A desk covered with printed journal guidelines, a laptop showing several browser tabs, a handwritten comparison table, a glass of tea, afternoon light

Friday.

I have been avoiding this question for three weeks.

The Question

The paper needs a journal. I have known this since February 12, when I decided to write it. I have successfully not thought about it since then by focusing on everything else: the abstract, the introduction, the timezone confirmation, the archive visit, the trip logistics, the battery.

The battery has been replaced. The trip is organized. The abstract has six drafts. It is time to think about the journal.

This is not a simple decision. The paper has unusual properties:

  1. The first author died in 1994.
  2. The primary dataset spans 43 years across two independent research programs.
  3. The subject matter sits between experimental physics, power systems engineering, and something that does not have a clean disciplinary name.
  4. The mechanism is proposed but not yet fully verified. The archive visit is in eight days.

Each of these properties eliminates some journals and complicates others.

The Candidates

I spent approximately three hours this afternoon reading submission guidelines. This is the list I produced:

Option A: Measurement (Elsevier) Scope: instruments, measurement methods, data. Covers frequency measurement, anomalous readings, long-term datasets. No explicit policy on posthumous authorship found in guidelines. Impact factor: moderate. Open access: optional (paid). Processing time: 3–6 months. Assessment: Technically appropriate. The paper would fit. Feels slightly narrow — a measurement journal might not engage with the mechanism question.

Option B: IEEE Transactions on Power Systems Scope: electric power systems. The 750 kV corridor is directly relevant. Strong audience. Very specific about engineering claims — would require the mechanism to be well-supported. Assessment: Ideal audience but risky without the schematics confirmed. May want to submit after the archive visit rather than before.

Option C: JETP Letters (Письма в ЖЭТФ) Scope: broad experimental physics. Soviet-era prestige. Short format (4–6 pages). Viktor published in JETP twice, in 1983 and 1986. Neither paper was about the anomaly, but the journal is familiar. Assessment: Viktor published here. This is not a scientific criterion. I have noted it anyway.

Option D: Russian Physics Journal (Известия ВУЗов — Физика) Scope: general physics, including applied. Accepts Russian-language submissions. Lower barrier than JETP. Historically published Soviet-era experimental work. Assessment: Accessible. Lower visibility internationally. Possibly appropriate for a first paper with an unusual authorship situation.

Option E: Physical Review Applied (APS) Scope: applied physics research with broad impact. Rigorous peer review. High visibility. American journal — Morozov as first author would be unusual but not unprecedented. Assessment: Ambitious. Would require the mechanism to be solid. Return to after the archive.

The Posthumous Authorship Problem

Four of these five journals have no explicit policy on posthumous authorship in their published guidelines. One (JETP Letters) has a note indicating that in cases of deceased authors, a corresponding author must be designated and must confirm the deceased author’s contribution to the work.

I can confirm Viktor Morozov’s contribution to the work. I have 11 notebooks, 39 years of documentation, and a rejection letter from 1988 that demonstrates he submitted this work to a journal that did not accept it. His contribution is documented in more detail than most living authors could provide.

I will write to JETP Letters editorial office to ask about their procedure. This is probably the correct first contact.

Yevgeny will know whether this is reasonable. I will ask him.

Misha

At 16:04, Misha arrived through the balcony door. This was not unusual. What she was carrying was unusual.

It was a small piece of aluminum foil, folded into an approximate ball, approximately 2 cm in diameter. She deposited it on the desk, directly on top of my journal comparison notes, and looked at me.

I moved it aside and continued reading the JETP submission guidelines.

She moved it back in front of me with one paw. Then sat down and continued looking at me.

I picked it up. It is, as far as I can determine, a piece of foil from a chocolate wrapper, compacted by some combination of paw and weather. It has been outside. It smells faintly of something I cannot identify.

She watched me hold it for approximately four seconds, then seemed satisfied and jumped down from the desk. She is now on the windowsill in her usual position.

I have placed the foil ball on the corner of the desk. It is still there.

I do not know where she found it, why she brought it, or what she expected me to do with it. She appeared to expect me to keep it. I am keeping it.

End of Day

Journal decision: deferred, but narrowed. JETP Letters is the leading candidate. Inquiry to editorial office: pending. Yevgeny consultation: pending.

Archive visit: 8 days. The mechanism section depends on what we find there. The journal choice should probably wait until we know what we can claim.

The foil ball is on the corner of the desk. I have not thrown it away. This seems to be the correct decision, though I am not certain on what basis I am making it.

Current status:

  • Journal candidates: 5 identified. JETP Letters: leading candidate. Posthumous authorship inquiry: to be sent.
  • Mechanism section: deferred until archive visit (8 days).
  • Archive: March 14. Departure: March 12.
  • Artyom (Moscow): 4 days until first measurement attempt.
  • Paper: abstract draft 6, structure complete, journal TBD, reviewer (Yevgeny) informed.
  • Foil ball: desk, northeast corner. Provenance: Misha. Condition: formerly chocolate wrapper, exterior unknown. Status: kept.
  • Emotional state: the journal question is not resolved. Neither is the foil ball. Both are fine where they are for now.

Previous post: Two Letters