It will be difficult to accept it if your paper is published online.

This is my opinion!

Dear Sadeem,

I believe that one of the main requests for publishing in peer-reviewed journals with impact factor, is that your articles should be original. It might be difficult to be accepted if you publish online, first, as in RG. Don't you find?

Kind regards, Maria

Dear Maria

Thank you for your answer.

"one of the main requests for publishing in peer-reviewed journals with impact factor, is that your articles should be original." 

there is already an exclusion in arXiv, many of the peer reviewed journals accept submitting from it in spite of its free access. In research gate the author has the ability to hide his paper or modifying it and s/he has the full copyright, in addition I think its even more related to the author him/her self than its relation to any site that it's controlled by persons other than author.

Dear Dr. Sadeem,

Good Day,

As, Dr Maria said , your work/paper should not been published before, if you want to publish it on peer reviewed journal (This is one of their conditions!) , even in RG, as far as I know. So, please, do not upload any thing anywhere until it had been published.

It will be difficult to accept it if your paper is published online.

This is my opinion!

 Dear Dr. Hazim and Dr. Fateh

Thank you so much for your valuable contributions,

It may also depends on the editors themselves, some journals may accept it,while others don't accept it. But I agree with you its a dangerous and difficult task to publish it after uploading it here.

“Submission of a paper implies that it reports unpublished work and that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.” 

Dear @Sadeem, see COPE practice!

http://publicationethics.org/case/attempt-publish-data-already-published-elsewhere

Nevertheless, I want to make use of this context to request both research gate correspondents and the editors of  journals to try to reach a deal of accepting these papers, because these papers are totally owned by the authors themselves and totally written and made by the authors, so they are still original just as they are in arXiv.

You can, and you should edit the entire text, before submitting. This will be easier if you are the only author.

Dear Ljubomir

Thank you for your answer

There is no objection about publication ethics, but my wonder is why it's accepted to republish papers from arXiv while its not accepted for other websites?

Dear Dr Sadeem,

things in mainstream research proceed as preceding commenters wrote: i.e. main journals accept only non-published papers. But you also are right: arXiv is an accepted exception for those who can publish in arXiv. I think nevertheless the question is more general, because like this journals and others have authority to decide the future of research, accepting or declining a paper. In fact if a paper of a young researcher, that presents critical elements towards mainstream theories, is declined, as almost always it happens, then that researcher will be inclined to neglect critical elements and to do more conventional research. And not always peer reviewers take on the right decision. This is the known conflict between exigences of career and personal vocation.

Dear Dr. Maria

Yes, this can be a useful option. 

However may be one needs not to upload tables or all the equations so that the 

plagiarism could be allowable.

Thank you for your valuable contribution. I appreciate it.

Considering the amount of work that goes into writing a paper, I think it is better not to publish it elsewhere (RG) before giving it for publication in a journal. 

 Yes Dr. Vibha

I agree with you, its really time consuming process.

Given the tendency of journal editors (such as the editor-in-chief of the IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Dr. Tan) to take a long time even to respond to requests for a review, I think the much better option is to put the paper directly into the public domain. ResearchGate is a tremendously good example.

For instance, given the poor quality of reviews that one typically receives, it seems pointless to proffer a paper to a journal.

Hence, I shall in all future instances, place my papers directly on ResearchGate and Academia.edu.

The journals have told me far too many times that they don't need me, or my papers. Message understood! No longer will journals get my papers.

Dear William

I understand what you mean, sometimes the reviewers and editors comments are harsh so one need to make some change in his plane of publication at least to see some progress on his academic account. However its better to have multiple resources of publications including personal accounts on research gate or academia in addition to peer reviewed journals. It's good we have thousands of choices to submit to them today, so keep going on there is always another journal around.

Best regards

The journals can go to hell.  | will never put another of my papers in a journal.  They do not deserve to have my work in their publication.  The journal publishers and editors think they are gods, while I think they are demons.  I don't do business with demons.

Instead, by acting as the founding editor and publisher, I am establishing the

International Journal of Freely Available Research

All of its issues will be posted to both ResearchGate.net and Academia.edu

All one need do is to download the issues, gratis.  You pay only your own internet access charges.

The first issue will have just one paper (mine, of course) but future issues will be open as a place for others to publish their own work, and all papers will be subject to open review by the ResearchGate and Academia.edu communities.

This journal will accept for publication all suitable papers, even if the author(s) have previously made the paper available in some other form, so long as it was not subject to a prior transfer of ownership, such as being published in another journal or proceedings volume.

I am open to the comments, critiques and suggestions of others.

Can I get support from other ResearchGate and Academia.edu users, to make this alternative publication a worthy venue for researchers?

In generally I agree with Maria and Vibha.

In addition RG helps to introduce papers that published in journals.

I hear you William.  But unfortunately, many young assistant professors likely do not have that option. 

Virtually all organizations, journals included, in my opinion after careful consideration, may tend to be run by cliques and in particular, most in authority generally appear to arrive there for the wrong reasons.  People are often obsessed with exerting control.  It's an unappealing part of human nature impacting most people. That may be part of the reason that advances in a field so often come from outside the mainstream - opposed by the status quo.  Organizations can serve a purpose, but they are often obstacles.  I know that I have tried, as a referee and reviewer, to be more open minded than the manner in which I have sometimes been treated. 

But where I worked, publication was not important to the people in charge, so a conference type of paper worked for me.  Before I retired, a coworker told me about ResearchGate as a place to archive work, and he treats it as documentation for methods I developed that work well for many of the statistical activities of that agency. So like you, ResearchGate is fine for me to post new work as well, and I am currently working on a paper that I, at this point, intend only for ResearchGate, but for many, that may not be an option. Actually, I think that a warning would be nice, so it is good that Sadeem posted this question.

None of the journals I know objects to posting one's manuscript on arXiv prior to submitting it to them. In fact, APS offers an option whereby one can submit one's manuscript for consideration to them by providing the relevant link to arXiv. Things change when one signs the document for transferring one's copyright to the relevant journal. Each journal has its own specific demands as to what one can do with a manuscript accepted for publication by them.

As for publishing first on RG, I would strongly advise you to check the legal status of the things published on RG. ArXiv has a well-established strict procedure in place for registering the exact time they receive a manuscript and the exact times that manuscript is subsequently changed, if at all, by the person submitting it. This becomes very important for establishing the priority of authors -- different authors may come into conflict with regard to the originality of the ideas in their manuscripts. Such conflicts can be legally resolved when manuscripts at issue are submitted to arXiv. This may or may not be the case however when manuscripts are made public through other channels, such as RG.

To summarise, before publishing your results on RG, make sure that your intellectual property rights are fully protected on doing so. ArXiv offers such legal protection, but I do not know whether this is also the case with RG.

Most journals do not allow it. However, some of them encourage to upload draft manuscripts in arxiv and personal web-pages. I think that abstracts and draft manuscripts may be allowed. In any case, I think double blind review would be the best way to analyse manuscripts objectively.

This is the law.  The mere act of penning a publication confers copyright. You don't need someone else to vouch for your copyright.  And, the timing of placing a publication on-line is prima facia evidence of ownership, and provides a date/time stamp on its creation.

Juan-Esteban, et.al. -

Double blind review may be best, but still not very helpful.  Each clique has its own ideas and knows who supports what approach.  Consider:  A friend was an author to a paper that was turned down by a 'prestigious' journal recently, likely, it seems, because it used one of two major methods for doing something, and people involved there, at that journal, solely preferred, really required, the other.  That article was then submitted to a more 'prestigious' journal, and approved.  I do not expect this is an isolated incident. 

In an old case, a friend had an article approved in a journal in 1963, but it was not so heavily scrutinized as in one done seven years later, where people then thought it was a new idea.  Then in the 1970s and 80s, i did development in hypothesis testing, finding it misused, and was lucky to have a letter published on it in The American Statistician in 1987.  Today it seems many more agree with me. 

More recently, I have had a lot of proven success in model-based sampling and estimation for official statistics for highly skewed establishment surveys, yet many with influence in the world of statistics, but no appreciable experience in using these methods, ignore this. 

My point is that the system, both in the past, and now, from my experience and others, seems geared to promoting certain schools of thought, at the expense of others, and even a double blind referee process will not stop that roadblock to progress. 

I have refereed for some prestigious journals, and not so prestigious, and for theses and dissertations, and we all know that the process is far from perfect.  Perhaps double blind reviews are of some help.  But until humans become more open minded and less controlling, we have to know that this is all going to remain problematic.  But I think discussions people have made to this thread are helpful: Always check a journal's policies ahead of time; consider arxiv; use ResearchGate if you aren't concerned about publishing elsewhere.  Also, I think that it is good in general for a question like this to raise awareness.  There is always new hope for improvement with each new generation.

Cheers - Jim

Dear William

Its really an interested idea to make such an open access journal. As Prof. Behnam mentioned

"As for publishing first on RG, I would strongly advise you to check the legal status of the things published on RG. ArXiv has a well-established strict procedure in place for registering the exact time they receive a manuscript and the exact times that manuscript is subsequently changed, if at all, by the person submitting it."

So, making such open access journal or website forms a real need to most of scientific community, the problem it needs support and also fund to get acceptance from the scientific community. I don't have to mention that publishing in arXiv is not possible for most researchers and academics in the world, because it follows certain rules that require you to get an endorsement from a recognized endorser by the arXiv, which is really not an easy task. I tired it before and got nothing. Its easier for me to submit my paper to a peer reviewed journal than submitting it to arXiv. However, there are other options which offer open access as mentioned before like research gate, academia and open access repositories. The problem one needs to put papers there that s/he does not plane to publish them again in a peer reviewed journal, or can do it but with some modifications to avoid conflicts with copy rights. 

Dear Juan-Esteban Palomar Tarancon 

I agree with you that double blind reviewing process can lessen the harm of dominating certain ideas above the others, however just as Dr. James R Knaub mentioned its still not enough. The effect of mainstream now is more powerful than it was on thirteens till sixteens of the previous century. Before that it was normal for an idea out of main stream to be published and sometimes bring attention, but now the situation is too much different. That's why some specializations which depends on deep thinking and theories have semi frozen their advance and achievements from many decades due to these manners in rejection all the out of main stream ideas. For my experience I saw this in theoretical physics they really have semi frozen its advance, its just like saying that the previous century solved all the issues and what is remained is trying to prove experimentally these theories. I thing the crest of developments in such specializations will be ended if the same procedure continues.

Regards

 I, too, have been impeded by the arXiv requirement for an endorser.  Frankly, when you have done the kind of work that I have done (designed a machine that builds itself), I should not need an endorser.  In my opinion, arXiv is no less elitist than are the journals.

I do not recommend you publishing any material that is already public on the internet.

I have reviewed this COPE post (thanks for pointing this out, Ljubomir)

http://publicationethics.org/case/a...sh-data-already-published-elsewhere

An attempt to publish data already published elsewhere | Committee on Publication Ethics: COPE

The COPE case is not relevant to this discussion.  Indeed, it concerns data that was previously published in a journal.  That is greatly different from data first placed in the public domain.

For any journal that I might publish, the standard shall be that the data is formally published only once.  By this standard, it shall be perfectly acceptable to publish data that has previously been made public, though not formally published.  I see no legal conflict.

Dear William 

Do you have any prove about this please, its really important if there is one

"

For any journal that I might publish, the standard shall be that the data is formally published only once.  By this standard, it shall be perfectly acceptable to publish data that has previously been made public, though not formally published.  I see no legal conflict."

Thank you

 Dear Ramim

That's good idea, Thank you

Regards

In my opinion, it works similar to arXiv articles issue.

I publish preprints on arxiv, and then I submit it to journals after it is finished.

So, text differes between preprint and final article submited to peer revievew journal.

It didn't used to be a problem, but increasingly I find journals conduct a web search and inquire about anything they find with the same title.  It has been dicey a couple of times to get them to proceed with considering a paper, and so I have stopped publishing working drafts on RG or Academia, etc.  Even on my private and relatively unknown website, the journals find working copies, so if I have posted these I delete them well before submission.  I don't like it, but that's the way things are going.

Dear Robert 

thank you for your answer, I agree with you

Best regards

Sadeem