Splitting a research into 2 publications and choosing the venues

Suppose that someone wants to publish his idea and his first successful experiments in a venue and then perform some extra experiments (for a more powerful proof) and publish it in another venue.

• The 1st idea “:)”: Submitting the first to a conference hope to be accepted soon and then submit the second one after a while to a journal, referencing the first.


• The 2nd idea “:)”: Submitting both of them to journals and write them in different manners.


• The 3rd idea “:)”:


• The 4rd idea “:(“: Submitting the first one to a low-impact journal and get a soon admission and then write the second and reference the first.


• The 5th idea “:D”: (A funny mixture of 1st and 2nd idea) Submitting the first paper, firstly, to arXiv and then to a journal. Thereafter, submitting the second paper to a journal and referring the first paper (still under process), in arXiv, taking advantage of the first paper being published with your name, in a high rank journal and the second paper to a journal, so.

Maybe someone prefers the first idea and submit the first paper to an A+ conference and the second one to a journal. Also, maybe someone prefers the 2nd idea because two (1st or 2nd quarter) journal papers are, normally, more creditable than one conference-paper and one journal. Also, maybe someone would choose the 3rd and wait until his future experiments finish and combine them to be published in one 1st quarter journal paper. (Please tell me if anyone prefers the 4th). About the funny 5th choice, you can read some points, below.

I write, here, some points about negative and positive points of the ideas

1. In the 1st idea, the first paper proves that your innovation has improved a method in the state of the art and the second one refers to the first and says that this innovation, even, is able to improve other more-powerful methods in state of the art. Of course both of them are contributions. But, lacking the powerful contribution of combining them in one paper.


2. In the 1st idea, you are able to present your work in an international conference and take advantage of global feedback.


3. In the 2nd idea, you should suffer side effects of deleting some parts from each paper, to avoid plagiarism.


4. In the 3rd idea, you should wait for finishing the experiments.


5. Int the 5th idea, you have done a strange funny work; setting an arXiv paper, as the core of your second paper and proving its superiority.

However,

• Please tell me what is your choice and why?