Comments on: A Paper Crunch

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:28:44 +0000

Neil, since a few years, many journals now also accept MSWord documents. Some journals require that you just send them a PDF or Postscript file.

But LaTeX is easy to learn. I wouldn’t waste any money on programs that convert documents to LaTeX. I’m not sure about the quality of the code you’ll get that way. When I export the results of symbolic Mathematica computations to TeX, I usually have to modify the LaTeX code by hand (to deal with linebreaks in equations etc.)

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:47:51 +0000

1. Yes. To a first approximation all theoretical physics papers are written in LaTeX.

2. Sorry, I don’t know of a converter.

By: Neil B.

Neil B. — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:07:42 +0000

1. Is LaTeX still as important as it use to be? I’ve heard many say, it’s OK now to send most papers in Word or PDF. Of course it depends on who wants it, I’m just looking for a scan of the patterns.

2. I’m looking for a good and cheap/free Word to LaTeX converter, that will take docs already done in Word with Equation Editor and convert to submission-grade LaTeX. If I can’t get the program, are there places that will convert. Thanks for any suggestions. Also, does Open Office latest version actually have built-in genuine LaTeX conversion?

By: Thomas D

Thomas D — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:25:11 +0000

I remember reading somewhere (must have been while reviewing something for Phys Rev!) that papers that are just 4-page-long summaries of other papers by the same authors are not supposed to be suitable for PRL.

Now we all know tons of counterexamples … so is this actually not a rule that PRL applies, is it just routinely ignored due to the overall benefit to all concerned of getting more things published in PRL, or what?

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:35:21 +0000

I’ve not experienced such long delays at all with PLB or any other Elsevier journals. I have to admit that I have only published (a few years ago) a few articles in these journals. My experience with the Physical review is also good, except for one case in which I had to transfer from PRL to PRD. The status report of that article:

CURRENT STATUS OF MANUSCRIPT: Editorially approved for publication

CORRESPONDENCE:
SENT RECEIVED DESCRIPTION

06Jun05 Editorially approved for publication

01Jun05 Communication (miscellaneous) received from author

23Dec04 05May05 Review request to referee; editor concludes response unlikely

03May05 Communication (miscellaneous) received from author

23Dec04 31Jan05 Review request to referee; report received

12Jan05 Reminder to referee [others sent (not shown) at 1-2 week intervals]

12Jan05 Reminder to referee [others sent (not shown) at 1-2 week intervals]

03Jan05 04Jan05 Acknowledgment sent to author

22Dec04 Correspondence (miscellaneous) sent to author via email

22Dec04 Transferred from PRL to PRD

09Dec04 22Dec04 Ed. decision and/or ref.
comments to author; response rcvd

18Oct04 08Dec04 Review request to referee; editor concludes response unlikely

09Nov04 09Nov04 Reminder to referee; response received

29Sep04 08Nov04 Review request to referee; report received

29Sep04 02Nov04 Review request to referee; report received

21Oct04 Reminder to referee [others sent (not shown) at 1-2 week intervals]

21Oct04 Reminder to referee [others sent (not shown) at 1-2 week intervals]
18Oct04 Status update sent to author via email

01Oct04 13Oct04 Review request to referee; message received (not a report)

06Oct04 Correspondence (miscellaneous) sent to author via email

05Oct04 Communication (miscellaneous) received from author

29Sep04 29Sep04 Review request to referee; message received (not a report)

24Sep04 Acknowledgment sent to author via email

20Sep04 Correspondence (miscellaneous) sent to author via email

By: Belizean

Belizean — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:50:47 +0000

Physics Letters B isn’t that bad…

Only if you think that 11-month publication delays are acceptable. This is not at all uncommon with them. These delays are totally absurd for the short papers that they publish.

By contrast, it’s fairly easy to get a full-length paper published in Physical Review D within a couple of months.

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:53:13 +0000

Jason, I agree. I guess this is the exception that proves the rule

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:35:26 +0000

Not sure where we’ll submit, but probably PRL and PRD.

By: Jason Dick

Jason Dick — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:14:19 +0000

Well, I think there’s bad experiences to be had all around. My first scientific paper a couple years back was published in JCAP after a huge amount of headache (which my advisor and I believed was thoroughly unwarranted). So I’m not sure it would be valid to judge an entire journal on one bad experience. The referees are, after all, individual scientists with their own opinions and biases, such that an otherwise good scientific journal may be rejected not because it lacks merit in what it attempts to do, but rather because the particular research the referee has focused on is somewhat different than the one the paper is focused on, resulting in misunderstandings that cause them to think the paper has less merit than it ought.

This is, I think, a necessary evil where scientific journals are concerned. It is much better, I think, to err on the side of rejecting papers. A good, valid scientific paper will be accepted eventually, after all. A bit of headache on the part of good scientists is, I think, a fair price to pay to ensure that bad science doesn’t attain respectability.

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:54:30 +0000

JCAP or PRD?

The only problem I have with the Physical Review is that they are supposed to cover the entire field of (theoretical) physics (PRA –PRE + PRL), which includes mathematical physics. They once rejected my paper, saying that it was too specialized, suggesting that I publish it in a more specialized journal (on mathematical physics).

I ultimately did manage to get that paper published but it was repeatedly rejected from a few other journals on mathematical physics, mainly because it was written in a style more suitable for physics journals and not the more rigorous mathematical physics journals

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:44:49 +0000

Definitely not saying it is – I referee for them – but I seldom publish there.

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:18:10 +0000

Physics Letters B isn’t that bad…

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:38:22 +0000

I doubt we’ll be submitting to one of those, irrespective of the timescale involved.

By: Belizean

Belizean — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:47:22 +0000

Whatever you do, don’t submit it to an Elsevier journal, unless you’re willing to have your speculations tested by the future evolution of the universe well before your paper is published.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:56:59 +0000

Thanks tyler.

By: tyler

tyler — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:53:29 +0000

This is one of those topics, mentioned in a recent meta-thread, for which you will perhaps get fewer comments (compared to a post about religion or beer) because many of us are unqualified to comment usefully – but as I said I’d do in that thread, here is my “wow that is extremely interesting and I can’t wait to see what people have to say about it” post.

That’s fascinating, Mark.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:51:38 +0000

I’d pretty much agree with what Jason said. If you know in advance that you have, say, a cosmological constant, and your goal is to measure its value as precisely as possible, then the answer might be different. But if you are looking to idenyify the origin of cosmic acceleration, distinguishing between various suggestions, then what we’ve learned over the last few years (many pf us have worked on this) is that cross-correlating geometric measures with growth measures is the way to go. And doing this in multiple ways is best. Weak lensing is indeed one of the most useful things, but you definitely need it to go hand in hand with supernovae lightcurves, precision CMB measurements, and other large scale structure probes.

By: Jason Dick

Jason Dick — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:59:51 +0000

Typically weak lensing (also known as cosmic shear) is the best at constraining dark energy when taken alone. But since other measurements, such as supernovae, are typically highly orthogonal to weak lensing at constraining parameters, the best thing to do is definitely to perform a wide variety of experiments. This was the foundational finding of the Dark Energy Task Force, that the best thing we can possibly do is make use of a variety of dark energy measurements (supernovae, weak lensing, baryon oscillations, cluster counts, and CMB). Fortunately the methods used in collecting the data for the different experiments have a very large degree of overlap, so it’s not overly difficult to use the same instrument for multiple dark energy missions (CMB and cluster counting missions can use the same instrument, such as the South Pole Telescope, which will do both; baryon oscillations and weak lensing observations can make use of the exact same data sets, and can even overlap some with supernova measurements with a bit of compromise on the scanning strategy).

By: Ellipsis

Ellipsis — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 05:07:47 +0000

Nice work — important and useful paper.
So … which one of the JDEM concepts would be able to constrain these models the best, in general?
(And I’ll bet you thought plain science avoids controversy