when publishing many of us have two problems:
1. editors predict IF and the problem of your publication in fact is not bad quality or out of scope
2. unofficially journal publishes articles mainly related to the conference (s) and you loss time,
On the other hand, in the journals where I got reviews ... like a joke, I am forced to watch articles that do not contain anything original and many errors (often even in research methodology) or unbelievable justification of the results.
WHY ?
The editor predicted a great IF ?
The reviewer did not recognize the mistakes?
Are we still people or machines for lifting IF?
While being a reviewer, I have never made a review ... like a joke on three lines or a list of questions why the research did not take into account the complexity of the world ;-)
Although it often happens that work has a lot of drawbacks.
I accept some errors as "major revision" and I give the opportunity to made a correction. Even serious deficiencies can be repaired if the whole concept is good.
Because on the other side is a man (people) who has worked a lot and if he can fix the mistakes, why refuse to publish him if he is not worse than the others? Often his work depends on such publication. I was in this situation. Only in a few journals I found editors and reviewers who were demanding but reliable.
We are losing time and this place or other do not help us at all.
Can the world intellectual elite defend themselves against being an IF machine ?
best greetings
Jaroslaw,
Sounds like you are having a bit of a 'rant' here. Have you had a poor personal experience recently - and 'tarring all journals with the same brush?'
I'm still very much a person - and I'm only a cog if I am aware of it and/or I allow it on my level of understanding. Usually, I am 'playing the publishing game' and there are often good reasons for that game to be in play in the first instance.
In the few instances where I have really 'kicked back' against the process - I find that the editors do not usually respond. You can either be frustrated with that or 'move on'. I also usually find that those editor's soon 'move on' - and that's the publishing 'circle of life'.
Dean,
I do not have a "rant", just the opposite, especially while I see the conditions in which I do research. Rather an idea below.
I do not "paint with the same brush "on journals, I wrote the opposite thing that you can meet diligently working editorial offices, which not only see the growth of IF.
My questions do not concern me at all.
It concerns the way to bypass journals which working along 1 and 2.
Many of us lose time. And even more money for perfect English. Quite unnecessarily...
creating a place for exchanging information in this matter?
the point is to know :
is the journal mainly guided by the growth of the IF ?
the reviews are factual or if they are not ?
have you published in a good journal after being rejected in an journal forecaasting IF ?
etc ?
maybe it's a good idea for a high-visibility website or adding in "RG"?
most strong journals have a very smart publishing process
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism