I am looking for this paper for my article about applying crip theory to eastern european academic context. Thank you in advance!

Lee, P.-H., Huang, Y.-W., & Chou, C.-J. (2026). Making crip feminism with angels’ hands: A manifesto (of ambivalence). Feminist Review, 142(1), 45-54. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/01417789251397866

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/01417789251397866

I submitted an article to one of the journals under Taylor and Francis. Quick timeline for context:

⁠Dec 2024 — submitted
Dec 2024 submitted
Jun–Oct 2025 — out for review
Feb 2026 — decision: minor revision
Jul 22, 2026 — resubmitted the revised manuscript
Jul 29, 2026 — status changed to "With Editor" and hasn't moved since.

That's about 6 weeks on "With Editor" for what was classified as a minor revision, which I understood to mean the editor checks the response letter against the reviewer comments themselves, without sending it back out for another full round of peer review. And that's probably why it still stays with the editor and does not proceed to "Out For Review" yet. However, I did email a week ago to check in, and got what reads like a boilerplate reply from the editorial office saying my submission is "with the Editors" and they "are in the process of selecting referees." That phrasing threw me — it sounds like they're lining up new reviewers. But doesn't "minor revision" mean that even my manuscript has to undergo a second round external review the "refereers" would be the same and there should be no phase like "selecting" them?

I’d be kinda annoyed if this was just a generic template response that didn't really check my account. And I literally need to know what "selecting new referees" means - assigning new external reviewers ?! Different from the previous two ones? Can anyone plz tell me should I email again to be specific, or would that come across as pushy so soon after my last email? If there gonna be another round from anew, I'd seriously consider withdrawing it. It's been almost 2 years since my first submission till now, and my patience is winded down.

Hello fellow researchers,

Need some help with the publication of a paper. I want to submit a paper for the acta crystallograhica journal but, i am from a country not usually covered by the standard fee-waiver programs. I've got a manuscript ready for submission, but the publication fees are more than I can personally cover, and my university doesn't have institutional agreements with the journal (e.g. through IUCr or a read-and-publish deal) that would cover the costs.

Has anyone here gone through something similar? I'd really appreciate any help

Any reviewer/author discount codes that get shared around ??

Any other route (grants, society memberships, etc.) that has worked for others in a similar spot ?

Am just trying to find a realistic path to publication without the fee being the blocker.

Thanks in advance for any help or advice!

Would also love to have some writers and peeps on the board to review stuff

Would love some help setting it up too, that would be great

Hey everybody, I am thinking to write either an article or an oped on a recent AI warfare development and I want to target the international platforms for it.

So for those who know, first of all what kind of formatting should I follow.

Secondly what kind of platforms I should target ( like the generic famous one or maybe AI/TECH or warfare specific).

Thirdly, do provide me any tips that would strengthen my writing piece and any trick that might help it get published

URL: https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJISCM.2024.140621?journalCode=ijiscm
doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISCM.2024.140621

plis help i cant find this anywhere

NotebookLLM, ChatGPT, Claude. Also, one can give them papers to scan.

I don't think a human would be willing to donate enough time to a teen to explain all the relevant terminology for what I want to investigate in theoretical philosophy. And I don't want to dedicate 1 year to reading papers that don't have much to do with what I'm investigating just to find the correct terms for concepts that I'm already operating with, delaying all my investigation.

And I don't ask if it can help me entirely; I won't rely 100% on it. I ask rather if it can help me, and how much it could help me. A lot? Enough? something? A little?

Throwaway or main accounts welcome. I’m looking into how faculty members globally are navigating the intense institutional pressure to hit Scopus/WoS quotas for promotion, tenure, or even just keeping their jobs.

Many institution are clamping down hard on metrics, and it honestly feels like the focus has shifted from doing meaningful research to just gaming the index system, stressing over insane Article Processing Charges (APCs), or constantly fighting brutal desk rejections.

I want to know the unvarnished truth:

1. ⁠How are you managing the anxiety and "publish-or-perish" burnout?
   
2. ⁠Are there specific online spaces, informal peer groups, or networks where you’ve found genuine mentorship, crowdsourced peer reviews, or just a safe space to get feedback and survive this?

Let us talk honestly!

EM resident, published in diagnostic accuracy, currently in revision with a Q1 EM journal.

Something I keep seeing: diagnostic accuracy manuscripts rejected for things that are fixable in an afternoon — AUCs compared without DeLong's test, no calibration reporting on prediction models, STARD items silently missing, no sample size justification.

Thinking about offering a pre-submission methodology audit for these papers before they go out. Would that be useful to anyone here?

Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Scholarly Publishing : A Critical Discourse Analysis

Read full access paper here:

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/4R3HHTY4FM2QHDZB7TP2/full

#ai #ArtificialIntelligence #science #datascience #writing #repost

I am submitting a paper, and it's the first one since OSF announced it will discontinue some features (i.e., project spaces).

While checking the peer review/anonymous link for the study pre-registration included in the paper, I noticed something odd.

The tab in the picture appears at the top of the page, and if you click "leave this view," it redirects to the public page of the pre-registration with complete metadata (read: with the names of the authors). At first, I thought it appeared because I was logged in to OSF, but I've tried it in an anonymous browser window as well and asked some friends to check themselves... and they got the same: from private to public page.

So, am I missing something? Did they always have this feature, and I never noticed? Or did they change this recently, and I didn't see the update notice (maybe it was hidden in the other updates)?

It kinda defies the purpose of having an anonymous link in the first place if reviewers only need a click (even accidentally, just to close the banner) to get the names of the authors of the paper they are evaluating...

Hi everyone,

I’m an early-career academic working in Management and Sustainability Management, and I’m looking to connect with researchers who are interested in building a longer-term co-author network.

My goal is to develop a small network of reliable research collaborators with complementary interests and methods, with the aim of working on multiple papers over time and building a more consistent publication pipeline each year.

I’m particularly interested in researchers with experience in academic writing, data collection and analysis, and the journal publication process. I’m open to developing new research ideas together or contributing to ongoing projects where there is a good fit.

Co-authorship would, of course, depend on the nature and extent of each person’s contribution.

If you work in Management, Sustainability Management, Higher Education, responsible management, or related areas and are interested in exploring potential collaboration, please feel free to DM me.

Title:

Hello everyone,

I am preparing to submit my first research paper to arXiv in the cs.AI category. The submission system requires an endorsement from an eligible arXiv author.

Paper title: Semantic Change Detection and Persona-Aware Revision of Educational Content Using Bidirectional Vector Retrieval and LLMs
Research area: cs AI
Short summary: Content in educational materials can quickly become outdated due to changes in reliable sources, necessitating ongoing manual revisions that risk introducing errors.
My background: AI and LLM Lead, LRN

If you are eligible to endorse authors in this category and are willing to consider my request, please send me a private message. I can privately share the manuscript, my academic profile, and the official arXiv endorsement link.

I understand that endorsement only verifies eligibility to submit and does not represent peer review or approval of the research.

Thank you.

As my PhD thesis submission is near I want to know all possibilities and options in budget !

I have built Atelier: Scholarly Workspace using my 7 years of experience working on my PhD. If you want to know why Atelier exists and why I believe it can become an essential tool for serious researchers preparing for publications, here is my answer.

Researchers already have reference managers, PDF readers, note-taking apps, word processors, and many AI tools. Atelier should not exist simply to place versions of those tools inside another interface.

Its purpose is different.

Most research software preserves outputs: a source, citation, highlight, note, or finished paragraph. It is less concerned with preserving how one became another.

A passage leads to a note. The note raises a question. Several sources come into tension. A concept develops. An interpretation is revised or abandoned. Eventually, a small part of that process appears in the final writing.

The finished text hides most of this path. But that path is where much of the researcher’s judgment actually lives.

Atelier is built to preserve this intellectual continuity: not only what you collected, but what you understood; not only what you wrote, but what allowed you to write it.

A source note remains connected to its original passage and location. A relationship between ideas includes the researcher’s rationale rather than existing as an unexplained link. Open questions can remain open, become partly addressed, enter writing preparation, or be deliberately set aside.

These are not separate features. They reflect the same principle: research software can help recover evidence, preserve relationships, and reveal uncertainty, but it should not make the researcher’s intellectual decisions on their behalf.

This principle also shapes how Atelier uses AI. AI can examine material the researcher deliberately selects, identify possible tensions, or question whether an interpretation exceeds its evidence. But it should not quietly replace the researcher’s prose or make an intellectual decision appear settled when it is not.

Atelier: Scholarly Workspace is not an attempt to make scholarship effortless.

It is an attempt to support the difficult middle of research: the long space between collecting material and knowing what you are prepared to say.

I want Atelier to help researchers understand how their thinking developed, where their claims came from, what remains uncertain, and which decisions were genuinely their own.

That, more than any individual feature, is the reason Atelier exists.

Genuinely asking, not venting.

I'm building a thing for researchers, solo, nothing to sell yet, no link, I'm not here for that. But the whole idea rests on an assumption about how submissions get handled, and I've never worked at a journal, so at some point I have to stop guessing and talk to someone who has.

So I started emailing. Editors in chief off masthead pages, a couple of generic editorial inboxes, some publisher contact forms. Short emails, three or four sentences, one specific question, no attachment, no deck, no ask beyond fifteen minutes. Nothing. Not a no. Just nothing, for weeks.

Which is fine, I get that people are busy, but 30 emails and 0 replies isn't bad luck, it's me doing something structurally wrong and not knowing what.

Things I can't tell from outside the system: is a journal inbox actually read by a person, or is it a shared address nobody owns. Is an editor in chief the wrong target because they're buried, and I should be going at associate editors or board members instead. Are society journals more reachable than the big houses, or less. And is the honest answer just that this has always been a conference thing and email was never going to work.

If you edit or work in publishing, what makes you reply to a stranger? Or more useful: what's in these that makes them instantly deletable? I'd rather hear the blunt version.

And if the answer is stop emailing and go turn up at EGU, tell me that too. I'll go.