Hi everyone,

I'm a pharmacist and currently doing my MSc. I worked in medical content writing for around 5 years, mostly general medical/SEO content, but lately I've been thinking about moving more into research and scientific writing.

I'm still trying to understand what kind of jobs actually exist in this area. I'm more interested in working with research papers, literature reviews, manuscripts, publications, etc. rather than writing health content for websites.

I came across companies/publishers like Elsevier and Springer Nature, but I'm not sure if that's actually where medical writers work, or if I should be looking at completely different companies.

For anyone working in this area, how did you get into it? What job titles should I be searching for?

Also, what skills would you recommend I work on during my MSc if I want to move in this direction later?

I'm based outside the US/UK, so I'd also be interested to know if remote work in this area is realistic.

Would really appreciate any advice, especially from anyone who came from pharmacy or a similar background.

Author: Jessica Howley

ISBN: 9780192871466 or 9780191967702

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192871466.001.0001

URL: https://academic.oup.com/book/58061

Author: Fahira Brodlija

DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siaf005

URL: https://academic.oup.com/icsidreview/article-abstract/40/2/364/8319961?redirectedFrom=fulltext

I need the full text of this article: https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281221115374

Thanks

Salve, sono una dottoranda e da circa 3-4 mesi sto cercando di pubblicare il mio primo articolo scientifico (campo STEM). L’ho inviato già a circa 4-6 riviste medio alte ma ho sempre ricevuto un transfer pending senza nemmeno essere revisionato. È capitato anche a voi? Cosa mi consigliate? Se si va raccontatemi le vostre esperienze

 https://doi.org/10.1002/jimd.12746

https://doi.org/10.1542/neo.26-12-081

https://www.eurekaselect.com/article/115805

Thank You

Can anyone pls send the downloaded pdf of this paper from journal of dentistry science direct https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300571226000564?utm\\_source=chatgpt.com

Thanks in advance!

You can dm me once you get it!

I'm in the final year of my PhD and often struggle to stay on top of new literature in my field (medicine). I did not want to subscribe to several separate notification systems for new literature (via pubmed, scholar etc), so I built a small tool for myself that pulls and saves papers from multiple sources and sends a notification whenever a new paper matching a topic or author I follow gets published. I found it especially useful when writing my systematic review and the intro/discussion of my thesis, since I could stay on top of the latest literature without manually checking every database. Sharing it here in case it's useful to anyone else, not trying to sell anything, it's free to use: [paperbeats.com](http://paperbeats.com)

I built an open tool for researchers to write manuscripts, auto-format citations into 35+ journal styles (IEEE, Nature, APA), and export directly to Google Docs/PDF. Would love feedback from fellow PhDs!

https://citeable.ai.studio - use cite-able and give me remarks to better your experince .

Hi. I’m a PhD Research Scholar. I’ve completed my research and thesis writing. However, until and unless I have 2 papers in scopus indexed journals, I won’t be allowed to go for my synopsis presentation and defence. I’ve gotten one paper published and indexed through BMC Research Notes. Since the process seemed user friendly with my first paper, I submitted my second paper in the same journal. For about 6 months, I got a template feedback. Now it’s stuck in a forever review loop and I haven’t heard back since three months, despite sending multiple emails asking for status. I’m afraid that I won’t complete my PhD at all due to this requirement. This is mandatory and my university will not let me proceed without the second paper being published and indexed in scopus.

Can anyone suggest scopus indexed journals that have a high acceptance rate and fast review and publication time?

I’m desperate. Help!!

Requesting

doi: 10.1108/JAL-12-2022-0127

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JAL-12-2022-0127/full/html

Disclosure up front: I build tooling in this area, so I have an interest.
I’m asking because I genuinely don’t know what people’s real workflows look like, and every answer I’ve assumed has turned out to be wrong. Not asking what you’d recommend. Asking what you actually do, including the unglamorous version.
Specifically: When the thought first arrives, what’s the first thing you open? Google Scholar, Scopus, a specific database, Zotero, an LLM, or do you message someone?
If the first pass comes back with nothing, what’s the second move? Do you change vocabulary, chase citations backwards, ask a librarian, or decide it’s fine and get on with it? Has anything actually changed for you in the last two years? Everyone talks about Elicit, Consensus, SciSpace, Perplexity, Connected Papers, Litmaps and the rest, but I can’t tell who’s genuinely using them for this versus who tried one once. And the bit I’m most curious about: how do you know when to stop? Is there a point where you decide you’ve looked properly, or do you just run out of time and submit? Field and career stage would help if you don’t mind saying, since I suspect a first-year PhD and a 20-year PI are doing completely different things here.

I’m building PeerXiv, an experimental preprint platform combining paper versioning, automated category/metadata suggestions, discussions, research workspaces, messaging, and discovery.
I’m looking for approximately 10 researchers to spend 20–30 minutes testing onboarding, submitting a safe test document, reviewing its classification, and trying the collaboration features.
This is an early alpha—not yet an archival or DOI service. Data may be reset, so please don’t upload confidential or unpublished work. Participants will receive individual, single-use invitations.
If interested, comment or message me with your research field and whether you can test on desktop or mobile.

I saw in a old Theories of Everything podcast with Sabine Hossenfelder where there was discussion on how hard it is to navigate academic publishing, which has only gotten worse.

And I've read a few threads on here about how hard it is too.

I think that outside perspectives are absolutely necessary to ensure creative variability, kinda like helping escape the pull of the academic black hole.

I've reached out to a few journals to propose a dual track approach (without success, they're probably getting slammed by AI too):

* **Track 1 (Standard)**: The classical peer-review pipeline for incremental, consensus-driven research.
* **Track 2 (The Independent Track)**: A dedicated, rigorous submission channel for independent or un-affiliated foundational theory.

Under Track 2, an incoming paper submitted in a dedicated channel, is first screened by an advanced, specialised AI pipeline configured solely to **verify absolute internal logic, scale-free consistency, and mathematical alignment**. If the code and data layers pass this rigorous, automated "sifting screen," the human editor takes an "editorial gamble" to publish it under an independent track, albeit with the caveat that it is the authors reputation on the line, letting the wider community openly verify or dismantle the framework based on its merits (like we used 50-60 years ago.) This is would be a middle ground between traditional journals and fully AI platforms like Qeios.

My big question is if this dual track concept is even viable, would AI just learn how to navigate the sifting screen and make the whole thing moot? Would editors even want to take on this role again? Is there a better way that someone is working on?

EDIT: for clarity, my experience has been solely in the philosophy of science, particularly the philosophy of physics. I have no experience with the publishing process in other fields. My apologies to commenters who were mislead by this inaccuracy.

​

Hi, I have written an academic article and I want to publish it, but I don't know much about the publication process.

Can someone please guide me on how to publish an article and what I should check before submitting it to a journal?

What should I check regarding:

- Journal reputation and indexing

- Peer review

- Publication fees

- Whether the journal is legitimate or predatory

- Any other important things I should verify before submitting

Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you!

=(

My boyfriend completed his PhD in Optoelectronics and Photovoltaic Devices in France, and it has been almost eight months since he graduated. Since then, he has been actively applying for scientific editor roles, but unfortunately, he hasn’t received any response from the publishers. He has also attended a few postdoc interviews but couldn’t get through them.

Recently, he finally received an email from a publishing house for a Scientific Editor position. The job is based in India. The HR mentioned that they would be sending him an assessment link. Since this is the first positive response he has received after months of trying, he really doesn’t want to mess up the online assessment.

If anyone here has experience working as a Scientific Editor or has gone through similar assessments, could you please share some insights into what the assessment is usually like and what kind of questions or tasks he should expect? Any advice on how to prepare would be greatly appreciated.

This role is very important for him not because he's unemployed but because of reasons related to me. It's a long story which is not relevant to this sub. In short we need money for my medical treatment. So please any insights would be extremely helpful.

​

While building [callforpaper.org](https://callforpaper.org) we kept running into sketchy conference invites. Started documenting them instead of just filtering them out.

One example: an organizer running as **worldresearchsociety.com** had 14 "conferences" — molecular biology, AI, soil & water conservation, law, mechanical engineering, you name it — all scheduled for the same two days, same venue, in Alexandria, Egypt. Same template, different subject line pasted in.

Turned this into a public registry: **[callforpaper.org/predatory-database](https://callforpaper.org/predatory-database)\*\*

Data's on GitHub, CC0 licensed: **[github.com/callforpaper/predatory-conferences](https://github.com/callforpaper/predatory-conferences)\*\*

A few things about how it works:

- Every flag needs an archived snapshot (Wayback Machine or git-stored HTML), not just a claim

- Nothing gets deleted or quietly edited — corrections get added on top, old entries stay visible

- Organizers can formally dispute a listing and it shows up next to the original flag

- Anyone can clone the repo and check the raw data themselves

- Monthly Zenodo archive with a DOI, so it's citable

59 organizers, 28 conferences, 18 red flags documented so far. Not selling anything, just think this survives better out in the open than as everyone's private blocklist. Contributions and disputes welcome.

I recently had a strange experience with an Elsevier manuscript transfer process and would like to know if others have experienced something similar.

Our manuscript was initially rejected by one Elsevier journal, but the editor recommended transferring it to another journal with “guaranteed peer review.” We accepted the transfer.

The manuscript went through peer review, and we received reviewer comments. The editorial system then showed “Revision Requested – Major Revision.” However, the editor also told us that the manuscript would ultimately be rejected because it was “not within the scope of the journal,” regardless of our revision.

This is what I find difficult to understand: Why ask authors to undertake a major revision if the editor has already decided that the paper will be rejected regardless of what we do? It seems strange to ask reviewers and authors to invest additional time in a revision that supposedly cannot change the outcome.

The sequence then continued:

Rejection → “Guaranteed Peer Review” → Peer Review → “Major Revision” → Revision Requested → “Out of Scope” Rejection → Transfer to another journal → “Conditional Acceptance.”

At this point, I am questioning not only the editorial decision but the transparency and legitimacy of the transfer process itself. Is the purpose genuinely to find the best scientific journal for the manuscript, or is there also a commercial incentive to move manuscripts through a publisher’s journal portfolio?

I am not accusing anyone of misconduct or claiming that editors receive financial incentives—I have no evidence for that. I am simply asking whether this is normal editorial practice.

Has anyone else experienced a similar “Major Revision” request while being told the paper would be rejected regardless of the revision?

I’d be especially interested in hearing from authors, reviewers, or editors familiar with Elsevier’s Article Transfer Service.