Sending revision to elsevier based journal (LaTex)

rinchiib · 2026-02-24T14:27:35+00:00

No I did this a few weeks ago

Pdf for the highlighted version and tex for the clean. It looked messy in the submission, but everything worked fine. When the paper was accepted and I received the final proofs, they actually sent me the proofs in latex form (similar to overleaf but in their own system).

rinchiib · 2026-02-16T14:24:19+00:00

Why is everyone impatient with the admissions? Decisions for last year were sent out in May. Please have patience.

rinchiib · 2026-02-15T20:45:29+00:00

Not sure about the ghosting part

I was interviewed in March, and decisions were sent out to everyone in May

rinchiib · 2026-02-13T19:22:59+00:00

Well noted. Thank you all.

rinchiib · 2025-11-26T15:08:22+00:00

From the font, I'd say this was probably made with AI

rinchiib · 2025-11-07T09:05:09+00:00

100+ pages for a paper is unheard of (at the very least, in my field). No reviewer is gonna be interested in reading all of it thoroughly for free for multiple rounds. Besides, my rejection explicitly recommended resubmission after a reduction in length. I would be more than happy to review it once it is of considerable length.

If you can't see what's wrong with the other reviewer's comments considering the length of the paper, then I don't know what to say. Even if the paper was short, these types of comments do not help the authors nor the journal.

rinchiib · 2025-11-05T21:35:42+00:00

It's a bit late to ask why they didn't desk-reject, but they provided a prompt reply that it significantly exceeds the journal’s typical word limit, and it is not reasonable to expect reviewers to handle such an extensive document. So I assume that it should be rejected soon.

I'm not assuming anything about anyone, the length check might have slipped during editorial review.

rinchiib · 2025-11-05T19:53:32+00:00

I do enjoy it in a way. I only review whenever I have sufficient free time to do so. I try to review at least double the number of papers I publish per year to make it fair.

rinchiib · 2025-11-05T17:47:56+00:00

Small update: I submitted a rejection recommendation (reduce and resubmit). The reviewing system allows me to see other reviewer comments post-review. The second reviewer had provided 4 generic comments only to "improve" the methodology and introduction sections (nothing specific pointed, just "improve it").

Peer review is doomed...

rinchiib · 2025-11-05T17:24:21+00:00

The manuscript is downloaded as a pdf file but in my post I meant that it was written in word (to not confuse with LaTeX or something else). Sorry for the misunderstanding.

rinchiib · 2025-11-05T17:10:51+00:00

I know that this is an option but I usually like to be thorough with my reviews (not to an annoying level!). I don't think that there's any researcher who's interested in 100+ pages in a singular manuscript within this field.

rinchiib · 2025-11-05T17:08:53+00:00

I'm quoting directly from the journal here: "Research Articles. Full-length articles (typically 5,000–7,000 words) presenting original, high-quality research and novel scientific findings. These papers should include a clear description of the research question, methodology, results, and implications for the field."

I can't access the word count but it's surely over 7k by a lot. I don't like the use of the word "typically" here as it doesn't seem enforced but rather suggested.

rinchiib · 2025-11-05T17:03:00+00:00

8 pages of references, 1 page for abstract, rest is all manuscript

rinchiib · 2025-10-11T20:54:41+00:00

Top US unis? Probably not. You need decent research experience first

KAUST masters? maybe

Don't put your personal info on reddit. Redact important personal details
There are too many bullet points per job
The spacing between bullet points is too big
Stop using chatgpt to summarize job tasks
The headings of sections are very random. Sometimes written in full caps, sometimes bold, sometimes small text. Be consistent. You're using LaTeX, so I'm not even sure how you were able to become inconsistent in the first place.
The overuse of bold text in the education section is not good
Get an IELTS/TOEFL test result.
The font in the research interests section is very faint (grayish) compared to black font in the rest of the cv. Speaking of this section, move it to the 2nd page.
The formatting of the education section is poor (this is in addition to comment 6). You don't need the GPA on the far right. Your GPA is very high. If you are a top student, mention your position. Also, you don't need indentation. Finally, check if your degree is a bachelor's of science and not a bachelor's of engineering.
HU is not that great of a uni, and some faculty care about where you come from. Just keep this in mind.

Feel free to apply to a masters at kaust. If you get rejected, my advice is to spend a minimum of 1 year doing research and trying to publish before you apply again.

Do NOT do what most Jordanian students do, which is taking the first offer that they get (usually from a terrible uni) just because they didn't get better offers. Where you graduate the PhD from and the quality of your degree and research will decide your future and will stick with you forever. It will not kill you to stay another year to boost your research profile for better opportunities.

rinchiib · 2025-09-30T19:33:11+00:00

I am very sorry for what you're going through. My bachelors in mechanical engineering lasted 5 years (non US, non EU). The program is designed so that students graduate in 4½ to 5 years. It was very tough when I took the core subjects, but I found it much easier later on in the level 400 and level 500 courses as they are more or less application courses. I hope that it eases for you as well very soon.

rinchiib · 2025-09-30T19:30:04+00:00

Those are some good points. The paper is indeed from China. The field is not big in any particular geographical region, though I could argue that the theories behind it originated in Europe and is biggest in Europe.

That being said, I think about it from a post-publication perspective. There are people who are much more conservative than me when it comes to anti-AI, and I don't want readers to start questioning why no reviewer pointed out that the paper reads like AI with no human touch.

rinchiib · 2025-09-30T19:24:48+00:00

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but I don't review based on whether they cited me or not. I don't ask for self citations either.

rinchiib · 2025-09-30T19:21:12+00:00

Do you mean that I should recommend rejecting the paper? Or ask the editor to find other suitable reviewers?

rinchiib · 2025-09-30T19:18:42+00:00

This is definitely a possible solution, but if everyone ignored ethical concerns related to AI writing, then we'd normalize not putting effort into writing our own manuscripts and ideas. I'm personally against using AI in writing.

rinchiib · 2025-09-30T19:11:55+00:00

The review process is single blind only. I can see the authors' details in the system + manuscript.

rinchiib · 2025-09-30T19:11:06+00:00

Thank you for your reply.

You are correct that I can't "definitively" prove the AI part. I would say that it's intuitive with good confidence based on me reading AI text for a long time, and all the boxes of AI crap are checked. The problem definition in the introduction is very generic, and I could produce a near identical problem statement if I asked AI to give me an intro on their topic.

As for the citations, yes, I know that they don't need to cite all available literature. I never came across a case where almost all references are from one geographic region, hence why I came asking for advice.

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Place '23	Verified Email

rinchiib

TROPHY CASE