Suppose I have developed an algorithm or improved an existing one and sent it for publication and the paper is under review. It needs say one year to get published. Now I want to send this second manuscript for publication using the concepts proposed in my first paper. What is the optimal way out here ?
The optimal way is to stay calm in the storm. :-) This is really not a problem. When you write the second paper you of course cite your first, and if it is practical you bring your derivation and proofs in your second paper down in size, referring to the first paper for most of the details. (You will not be allowed to state full proofs of similar results - only summaries.) The journal for the second paper will not wish you to write everything twice - that is, they do not want you to replicate everything that you wrote in the first paper, because it is not completely original. (And the first journal will be mad if you do, because you would then plagiarize.) But it is also a fact that this second journal does not want the analysis to be empty, so you need to cite the most relevant results from the first paper. It is very important that the second paper is rather different - otherwise the editor of that second journal will simply say that the results you present are "incremental" - too small and insignificant to be worthy of publishing.
Good luck!
The best way is to upload the paper under review on ArXiV (https://arxiv.org) and then cite the version on ArXiV. I've personally used this method in a similar situation.
you may prepare an internal progress report of department or institute and then cite the work.
Do not cite until your paper is accepted by the journal or somewhere else.
I agree with Ivo Carneiro de Sousa
. In fact, I have already posted preprints of papers that I had submitted and now that they are accepted, I have uploaded the final versions.
Dear Dr. Pankaj K Mishra, technical question in deed. Please heed to the advice of Prof Ivo Carneiro de Sousa
. If you go with that by Dr. Pritam Bhattacharya, that could lead to the violation of the copyright terms of most journals which states 'that you agree that the paper has not been published elsewhere or under consideration by any publisher' especially those that operates on CC BY NC. Again one trick you might apply if you are sure that the second publisher will accept the second paper faster is to use it, then update the citation in the first submission.Regards,
C.E.
This question was asked in 2015. If it is really important to cite your own paper that is currently under review, then one good idea is to upload that paper into arXiv, and then cite the version of the paper that you have uploaded into arXiv.
You know what? I do not think you should be in a hurry; take one paper at a time. You probably have decades to perform research in, so why rush? The typical thing that happens when authors are in a hurry is that the connection to the existing research will be badly represented. The so-called survey (i.e., literature overview) is very important - and it is becoming more and more important, for at least two reasons: there is a lot to connect to: you are probably building your work on others' and hence you need to connect and relate to that by not only citing previous papers but let the readers know in more detail the connection to the past. The mountain of knowledge is also getting bigger and bigger, and you need to provide a good "map" so that the readers can connect to it.
You can include in the references of the 2nd paper the first article (with information "under review"). If necessary, some journals allow you to send supplementary material and so when you submit the second paper you can also send a copy of the first article to the referees to consult if they wish.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts