about how hard it is too.

I think that outside perspectives are absolutely necessary to ensure creative variability, kinda like helping escape the pull of the academic black hole.

I've reached out to a few journals to propose a dual track approach (without success, they're probably getting slammed by AI too):

* **Track 1 (Standard)**: The classical peer-review pipeline for incremental, consensus-driven research.
* **Track 2 (The Independent Track)**: A dedicated, rigorous submission channel for independent or un-affiliated foundational theory.

Under Track 2, an incoming paper submitted in a dedicated channel, is first screened by an advanced, specialised AI pipeline configured solely to **verify absolute internal logic, scale-free consistency, and mathematical alignment**. If the code and data layers pass this rigorous, automated "sifting screen," the human editor takes an "editorial gamble" to publish it under an independent track, albeit with the caveat that it is the authors reputation on the line, letting the wider community openly verify or dismantle the framework based on its merits (like we used 50-60 years ago.) This is would be a middle ground between traditional journals and fully AI platforms like Qeios.

My big question is if this dual track concept is even viable, would AI just learn how to navigate the sifting screen and make the whole thing moot? Would editors even want to take on this role again? Is there a better way that someone is working on?

EDIT: for clarity, my experience has been solely in the philosophy of science, particularly the philosophy of physics. I have no experience with the publishing process in other fields. My apologies to commenters who were mislead by this inaccuracy.

Fellow academics! I am a practitioner / academic (now called pracademic?) and was thinking of having my dissertation published. I want to write a version of it that is translational so that professionals can use the information in the field to benefit them and the folks we serve. Are the big academic presses like CUP and OUP very particular about how much the actual book differs from the dissertation? And what are your experiences with wide dissemination of university presses? This is tantamount as my main motivation is to get this knowledge in the hands of people who need the information rather than impress my peers! Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone,

I'm finishing my Bachelor's in Environmental Science this September and starting a Master's in Research (MRes) in Environmental Science right after. I'm reaching out because I'd like to collaborate with researchers on publications, ideally as a way to build real co-authorship experience early on.

My main research interests are invasive species, entomology, and dendrochronology/dendroclimatology. I did an internship at a Forest Institute contributing to research on bark-eating beetles, led an independent (unpublished) study on the impact of an invasive gall wasp on chestnut leaf physiology, and my thesis is a dendroclimatological study of Mediterranean pines. I've presented posters at 3 conferences, including IUFRO Division 7 in Lisbon.

That said, I'm not narrowly limiting myself to that niche as I'm comfortable with R for statistical analysis and data wrangling more broadly (mixed models, community ecology stats, time series), so if you or someone you know has ecological data that needs analysis, cleaning, or modelling help and could use an extra set of hands, I'd genuinely welcome that conversation too.

I don't know if this is a slightly unusual ask on this sub, but I'd rather be upfront: if anyone here is working on something in this space and could use analytical help in exchange for co-authorship or just the experience, I'd love to hear from you. I'm equally happy to just hear general thoughts on how early-career people (pre-PhD) typically find their way into these collaborations.

(I've kept some details vague here for anonymity, but I'm happy to share a portfolio or examples of my data analysis work directly if that would help anyone evaluate whether it's a fit.)

Thanks for reading.

My boyfriend completed his PhD in Optoelectronics and Photovoltaic Devices in France, and it has been almost eight months since he graduated. Since then, he has been actively applying for scientific editor roles, but unfortunately, he hasn’t received any response from the publishers. He has also attended a few postdoc interviews but couldn’t get through them.

Recently, he finally received an email from a publishing house for a Scientific Editor position. The job is based in India. The HR mentioned that they would be sending him an assessment link. Since this is the first positive response he has received after months of trying, he really doesn’t want to mess up the online assessment.

If anyone here has experience working as a Scientific Editor or has gone through similar assessments, could you please share some insights into what the assessment is usually like and what kind of questions or tasks he should expect? Any advice on how to prepare would be greatly appreciated.

This role is very important for him not because he's unemployed but because of reasons related to me. It's a long story which is not relevant to this sub. In short we need money for my medical treatment. So please any insights would be extremely helpful.

I recently had a strange experience with an Elsevier manuscript transfer process and would like to know if others have experienced something similar.

Our manuscript was initially rejected by one Elsevier journal, but the editor recommended transferring it to another journal with “guaranteed peer review.” We accepted the transfer.

The manuscript went through peer review, and we received reviewer comments. The editorial system then showed “Revision Requested – Major Revision.” However, the editor also told us that the manuscript would ultimately be rejected because it was “not within the scope of the journal,” regardless of our revision.

This is what I find difficult to understand: Why ask authors to undertake a major revision if the editor has already decided that the paper will be rejected regardless of what we do? It seems strange to ask reviewers and authors to invest additional time in a revision that supposedly cannot change the outcome.

The sequence then continued:

Rejection → “Guaranteed Peer Review” → Peer Review → “Major Revision” → Revision Requested → “Out of Scope” Rejection → Transfer to another journal → “Conditional Acceptance.”

At this point, I am questioning not only the editorial decision but the transparency and legitimacy of the transfer process itself. Is the purpose genuinely to find the best scientific journal for the manuscript, or is there also a commercial incentive to move manuscripts through a publisher’s journal portfolio?

I am not accusing anyone of misconduct or claiming that editors receive financial incentives—I have no evidence for that. I am simply asking whether this is normal editorial practice.

Has anyone else experienced a similar “Major Revision” request while being told the paper would be rejected regardless of the revision?

I’d be especially interested in hearing from authors, reviewers, or editors familiar with Elsevier’s Article Transfer Service.

​

Hi, I have written an academic article and I want to publish it, but I don't know much about the publication process.

Can someone please guide me on how to publish an article and what I should check before submitting it to a journal?

What should I check regarding:

- Journal reputation and indexing

- Peer review

- Publication fees

- Whether the journal is legitimate or predatory

- Any other important things I should verify before submitting

Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you!

Hello! I recently completed a research paper titled "Bounded Rollouts in Symplectic Graph Network Simulators: A Necessary and Sufficient Condition for Bounded-Activation Potentials", which has been submitted to Computer Physics Communications for peer review. I'd like to upload the preprint to arXiv, but I need an endorsement for my first submission in this category. If you're an arXiv endorser and are willing to help after reviewing the paper or abstract, I would be sincerely grateful. My endorsement link is: https://arxiv.org/auth/endorse?x=GBHYUL

So, we submitted a paper to a journal, and in the first peer review decision received a "major revision", we added some more results, performed some more ablations, cleaned our content, and catered to almost each point of all 3 reviewers. We submitted the revised manuscript on 14th July, and today received the decision for the second peer review, which is again "major review", but the more interesting thing is that reviewer 3 has not asked for anything, reviewer 2 has asked for very minor changes, and has even hinted that this is close to acceptance, but reviewer 1 has asked for retraining, re-running, and recomputing other baselines that are far out of reach of our compute capacity, we have clearly mentioned multiple times, in our limitations/future-work section that futher experiments are out of the scope of this work. How do we reply to reviewer 1?

Hi everyone!

I'm a research intern with Improve Life PLLC, a psychiatry clinic in Northern Virginia, working under the mentorship of Dr. Stephanie Waggel. Our team is conducting a PRISMA-compliant systematic umbrella review examining the effects of commonly used medications and supplements during pregnancy on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes.

We're looking to connect with individuals who have experience or a strong interest in systematic reviews and evidence synthesis. Whether you're an undergraduate, graduate student, medical student, resident, faculty member, clinician, or researcher, we'd love to hear from you!

Some areas where collaborators may gain experience include:

• Conducting PRISMA-compliant systematic reviews
• Literature screening and data extraction
• Risk of bias assessment (RoB 2, ROBINS-I, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale)
• Critical appraisal of scientific literature
• Scientific writing and collaborative research

This is a great opportunity for anyone interested in medicine, public health, epidemiology, pharmacy, biomedical research, or evidence-based healthcare.

I've attached a flyer with more information about the project and collaboration opportunities:

https://preview.redd.it/w18mdhufzvhh1.png?width=1194&format=png&auto=webp&s=099ea9622cfdb8038a3bf4bb5493b22d2041be0e

If you're interested, please feel free to comment below or send me a direct message. If this isn't the right fit for you but you know someone who may be interested, I'd really appreciate you sharing this opportunity.

Thank you!

If I want only 3 Research Publications to mention in my CV, What should be H- index, Journal Recommendations, impact factor etc. I can only do Cross sectionals and Case Reports so I want to have 2 Croas sectionals along with 1 Case Report. Despite giving my precious time doing research alongside some unserious dudes that consume a lot of time and energy, I can use this time to increase my step 2 score and as far as the match is concerned, having inpatient USCE with the best LoR from PD or attendee is enough. I would like to hear from you