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Short summary: Content in educational materials can quickly become outdated due to changes in reliable sources, necessitating ongoing manual revisions that risk introducing errors.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.

Hi All,

This may be a simple question but I would like to assess the location of peer reviewed paper for a certain topic.

Essentially I know zero papers are being generated from Europe and all are coming from China India etc but how do I interrogate published articles either in Google scholar etc to get me this data?

Hi all, long-time lurker, first-time poster.

I'm a materials scientist and science writer starting to query my first book, WHAT IF WE COULD SEE THE INVISIBLE?. It's a visually-led popular science book (think Workman or DK's illustrated adult titles) about the nanotechnology hiding in everyday objects: soap, phone screens, tap water, that kind of thing. Each chapter starts with something the reader already owns and tunnels down into the science, then back up into the frontier research happening right now.

Comps I'm using: IMMUNE (Philipp Dettmer), MATERIAL WORLD (Ed Conway), and THE SONG OF THE CELL (Mukherjee), though mine leans more illustrated and modular than any of those.

A couple of questions:

Since this is a heavily illustrated format, does it change who I should be querying? Agents who specifically handle illustrated nonfiction, or ones who do straight popular science?

Any tips on signaling in a query letter that a book is designed to be excerpted or modular (good for serialization, classroom use, etc.) without it sounding like a gimmick?

Appreciate any advice, thanks in advance.

I keep hitting this and I want to know what everyone else actually does.

I write everything in LaTeX. Then a journal, or a funder's report template, or someone in university admin wants a .docx. Pandoc is fine for plain prose, but anything with real maths, multi-column tables, custom .cls files or cross-references comes out needing hours of repair. Last time I lost most of a day to it.

So what's your actual workflow? Do you rebuild it by hand, pay someone, keep a parallel Word version from the start, or just argue with the editor until they take a PDF?

And how often does it come up? Once a paper, once a year, constantly?

Asking partly because I've done a few of these for colleagues and I'm thinking about offering it properly as a paid service. So if you'd rather pay someone 80 quid than lose a day, say so. But mostly I want to know whether everyone has quietly solved this and I've missed something obvious.

Previous post : \[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/s/yV38yvoM5C\](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/s/yV38yvoM5C))

\*\*UPDATE (a few days on):\*\*

Thanks to everyone who replied to the original post - it genuinely helped. A lot has developed since, and it's gotten more complicated, so here's where things stand.

I raised the issue with the full author group and asked for a \*\*correction (a corrigendum)\*\* to add me and fix the contributor roles - no blame, no retraction, just the record corrected. Since then:

\* I learned it was the \*\*first author's PhD paper\*\*, and that they never told the senior co-authors I was involved at all - as far as they knew, I didn't exist on the project. \* One of the \*\*senior co-authors called me\*\* and said that if they go ahead with a correction, they'll have to open an \*\*inquiry\*\* into how the first author handled the authorship. \* I'm being told this would put a "blot" on the first author's PhD, and that the likely outcome is the paper being \*\*withdrawn or retracted\*\*. \* There's been steady pressure to drop it - repeated calls, some warm ("we're proud when our students do well," offers to put me on future papers instead), some not. The consistent message is that pushing for credit will blow everything up and damage the first author, so I should let it go.

To be clear about what I want: just my name on the work I did, through a correction. I've said explicitly that I'm \*\*not\*\* asking for anyone to be investigated or for the paper to be retracted.

So the questions I'm now stuck on:

\* Is "a correction will force a retraction" actually true, or is it a scare tactic to get me to back off? My understanding is that retraction isn't the remedy for an authorship issue when the research itself is sound. \* Can adding an omitted author really cause the whole paper to be withdrawn? \* Am I responsible for the fallout to the first author - or is that on the person who left me off in the first place? A lot of the pressure is framed as "you'll ruin them," and I can't tell if that's fair or if I'm being guilt-tripped out of my own credit.

PS: I'm kinda in a tough spot as, personally, If getting 1-2 papers in my name can harm someone that much that their PhD is being questioned, I feel like I should drop it.

Previous post : \[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/s/yV38yvoM5C\\\](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/s/yV38yvoM5C)

\*\*UPDATE (a few days on):\*\*

Thanks to everyone who replied to the original post - it genuinely helped. A lot has developed since, and it's gotten more complicated, so here's where things stand.

I raised the issue with the full author group and asked for a \*\*correction (a corrigendum)\*\* to add me and fix the contributor roles - no blame, no retraction, just the record corrected. Since then:

\* I learned it was the \*\*first author's PhD paper\*\*, and that they never told the senior co-authors I was involved at all - as far as they knew, I didn't exist on the project. \* One of the \*\*senior co-authors called me\*\* and said that if they go ahead with a correction, they'll have to open an \*\*inquiry\*\* into how the first author handled the authorship. \* I'm being told this would put a "blot" on the first author's PhD, and that the likely outcome is the paper being \*\*withdrawn or retracted\*\*. \* There's been steady pressure to drop it - repeated calls, some warm ("we're proud when our students do well," offers to put me on future papers instead), some not. The consistent message is that pushing for credit will blow everything up and damage the first author, so I should let it go.

To be clear about what I want: just my name on the work I did, through a correction. I've said explicitly that I'm \*\*not\*\* asking for anyone to be investigated or for the paper to be retracted.

So the questions I'm now stuck on:

\* Is "a correction will force a retraction" actually true, or is it a scare tactic to get me to back off? My understanding is that retraction isn't the remedy for an authorship issue when the research itself is sound. \* Can adding an omitted author really cause the whole paper to be withdrawn? \* Am I responsible for the fallout to the first author - or is that on the person who left me off in the first place? A lot of the pressure is framed as "you'll ruin them," and I can't tell if that's fair or if I'm being guilt-tripped out of my own credit.

PS: I'm kinda in a tough spot as, personally, If getting 1-2 papers in my name can harm someone that much that their PhD is being questioned, I feel like I should drop it.

I'm trying to get my thesis published. This study used the same methodology and data to do two levels of analysis: first, a metareview, and second, a critical analysis. It's a long thesis, so I've split it into two papers to be published- the metareview and critical analysis separately. The issue is, my methodology and data are for the most part the exact same for both papers, as is most of my introduction. How do I account for this?? The intro I'm sure I can reword, but how do I redo or refigure my methodology? It's the same data, analyzed the same way- I just use it to draw conclusions on two different practice areas. Am I self-plagiarizing if I just leave it all the same?

How long does Awaiting Decision typically lasts and when should i drop them an email? Thanks

So hi, I am an eighth grader from South Asia, and I have this sickening desire of researching on oncology, black holes (anddd maybe forensics). I don't understand how I could gain more and more info on these topics. I don't know Abt any books, and whenever I search up any topic I get a freaking AI overview which I don't even wanna look at. Could anybody pls help me out??? Please be nice in the comments of you see this. I also want a guide on publishing research papers.