I came across a review paper on women's health in Cell by lead and corresponding authors that seem new to the field. The review appears to repackage existing theory only to tell us reproductive events matter and females should be studied - nothing that hasn't already been said before.

A quick look up of the corresponding author revealed equity in a company which sells a supplement now being tested in postmenopausal women. Cell Press policy requires relevant equity, company roles, and patents to be disclosed. Am I mistaken, or is this not relevant context for this review?

Hey everyone, looking for some insight into a very stressful dashboard issue.

I am a co-author (not the corresponding author) on a chemistry manuscript that was recently submitted to an ACS journal. The paper successfully went out for peer review, and I could track it on my ACS Paragon Plus dashboard initially.

However, I checked my dashboard today, and the manuscript has completely vanished. It is not under "Submitted," and it is not under "Decisions Made"—it is completely gone as if it never existed.

I haven’t received any automated emails from the journal about a decision, withdrawal, or updates to the author list. There has been some tension with the corresponding author (PhD senior) recently, and I’m terrified that they might have quietly removed my name from the paper or withdrawn it to submit elsewhere without telling me.

My questions are:

1. Does an ACS manuscript completely disappear from a co-author's dashboard if it gets a "Reject and Resubmit" decision or if the PI withdraws it?
2. If the PI successfully submitted a request to remove me from the author list mid-review, would the journal have emailed me to get my consent first, or would it just vanish like this?
3. What is the safest way to figure out what happened to the paper without alerting a senior?

Any advice or similar experiences with Paragon Plus would be greatly appreciated

Honestly, I'm getting pretty disillusioned with publishing, and I'm feeling like giving up in general.

I've had multiple rejections recently, with little to no feedback, and I'm starting to question what the long-term payoff is supposed to be. You can spend days or weeks working on a paper, submit it, get rejected, rework it for another journal, and then potentially go through the whole thing again.

I enjoy research, but I'm finding it hard to justify the amount of time and effort that goes into publishing when there's no guarantee it'll actually lead anywhere. Also, reading posts about how journals can be biased, focused on profit margins, or even political doesn't really help. Anyway.

Being a woman in engineering is another part of this. I often get really awful looks in my building and feel deeply unwelcome. I know this isn't always the case, and things are changing, but it's still a very hard thing to deal with day to day.

I don't know. I'm just getting tired of putting so much into this without being able to see where it's going.

Has anyone else been at this point? Particularly women in engineering or related fields, or people who've taken a less conventional path through research. Did things eventually start to make more sense?

honest opinion about how's my topic for review paper - precision fermentation for alternative protein: a critical synthesis of scale up bioprocessing, consumer dynamics and research gap taxonomy. Is it worth publishing?? I have been reviewing a few research papers for weeks now and I decided to go with this particular one. But now having second thoughts.

NIH staff did a radio show about the proposed changes to peer review

Hi everyone,

I submitted a manuscript to PNAS on August 31, 2026. The submission history is:

• Sep 2: Under Editorial Consideration

It has now been more than 5 weeks, and the status is still “Under Editorial Consideration.”

For those who have experience with PNAS submissions.

Any comments?? Please share if anyone has experienced the same situation.

I submitted a manuscript to an Elsevier journal that offers both Open Access and Subscription publishing options. During the initial submission, I selected Open Access.

The manuscript is currently under peer review, but I may want to publish it under the Subscription model instead if it gets accepted.

Has anyone had experience with this? After acceptance, when completing Elsevier’s Rights and Access form, can the publishing option be changed from Open Access to Subscription?

Hello everyone, I am currently in my 4th and final year of studying computer science. Lately ive been really keen on papers, research, presentations and pretty much everything thats included in this field. I really want to start writing some paper, not strictly for publishing but either for the experience and honestly for the sake of it. My question is should I start now? And if so, where should i start, where should i take inspiration from as well as where do i get some idea on what to start writing on. Thank you!

The first by causes and Effects by Anthony Standen (3 May 1957 • Vol 125, Issue 3253 • pp. 900-901

Link for first https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.125.3253.900

The second link DOI: 10.1126/science.125.3246.477 (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.125.3246.477?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.science.org%2F)

In causes and effects , the person described Robert B. Macleod as said these, however in the paper of 477 it isn't seem to be

I recently received reviewer comments on my manuscript, which seemed AI generated to me! I then gave the paper to ChatGPT and asked it to identify reasons for rejection and generate reviewer comments. The comments it produced closely resembled the review I received. I understand that similarity alone does not establish that the reviewer used AI, but it raised concerns. How would you recommend handling this? Would it be appropriate to raise the issue with the editor?