← Research Desk

My Research

Your private workspace: a log of what you find and think, the papers and links you want to keep, checklists per paper, and a plain guide to how publishing works.

Stays on your device. Everything here is saved only in this browser. Nothing is uploaded anywhere. Use Backup to save a copy you can move to another device, and to avoid losing your notes if the browser is cleared.
Import from BibTeX or RIS (from Zotero, EndNote, Mendeley)

Paste the contents of a .bib or .ris file. Each entry becomes a saved paper.

A literature matrix: papers as rows, your own columns. This is how a review is actually organized. Edit any cell, add columns, and export to a spreadsheet.

Tap a cell to edit. Changes save automatically.

Each checklist is its own copy, so you can track several papers at once. Some items link to the matching tool.

A short, plain-language guide to the parts of publishing that trip people up. No jargon.

The publishing journey, in plain steps
  1. Pick a journal whose scope matches your work.
  2. Prepare the manuscript exactly to that journal's author guidelines.
  3. Submit through the journal's online system.
  4. An editor screens it first. Many papers are rejected here before review, usually for scope or fit.
  5. If it passes, it goes to peer reviewers, other researchers who assess it.
  6. You get a decision, often asking for revisions.
  7. You revise, respond to each comment, and resubmit.
  8. After acceptance you check proofs, then it is published.

This can take weeks to many months. That is normal, not a sign anything is wrong.

How to choose the right journal

Scope match matters most: read a few recent articles and ask whether yours belongs beside them. Then check that it is indexed (DOAJ for open access, Scopus or Web of Science), what it charges, and that it is not predatory. The Journal Fit, No-Fee, and Vetting tools here do most of this for you.

What the peer-review decisions mean
  • Accept: rare on a first submission.
  • Minor revisions: a good outcome. Small fixes, likely to be accepted.
  • Major revisions: common and not a rejection. Serious changes wanted, but they are still interested.
  • Reject and resubmit: a fresh review after big changes.
  • Reject: move on to another journal. Top journals reject around eighty percent of papers, so this happens to everyone.
How to respond to reviewer comments

Thank the reviewers. Address every single point, even ones you disagree with. Write a point-by-point response: quote each comment, then explain what you changed and where, or why you did not. Stay polite and specific. A clear, respectful response letter often matters as much as the changes themselves.

Common reasons papers get rejected
  • Out of the journal's scope.
  • Author guidelines not followed.
  • The contribution is not stated clearly.
  • Methods described too thinly to trust or repeat.
  • Language hard to follow.
  • Missing ethics approval or conflict-of-interest statements.

Most of these are avoidable with a careful pre-submission check.

Spotting a predatory journal

Warning signs: flattering emails inviting you to submit, promises of very fast review, unclear or hidden fees, no DOAJ listing, invented-sounding metrics, and a vague editorial board. When unsure, run it through the Vetting Desk and the Think. Check. Submit. checklist.

A calmer note on rejection

Rejection is part of the process, not a judgement of your worth as a researcher. Keep the feedback in your log, use what is useful, and send the paper elsewhere. Talking to peers or a research community helps more than carrying it alone.

Your data lives only in this browser. Download a backup to keep it safe or move it to another device.

Restoring replaces everything currently in this workspace with the contents of the backup file.

Clear data

This deletes all notes, papers, links, and checklists from this browser. Cannot be undone. Download a backup first.