0
$\begingroup$

I would like to publish a math paper quickly. The level of journal is not that important (except that it should not send out spam with its own ads).

I am looking for a math journal which decides within a month whether to publish or reject a submitted paper. Do such journals exist?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It would help if you expanded your question stating why you need this quick turnaround time. For instance, is it because you wish to add an accepted paper on your CV for an application? In this way people can give better answers: for instance, we can leave out some predatory journals for which "accepted on XXX" on your application would not help your cause. $\endgroup$
    – Federico Poloni
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 13:02
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close, sorry; the premise here seems highly dubious and unrelated to the purpose of MO. $\endgroup$
    – Sam Hopkins
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 13:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Does this answer your question? Fast turn-around times [YK: automatically generated comment after voting to close as duplicate] $\endgroup$
    – Yoav Kallus
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 14:19

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
13
$\begingroup$

Don't go there, no reputable journal can validate your work in a four week time frame.

If they do promise that, for a fee, you can bet this is a predatory journal. (Meaning: their business model is to publish as much as they can for substantial author charges, rather than to validate and reject submissions for scientific reasons.)

Now if you are concerned with priority, just posting the manuscript on arXiv will establish that. So there is no real need to chase a rapid publication time in this day and age.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
6
  • 15
    $\begingroup$ There is no real need to chase a rapid publication time in this day and age. For people who need jobs, there is a real need. Those of us with tenure can afford to be a little more relaxed, I admit. $\endgroup$
    – Ben Webster ♦
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 14:05
  • $\begingroup$ @BenWebster For jobs, I think that most people will agree that acceptance suffices. $\endgroup$
    – 2734364041
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 16:59
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @2734364041 That may be, but the point still stands. People who need jobs may need rapid acceptance times, and the arXiv does nothing to address that need. $\endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 23:23
  • $\begingroup$ @2734364041 The question was about acceptance, not publication times. $\endgroup$
    – Ben Webster ♦
    Commented Jun 15, 2021 at 17:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BenWebster your jobs argument shows that there is a real need to chase rapid publication time in reputable journals. Unfortunately, the reputable journals are precisely the ones that will not satisfy that need. $\endgroup$
    – Dan Romik
    Commented Jun 15, 2021 at 21:00
8
$\begingroup$

I do not think that any journal would guarantee a decision within a month; it might take a month to find a referee. Sometimes, a journal will give its editors the freedom to summarily reject a paper that they find wanting, and that can certainly happen in less than a month.

The quickest reputable journal I know of is Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA). Their website guarantees a decision within 7 weeks. But papers submitted there must be fairly short and of very broad interest. The vast majority of papers submitted there are rejected.

For more traditional journals, be prepared for a minimum wait of 6 months. Also, note that a referee who agrees to review your paper might be adversely affected by the pandemic, which might affect the turnaround time.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I saw a paper on PNAS (applied math/machine learning theory) that was 7 pages but with 100 page supplement full of proofs. How did they manage to referee that in 7 weeks ? $\endgroup$
    – Piyush Grover
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ I have no idea. $\endgroup$
    – 2734364041
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 16:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @PiyushGrover Referees aren't always expected to verify in complete detail the correctness of a proof. See this MO answer for some discussion of this point. $\endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 23:58
4
$\begingroup$

While not one month, the new journal "La Matematica" aims for giving a decision within 2 months from submission.

Note that the promise to be quick is also related to the fact that this journal is Doubly-Anonymous, so they realize many authors who submit there might not want to put their papers on the arxiv before acceptance.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
9
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ "We use this term [Doubly-Anonymous] rather than the (currently) more common term using ableist language". I really do not understand. To me, it seems more ableist deciding to eliminate the metaphorical (and innocent) use of "blind", as if blindness were something to be ashamed of, or not to be said. But it is surely my fault... $\endgroup$
    – Francesco Polizzi
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 13:51
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Thinking of this, maybe the relevant question is: are there any evidences that the majority of people with vision impairment consider the metaphor "double blind review" (or "double blind experiment", or "double blind trial") as offensive? But ok, this is off-topic here. $\endgroup$
    – Francesco Polizzi
    Commented Jun 14, 2021 at 15:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @FrancescoPolizzi I think this is an interesting read on the subject: blog.apaonline.org/2020/02/20/an-end-to-blind-review In very short terms: the point is not that being being "blind" is something to be ashamed of, but that the point of "blind review" is a metaphorical use of "blind" that makes it synonymous with "ignorant" which I can certainly see people being bothered by (some other similar expressions in English are more obviously negative: "I was blinded to X by Y," etc.). $\endgroup$
    – Ben Webster ♦
    Commented Jun 15, 2021 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @FrancescoPolizzi If you ask Google for the meaning of "blind," the relevant definition is "lacking perception, awareness, or discernment" which I regard as meaning essentially the same as "lacking the ability to fully know the world." I must add that I am not a native English speaker, so maybe I miss some nuances when considering the metaphorical expressions. Another excellent argument for not using these kind of metaphors, since they don't translate well into all languages and cultures. $\endgroup$
    – Ben Webster ♦
    Commented Jun 16, 2021 at 19:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It seems that the journal guidelines switched back on the classical "double-blind" terminology. I do not know the reason ("double-anonymous" was ok, after all): springer.com/journal/44007/submission-guidelines $\endgroup$
    – Francesco Polizzi
    Commented Sep 1, 2021 at 21:51
4
$\begingroup$

If your paper is very short (less than 10 pages), well-written and with a fairly straightforward proof, you can try Comptes Rendus Mathematiques https://comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/mathematique/. It is a reputable journal, and depending on the area there are several examples where the paper is accepted within a week (again, for that it must not require any revisions).

If your paper is longer, maybe you can extract a key lemma and submit it to that journal.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .