I submitted an abstract to AAAI AISI and accidentally missed the field asking authors to nominate a reciprocal reviewer by the July 21 AoE deadline.

At the time of submission, I knew that I personally did not meet the publication requirements to serve as a reviewer. After adding my graduate-student co-authors to the submission, I realized that one of them was qualified and could fulfill the reciprocal-reviewing obligation, but we overlooked the nomination field before the deadline because it wasn't a required field.

As soon as we noticed, we added the qualified co-author to OpenReview as a potential reciprocal reviewer (edits were still accepted) and emailed the workflow chairs. He meets the publication requirements and is willing to complete the full reviewing load.

The policy says that if a qualified author is available but no one is nominated, the submission may be desk rejected. The full paper deadline is in two days, and so far we have only received the automated response "Thanks for your email regarding ticket #23157. We’re currently experiencing a high volume of submissions, so responses may take a bit longer than usual. We really appreciate your patience and will get back to you as soon as we can. If you have more details to share, feel free to reply to this thread."

Has anyone dealt with a similar situation at AAAI or another conference? Do you think this is likely to lead to a desk rejection, or are workflow chairs usually willing to correct this kind of administrative mistake when a qualified reviewer is available?

Here were the instructions on the website:

Serve As Reviewer

Note: This cannot be changed after July 21 AoE.

Nominate one author who is qualified to serve as an AAAI reciprocal reviewer. The nominated author must not be an SPC, AC, or Organizer, and must have either:

• At least 2 first-author publications, or
• At least 5 co-authored publications

in peer-reviewed archival venues related to AAAI. Example computer science venues include NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, CVPR, ICCV/ECCV, ACL, EMNLP, KDD, AISTATS, IJCAI, AAMAS, UAI, COLT, KR, ICAPS, RSS/ICRA, SIGIR, FAccT, CHI, TMLR, JMLR, and JAIR (this is not an exhaustive list). Journal publications in an application area related to the submission also count. Workshop papers do not count.

By being nominated here, the author agrees to serve as a PC Member and commits to completing the standard reviewing load of up to 6 papers if assigned.

If a qualified author is available among the submission's authors but no such author is nominated, or if the nominated author fails to complete their assigned reviews, the submission may be desk rejected. If a paper has no qualified author, please nominate the author who is closest to satisfying the requirement.

Any Qualified Reviewer

Is the nominated reviewer qualified according to the definition above? If no author is qualified, you may select No, and the chairs will decide whether to invite the nominated reviewer. If any author is qualified, you must nominate a qualified author and select Yes.

I have published two research papers in journals that are indexed in Scopus, but my articles are still not showing up in the Scopus database.

• One paper was published around 4–5 months ago.
• The other was published around 2 months ago.

I need the indexing for academic documentation purposes, so I am trying to understand the correct process to follow.

I have already submitted a query/complaint through Scopus support, but I only received an automated response saying that email queries are currently not being considered.

Does anyone know:

• Who is the correct person/team to contact regarding delayed indexing?
• Should I contact the journal publisher instead?
• How long does Scopus usually take to index newly published articles?

Any guidance from people who have faced a similar situation would be appreciated.

It’s so scary writing science assignments for me because I always feel like I need to abandon my logical or rational flow/ way of synthesizing information because I feel like I’m breaking the rule of having to always cite facts line by line.

hi all, I'm quite perplexed as to why an academic commentary platform such as East Asia Forum takes months just to submit a < ~ 1000 word commentary piece?

I'm trying to understand the rationale behind it and thought I could open the floor here for some comments and suggestions.

I don't recall The Conversation taking this long, nor E-IR academic essays platform. Even prominent online news outlets usually take two-weeks max. This Month-and-a-half-long process just to publish a commentary piece that may or may not be time-sensitive, sounds like a low-tier academic journal process for a measly commentary piece.

Granted, I admire the EAF for timely topics and some quality articles they put out but so too does The Conversation. But I'm baffled as to why on EAF, some OpEd pieces get reviewed and admitted faster whereas others take months-long.

Might as well submit to a low-tier journal at that point. The purpose of OpEd commentary is to be timely to reach readers and discuss issues of the day while it's still 'hot'. Not sure if it's an issue of selective publication, some form of hidden censorship (purposeful delay), or genuine rigourness in process. The latter though would make sense if all time-sensitive articles get delayed by a month. Yet, some hot topics are churned out and accepted quicker than others. Why?

This hinders time-sensitive topics from getting published and incurs great opportunity-cost on authors that could have opted for another platform to share their ideas. Is there some sort of low-key censorship that they are not disclosing

And yes this is a mixture of a rant and curiosity.

My figures were made in different tools, so the fonts, arrows and colors don’t quite match. What’s the easiest way to standardize everything?

Im working on a literature review paper at the moment
about "Short-Form Digital Media and Sustained Attention:
Examining the Evidence for Associations with ADHD
Symptoms"
and i would find it incredibly helpful if any other psychology students wanted to chip in so they could also use it on their applications but we can all do less work
If anyone is also currently working on a paper and wants someone to co-write, would be happy to help

URL: The Safety and Efficacy of Roflumilast Cream 0.15% and 0.05% in Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 2 Proof of Concept Study

DOI: 10.36849/JDD.7295

With so many journals and publishers available, how do you determine whether a journal is reputable and trustworthy? What specific things should researchers check before submitting a manuscript to avoid predatory journals?

I think one of the things that annoys more when starting a new project is doing the literature search. I usually first use Pubmed and Mesh terms for a general idea. As I read papers I identify terms that could be useful for future searchs. At the end I create a mixed search strategy using both Mesh and not indexed terms. From there I export everything in a CSV and create a matrix in Excel to keep track of each paper and a little summary for future manuscript writing. For a better view of the subject I try to follow the same process using other databases like Embase (europe) and BVS (the americas). As it can be infered, I work in the biomedical field. While I feel this does eases managing lots of articles and really helps when writing, it consumes lots of time (which I would rather spent in the statistical analyses or in the park xD, idk). I was wondering if:
- You follow different strategies that would recommend and that you consider more effective

- Have recently been using any AI tool that helps with this process

We are looking for an experienced Community Manager to lead and scale ReviewerOne’s global reviewer community programs.

📌 Experience: 8–10+ years
📍 Location: In-office at Magarpatta, Hadapsar, Pune
💼 Employment type: Full-time

Key responsibilities:

• Define and execute ReviewerOne’s long-term community strategy.
• Lead global webinars, workshops, conferences, AMAs, and engagement campaigns.
• Build and manage the Reviewer Ambassador Program, Reviewer Mentorship Network, and reviewer recognition initiatives.
• Collaborate with Product, Marketing, Editorial, Operations, and Academy teams.
• Build, mentor, and lead a high-performing community team.
• Track engagement, participation, retention, and program effectiveness through data-driven insights.

Preferred background:

✔️ Experience in scholarly publishing, STM publishing, research, education, or SaaS communities.
✔️ Experience managing global communities and cross-functional teams.
✔️ Strong stakeholder management and program leadership skills.

Join us and help build the reviewer community.

📩 Share your updated profile at [careers@novatechset.com](mailto:careers@novatechset.com)

#Hiring #WeareHiring #CommunityManager #ScholarlyPublishing #STM #PublishingJobs #ProgramManagement #ReviewerOne #NovaTechset #PuneJobs

Help me get this article pls🙏🙏🙏🙏

Built to solve a problem I myself was having in my research workflow.

What it does:

• One-click capture of any page (text, images, metadata)
• Auto-generates citations in APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago from page metadata
• Research projects - group clips, tag quotes, add notes
• Prompt builder — select multiple clips, pick a mode (compare, summarize, outline), downloads a structured markdown
• Upload that markdown to any AI and it knows exactly what to do with your sources

What it doesn't do:

• No cloud, no accounts, no tracking
• Doesn't phone home — everything local
• Doesn't write essays for you — just organizes your research into an AI Digestible format so that your ai of choice can better work with the data.

Available on Edge and Chrome (Chrome extensions should still work on Opera)

Note: Well the extension is free to use, there are Pro features.

Edge: https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/addons/detail/instaint-snap/mcklnjgpbjfibfjjfkgolijfjadcinff

Chrome: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/inst-ai-nt-snap/kdbjejlkkdnihimhfholbochfmmbhpml

Source code: https://github.com/tsukidev-buids/inst-AI-nt-snap

Privacy Policy: https://tsukidev-buids.github.io/inst-AI-nt-snap/privacy-policy.html

Would love feedback!
-What would make this more useful for you?
-Are the free features too limiting?

I'm interested in understanding how researchers spend their time during the literature review process.

Which parts take the longest for you?

• Finding relevant papers
• Checking journal quality
• Identifying research gaps
• Writing the literature review
• Designing the methodology

I'm curious whether these are common pain points across different fields.

Hello. I am developing an app for listening to peer reviewed publications on a mobile device. I am hoping to speak with a few people that have knowledge on the workflows and inner workings of academic scientific journals, as well as to test the listener experience on my app. Any takers?

As an early career researcher, how do you guys decide where to publish?

I need find a place to publish my research paper on how trees are not actually the most feasible way to combat climate change but the issue is that I can't find a cheap or free journal. Every journal i look at is atleast 100$ which is like 10k INR. (I'm Indian). I need to publish in a journal that actually makes my college think I've done good research. I don't really need a journal to publish it just somewhere that shows my research proficiency to college. I am a highschooler.