Auditing - Science method

If a manuscript is rejected by a journal, the editor may occasionally offer the option to revise and resubmit.

Does revising the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments and resubmitting it to the same journal (including the original submission ID) increase the likelihood of acceptance or consideration?

Any experiences or advice would be appreciated.

advantages of revising the previous lesson before the main topic

A PhD isn’t just about research. It’s about leading, adapting, and delivering results. Here’s what supervisors expect (but rarely explain): 1. 𝗢𝘄𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 Supervisors expect YOU to lead the project. ↳ Independence beats constant supervision. ↳ Solve challenges before asking for help. ↳ Manage timelines without reminders. ↳ Propose ideas, not just problems. 2. 𝗕𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁 They assume you’ll know your field - better than them. ↳ Challenge assumptions and defend insights. ↳ Master the theories and research gaps. ↳ Stay updated on trends in your area. ↳ They guide - you own the expertise. 3. 𝗪𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 Draft early - progress matters more than perfection. ↳ Submit drafts regularly, even rough ones. ↳ Fix grammar - they won’t do it for you. ↳ Revise quickly based on feedback. ↳ Expect feedback - and lots of it. 4. 𝗕𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 Show initiative but know when to ask for help. ↳ Ask specific, clear questions - not vague ones. ↳ Clarify doubts early to avoid bigger issues. ↳ Respect their time - prepare for meetings. 5. 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 Publications aren’t optional - they’re expected. ↳ Turn conference presentations into publications. ↳ Break your thesis into smaller papers. 6. 𝗛𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 Feedback isn’t personal - it’s about improving. ↳ Revisions build stronger arguments - embrace them. ↳ Track and implement suggestions carefully. ↳ Respond with edits, not excuses. ↳ Listen without defensiveness. 7. 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 Supervisors expect regular updates without chasing you. ↳ Share progress - even if it’s partial. ↳ Keep meetings focused and goal-driven. ↳ Highlight challenges early to get support. ↳ Silence signals trouble - keep the conversation going. 8. 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 Messy work wastes everyone’s time. ↳ Clarity shows professionalism and preparation. ↳ Follow formatting rules - every detail counts. ↳ Organize sections before submitting drafts. ↳ Use headings and visuals for clarity. 9. 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 Research rarely goes as planned. ↳ Adapt quickly when methods don’t work. ↳ Embrace failures - they can be lessons. ↳ Progress isn’t linear - resilience is key. ↳ Stay focused on long-term goals. 10. 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲𝘀 ↳ Ensure timely submission of work, even if in draft form. ↳ Supervisors need reliability more than brilliance. ↳ Track goals with timelines and updates. 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 Supervisors expect focus, clarity, and ownership. What’s one expectation you had to learn the hard way? -------------------------------------------- Struggling with data analysis or methodology? DM me or email support@hamnicwritingservices.com, and let’s move your research forward. #ThesisWriting #PhDLife #AcademicTwitter #GradSchoolProblems #ResearchStruggles #DissertationHelp #WritingCommunity #PhDChat #AcademicChatter #PhDJourney

I am looking for some studies that look into what is the 'best' revision technique, ideally at secondary education level or above :)

I am busy revising a previously validated FFQ. Since it was a dish_based one, its dishes' recipes need to be updated. I wonder if there is a quick method for revision of recipe's content. Otherwise, we have to calculate all recipes denovo which is very time consuming.

May 18, 2024 (Submission)

June 23, 2024 (Decision "Major Revision")

Sep 8, 2024 (Decision "Minor Revision")

Oct 14, 2024 Rejected (From Editor - I regret that you paper has been floating around for some while and has come to me for attention, as no one knew what to do with it - I regret to say that we do not publish .....)

??????????????? HOW

The bug when published paper did not appear in Google Scholar after posting preprints at BioRxiv and ArXiv has been described in 2014: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/95152/do-all-preprint-servers-have-the-non-updating-issue-in-google-scholar.

The bug occurs when preprint has been in the same state for a while. Did anyone figured out any way to avoid this bug?

Did anyone experience similar issue after posting preprints ResearchSquare? The preprint status there shows how manuscript is going through the revision process. May be it will help to avoid this Google Scholar bug?

One of the reviewers of my recently submitted paper seems to have written the review using ChatGPT.

I am, of course, willing to revise the paper if the content of the review is appropriate.

However, none of the 9 revision requests in this review are related to my paper.

In this case, how should I respond? Should I write a letter to the editor?

could you revise my protocol of my research

I would like to review and revise Research Curriculum to emphasize data appreciation and storytelling.

I submitted a manuscript to a SAGE journal through ScholarOne 4 months ago. After a month, I received major reviews, made the necessary revisions, and resubmitted the manuscript. Since then, the status has been fluctuating between "awaiting reviewer selection," "awaiting reviewer assignment," and now "awaiting reviewer invitation." I'm unsure what these status changes indicate. Any insights?

Hello everyone

I have revised my manuscript according to the reviewers' comments and tried to submit it to the Transportation Engineering journal. "https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/transportation-engineering"

However, I encountered a PDF build error that prevented me from completing the submission process. The error message said: "PDF build failed: There were errors building the PDF file. I checked the file but I could not understand what the problem was. I used Microsoft Word to write my manuscript and followed the journal's template and guidelines. Has anyone faced a similar issue before? How can I fix this error and submit my manuscript successfully?

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Dear colleages,

I had a strange case when receiving a strange from one the journal I had sent a paper to. My space story is as follows

I sent my paper to a journal. Then the editor sent the paper the reviewing. I received an email from editor tell me congratulation and I had have to revised according to the minor corrections recommended by the reviewers. I did what are requested and sent modified paper to the editor. But, I surprised by reply from the editor that " your paper is not within the scope of the journal" . The question is why the editor did not reject the paper initially before sending it to the reviewing and avoiding the waste time?

Can I sue him for the this mistake that made me waiting more than one month?

What is your opinion to what I have to do?

I checked my revised paper for plagiarism and found significant overlap with my own previously rejected preprint published on Research Square. Since I've revised several sections, the remaining parts of the paper are showing as plagiarized. What steps should I take to address this issue before submission?

My current problem is that my cells die when I grow them. It is an MC38 cell. The medium I use is RPMI modified, without calcium nitrate, with 2.05 mm l-glutamine. I add 10% FBS and 1% penecilin/streptomicin. I've tried to revise my technique many times, but, I always get the same result. I would like to have your help or advice in this case to be able to continue my work.

Hello, I want to start a research in the field of accounting or auditing, in your opinion, what new topics can be valuable for research?

Hi

Can anyone share?

Pickford, M. (1987). Révision des suiformes (Artiodactyla, Mammalia) de Bugti (Pakistan). Annales de Paléontologie, 73, 289–350.

Kind Regards

I have submitted a second revision to the reputed journal. But it has been showing "awaiting admin processing" for 2 weeks. What is the meaning of this?

Recently, I have sumitted my article to a journal (23 June), the editor suggested that major revision, the two reviewers are also interested in my article and ask some questions for my experiment. I have sumitted my revised manuscript (27 July), then the editor told me I need to revise my manuscript thoroughly due to the language issues. In addition, the editor recommdated the journal editing service and emphasized that my article may be rejected due to the language issues. Due to the expensive cost of the journal editing service, I would like to take a cheaper editing service. I wonder that if I don't use the journal editing service, will the editor approve my article? Or should I withdraw the article and resubmit to other journal?

Thank you for your submission . Our impression is that the above-mentioned manuscript could become suitable for publication in ***. However, the quality and clarity of the language used in the manuscript would benefit from a thorough revision. Implementing these changes will enable our readers to focus on the scientific content of your manuscript. You might consider using a professional language polishing service, such as *** Language Editing Services.

Please note that your submission may be rejected due to language issues. For one example, the logic of the Introduction Section is poor. Please revise the manuscript thoroughly, and we will decide whether or not the revised version can be sent out for external review.

Peer-review process at Food and Chemical Toxicology: Reviewer 1 (senior male researcher from Ethiopia): “These 4 papers should be reviewed, discussed and cited”. He is coauthor of those 4 papers. Reviewer 2 (professor at the Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran; h-index = 38): “These 5 papers must be added to the text to make the article more complete”. He is coauthor of those 5 papers. Both reviewers: English should be revised. First author (male young researcher), corresponding author (me): (i) provided a solid explanation to both reviewers of why we decided not to add their papers (different trace elements, fruits, vegetables, geographic location, weather) (ii) made substantial changes to the manuscript, (iii) sent the manuscript to a professional English-proof reading service (minor grammar errors though!). Besides, I contacted the Editor to warn him about these unusual requests. Reviewer 1 accepts the revised version. Reviewer 2 insists in adding his papers, he is convinced that the English is still not good (despite the fact that the English revised version was attached), he repeats his comments (that were addressed the first time). We make some minor and sent the proof-reading certificate attached to the revised version. I contact the Editor again, fearing the worst, and request another reviewer. Reviewer 2 rejects the paper and writes to the Editor: “the author either does not understand the meaning of the comment or resists changes and corrections to improve the article, which is basically unscientific”. The Editor supports his decision and rejects our paper. Better to trust the senior researcher’s judgment than the 2 young Peruvian researchers (especially the female corresponding author), right? I wrote the Editor 96 hours ago requesting him to reconsider his decision. I haven’t heard back from him yet.

How would you handle this situation?

Developing a new multidimensional psychometric tool involves several key steps to ensure the tool is valid, reliable, and useful for its intended purpose. Here's an overview of the process:

1. Conceptualization

a. Define the Purpose: Identify the specific psychological constructs or dimensions you want to measure and the context in which the tool will be used. b. Literature Review: Conduct a thorough review of existing literature to understand how these constructs have been previously defined and measured. c. Theoretical Framework: Develop a theoretical framework that outlines the relationships between the constructs and guides the development of the tool.

2. Item Generation

a. Generate Items: Create a pool of items (questions or statements) that reflect the constructs you intend to measure. This can be done through brainstorming sessions, expert consultations, and reviewing existing tools. b. Initial Item Review: Have experts review the items for clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness. Revise items based on their feedback.

3. Pilot Testing

a. Preliminary Testing: Administer the initial item pool to a small, representative sample. Collect data to evaluate the items' performance. b. Item Analysis: Perform item analysis to determine which items are functioning well. This may include examining item difficulty, item-total correlations, and response distributions.

4. Item Refinement

a. Refine Items: Based on the pilot test data, refine or eliminate items that do not perform well. This process may involve rewording items, removing ambiguous items, or adding new items. b. Second Round of Testing: Administer the refined items to another sample, preferably larger than the pilot sample, to further test their performance.

5. Factor Analysis

a. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): Use EFA to identify the underlying factor structure of the items. This helps in understanding how items group together to form dimensions. b. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): After establishing a factor structure, use CFA on a different sample to confirm the structure. This step tests the hypothesis that the items fit the proposed model.

6. Reliability and Validity Testing

a. Reliability: Assess the reliability of the tool using measures such as Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and inter-rater reliability (if applicable). b. Validity: Evaluate the validity of the tool through various methods:

7. Standardization

a. Norming: Administer the tool to a large, representative sample to establish normative data. This helps in interpreting individual scores relative to a population. b. Scoring: Develop a scoring system that is easy to use and interpret. Ensure that the scoring method aligns with the theoretical framework.

8. Finalization and Documentation

a. Final Revisions: Make any final adjustments based on the testing and analysis phases. b. User Manual: Create a comprehensive manual that includes instructions for administration, scoring, interpretation, and evidence of reliability and validity. c. Training: Develop training materials for practitioners who will administer the tool.

9. Implementation and Ongoing Evaluation

a. Implementation: Roll out the tool for use in real-world settings. b. Ongoing Evaluation: Continuously collect data to monitor the tool's performance. Make updates and refinements as necessary based on user feedback and new research findings.

By following these steps, developers can create a psychometric tool that is both scientifically sound and practically useful.

To give reference

Singha, R. (2024). What are the processes involved in developing a new multidimensional psychometric tool? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_processes_involved_in_developing_a_new_multidimensional_psychometric_tool

Dear collegues, I would like to share some (negative) experiences with the Springer journal "Discover IoT". Cut the long story short first: after 1 year of review and one major revision with shallow reviews, our paper got rejected by an editor, who is not listed in the list of editors...

The long story: the journal claims to have 18 days review on average (see the image, the screenshot is taken today, 22/May/2024). Our paper took 205 days for first review, then 81 days for a second review. The comments were shallow and could have been applied to almost any paper (font, table format, figure readability). Interestingly, the emails came from somebody labelled as "Editor", who was not listed in the list of editors of the journal.

I think we don't have to go into the details of how bad this is and what it means for a young researcher to wait for a year to receive reviews. But I am also wondering whether this is a one-time outlier and if some of you had positive experiences with this journal, or if is it the rule. An email to the editor-in-chief actually triggered a reply, admitting "isolated cases of delayed reviews", but refusing to answer the question about the communicating editor or even a small apology.

Opinions, experiences, comments?

I submitted a manuscript to journal X and immediately decided to withdraw it. Unfortunately, the editorial board did not respond to my emails for 8 months, and the process went on until it reached the revision stage. The time for revision is over. My question is, can I submit my manuscript to another journal now?

Dear colleague/researcher

I am currently working on revising my paper. One of the reviewers asked me to check the SST/DHW data from this site ( https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/sod/mecb/crw/data/5km/v3.1_op/nc/v1.0/annual/ ). The files are in .nc and .nc.md5 format. Anyone knows about it? Please help me how to open the file in such format.

Regards,

MIA Ghafari

i submitted my paper on 28th dec 2023, after 3times revision, i submitted it on 1april 2024, still is under review, what could be the outcome?

I received the following comment from the editor "The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your manuscript following minor revision and modification" and i don't really know how to feel about it.

What do you think?

I am doing a literature review and need to include prior studies on this subject matter.

Yesterday I have installed my new text, but it is slightly revised.

Can You change it?

Timo Töysä, Iisalmi, Finland

timo.toysa@fimnet.fi

What is the difference between a systematic review and a review article?

In order to submit a paper some authors choose journals which offer one side blinded revision, so that the identity of the referee/s remains/remain unknown for the author. Nevertheless other authors prefer journals with two side blinded revision.

I personally prefer the last option, more impartial in my opinion. I wonder what is your opinion. What do you think about this? Thank you very much in advance.

Hi,

My recent publication "Exploring cross-boundary collaboration for youth mental health in Sweden – a qualitative study using the integrative framework for collaborative governance". Is wrongly displayed on ResearchGate. How can I revise it?

Regards,

Linda Richter Sundberg

Some AI services are already working in healthcare. They evaluate thousands of radiologic studies every day. It seems clear that radiologists should review some images to monitor the quality of AI services work. Please share your thoughts on how to calculate the minimum sufficient number of images for revision?

Collating research work on revising the Curriculum Guide for Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.

Assuming, of course, that the journal in question has a preprint policy.

Gordon, R. D., 1994: South American Coccinellidae. Part. III. Taxonomic Revision of the Western Hemisphere genus Delphastus Casey. Frustula Ent. 17:71-133

I submitted a manuscript to a journal recently, and although their standard procedure involves two reviewers, I received feedback from three. While two of the reviewers provided positive feedback and suggested minimal or no changes, the third was notably critical. While I acknowledge and agree with some comments that could enhance the manuscript (though they don't represent significant shortcomings), certain remarks were either irrelevant or challenging to comprehend—potentially due to the reviewer's non-native English proficiency. Additionally, certain points he raised were already been addressed in the manuscript. That reviewer consistently labeled every section of the manuscript as “poor”, including the results section, which was carefully written following APA style guidelines, with a balance between statistics and descriptions to ensure readers neither felt overwhelmed by statistics nor missed key information. He recommended the rewriting of the manuscript and as a result, the editor has requested a revision. Is it common for reviewers to lack expertise in certain areas, leading to concerns that may not be considered constructive criticism? How much weight editors give to such comments in revision?

The first time I encountered ethical concerns was when a reviewer insisted on having his unrelated eight research papers cited in the revised manuscript. The question arises regarding the ethicality of such an act, especially when it is approved by the editor. What will be your course of action when you encounter this unwanted thing?

I am working on research of water management in my site which is related with quantifying the water consumption pattern and water losses. Hope anyone can help me.

now the status of revised manuscript changed to 'revision". I am so confused why I got 'revision' after I submitted a revised version. Thanks for your information

I have submitted my manuscript to the Hindawi journal five months ago. I have revised the manuscript two times: the first major revision and the second minor revision. After submitting the minor revision, the status changed to under review and pending approval. After waiting 20 days for pending approval, the status now is reviewers invited. What will be the reason, and what will be the result? Please help me.

I need a detailed outline for doing

1. carbon auditing,

2. energy auditing, and

3. water auditing

of a research institution/academic campus.

Can somebody help me with the detailed outlines for these three tasks?

I need to know:

1. What are the different components that I need to consider when doing carbon, energy, and water audits?

2. How do I calculate the carbon emission/absorption coefficients of different components?

3. How to predict/model the time required to make a campus carbon neutral?

4. How do I calculate the energy use efficiency of different components?

5. how to calculate the water use efficiency of different components?

Experts can suggest other aspects too.

what does it mean for SAGE SSCI awaiting reviewer assignment after I submitted my revised verision

Vi en un artículo de Algal Research... 'Received 14 August 2023; Received in revised form 24 November 2023; Accepted 28 November 2023'

¿cómo logran que los pares revisen y aprueben en menos de 15 días?

Llevo más de 6 meses esperando una respuesta de mi articulo en otra revista.

I made a spelling error in the title. How can I revise?

I just deleted an old file and I now see no place on the website to upload my new revision.

Looking for a link to the RHFCQ and the scoring

I'm working on my thesis about formulating an adhesive for sticky traps and am currently having trouble finding a suitable procedure with exact measurement that i can revise. Any recommendations? Anything would be helpful, thank you.

Dear Colleagues

I would greatly appreciate it if one of my esteemed colleagues in the field of English language education could assist in native-like reviewing, editing and revising a research manuscript that needs to be submitted to an ISI journal. With utmost respect, to acknowledge his/her valuable contribution, his/her name will be included as an author of the paper.

looking forward to hearing from you

Sincerely Yours

Dear Colleagues

I would greatly appreciate it if one of my esteemed colleagues in the field of English language education could assist in native-like reviewing, editing and revising a research manuscript that needs to be submitted to an ISI journal. With utmost respect, to acknowledge his/her valuable contribution, his/her name will be included as an author of the paper.

looking forward to hearing from you

Sincerely Yours

Hello

I am a master's student in auditing.

What is the hot topic for the thesis?

where can i find an arabic version of the Revised heart failure Compliance Questionnaire?

I am searching for a website that has all CS journals (specially machine learning and artificial intelligence ones) and writes the TTP (Time To Publish) for each paper.

TTP = E[1st review + revision + 2nd review + revision + ... + final review + accept + internet publish]

"We are researchers from China, mainly engaged in plant molecular biology. We want to communicate with international high-level researchers to make progress, so we really need your help. We hope you can help us revise the related papers to be published to improve the professionalism of the papers, and we are looking forward to your professional guidance.”"You can participate in the project via video or email, so it won't take up too much of your time. We will provide a subsidy of about 5,000 RMB for each expert who helps us."

I have submitted my manuscript revision one month ago. after submitting my revision my paper status was (with editor). Now from two, it shows the status of under-review, so what does it mean

I submitted my manuscript to one of the famous X journal last year. I got my third major revision mail today. I am kind of concerned about a rejection after 2 years of submission-revision process.

I am kindly asking about recommendations and opinions about it.

I received major revisions on my research paper, followed by minor revisions in which I addressed all the reviewer's comments and suggestions.

Are international legal principles absolutely not reviewable , Under what conditions can the principles be revised ?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/102688682.cms?from=mdr&utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Me interesa la revisión del concepto MODELO Y DISEÑO , basado en SALUD PÚBLICA, PROMOCIÓN DE LA SALUD, DETERMINANTES SOCIALES DE LA SALUD, FUNCIONES ESENCIALES, posterior a la PANDEMIA.

My manuscript, which I sumbit to a journal of Sage in September 2022, passed the Editor stage and was taken for peer review. After 11 months, the referee evaluation was finalised. They rejected it without revision today. The editor said that "Although the reports are generally positive, we are unable to accept your submission for publication. This is due to the sheer volume of submissions we have received over the past few years. As a result, the acceptance rate had to be strongly reduced." There are contradictory statements that I cannot make sense of. How can an article with a "positive report" be rejected without revision after 11 months with the excuse of the acceptance rate of the journal? If they are sensitive to the acceptance rate, why do they take it to peer review and how do they see themselves the right to keep it waiting for 11 months? Isn't it unfair to keep them waiting for 11 months to give a direct rejection?

Despite the positive reports, they only showed me the review text of one referee. Unfortunately, the review of the referee full of contradictions is very superficial and there is not even a concrete argument and criticism. I cannot see the other reviews at all. After 11 months, I am very upset to be rejected with an acceptance rate excuse and an inconsistent referee review. What can I do against this situation? How can I claim my rights? How can I complain about the editor's unfair attitude and approach. I need your help very much. Thank you!

looking for some mentor or academician in field of pharmaceutics to revise and submit manuscript to privilege's journal. if you are interested contact me via : ali.yassen@tiu.edu.iq

I served as a reviewer for journal B. I noticed that I already reviewed the same manuscript for journal A. I provided my comments (a couple of pages long) for improvement for journal A. However, the author (s) completely ignored my comments and made no changes to submit to journal B. The manuscript has been rejected by journal A because it does not meet the journal's quality standards.

I reported it to the journal editor and stated that I already reviewed this manuscript for another journal. The author (s) made no changes by reflecting on my comments.

My question is this: Do you think it should be the author’s academic freedom to revise or not to revise before submitting to another journal? Or should it be considered unethical practice? Also, should the manuscript be rejected if it is considered unethical?

what is the difference between major revision and revision with justification of criticisms in CBM journal?

I sent an email to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), Associate Editor (AE), and journal administrator inquiring about the possibility of extending the revision deadline, four days before the deadline. However, I did not receive any responses. In this situation, may I submit the original manuscript to the journal again?

"Awaiting Referee Scores" means ?

Today (17 May) I removed an uploaded pre-print to fix some typographical errors.

Title: "What I Learned about What Exxon Knew."

On uploading the revised pre-print I could not use the prior Research Gate doi, and the upload process did not assign a new doi.

So, the revised pre-print does not have a doi. That's inconvenient. I'd like to communicate it by link.

Is it possible for RG to assign a new doi to the pre-print?

And let me know? :-)

Thanks very much,

Pat

Recently, I submitted a paper to Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. However, the COVID-19 situation at my institution has significantly impacted our academic activities, and I can’t submit the revised manuscript to TMTT in time.

Although I have sent an email to the manager and editor-in-chief of TMTT requesting an extension of the deadline, I am not sure if this request can be granted.

They mentioned, 'If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.' in the first decision email, which means that if I am unable to submit a revised manuscript, do I still have the opportunity to continue submitting to this journal?

Is it logical for a reviewer to send different comments after R1? We recieved comments and after submitting the revised MS, all the changes were satisfactory to reviewers as they did not raise any query regarding previous comments. But, in R2 totally different comments were made on the manuscript.

Please select number or few numbers in your answer (i.e. 1,3,4) when you agree on the following statements:

Journals of MDPI publisher worth to be treated as predatory - 1.

Journals are very well managed and are at the same level as journals issued by other publishers - 2.

My revisions for manuscripts are equal, independently on the publisher - 3.

My revisions are ignored by Editors from MDPI - 4.

It’s just a war between “classical” and “modern“ - 5.

Our lab was working on a genus of invertebrate (taxonomic revisions and phylogeny). Suddenly we see a preprint in Research Gate, which has one of the new taxa attempted to be described that we are currently working on.

Interestingly the preprint is an unfinished manuscript which is still under review, but had a DOI number.

Is this ethical to do?, as we feel that this is clearly a research misconduct to prevent others from working on the taxa?

I have already revised some of the data streams (WDI, WID or world income inequality, Unctadstat, Ford) where quite a large number of data (yearwise) are missing. How to recover the data? Can I use data cleaning or other methods when many years of data are missing? Or, is there national data streams such as Department of Statistics which can provide the missing ones?

I was revising a scale and ran into some problems.

It is a second order model with two latent variables in the first order and a total score in the higher order.

When I was using AMOS for CFA, the correlation path that MI suggested to add appeared to be correlated across the two dimensions. It does not meet the TLI good-fit criteria without adding it.

But it is said that I cannot correlate across dimensions, which is said to indicate poor discriminant validity of the scale.

What should I do? I would be grateful for the help from experts.

International accounting standards aim to unify and standardize accounting globally.

They have been accepted in Macedonia since the 90s of the last century.

A period has passed where each standard was studied and interpreted individually.

Of course, in our country, today in North Macedonia, the IAS made a big step forward, and with the addition of the International Financial Reporting Standards and the International Auditing Standards, we gained progress in the accounting profession.

When the author revised the article based on reasons of desk rejection, do they reconsider them? Or do they have rules not to resubmit them? Or does it vary for each journals?

Can i republish or revise the article

I left my previous university with Georgetown University, how can I revise it to reflect my new university?