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

Similar questions and discussions