Recently, i have been subjected to many rejection for the reason of novelty which does not making sense at most. I came through the following abstract in the aforementioned journal and although my manuscript is discussing very importnat applicable topic in porous concrete i came through recent published and accepted article with the below abstract.
Calcium sulfoaluminate (CSA) cement can be used as a replacement for Portland cement to reduce CO2 emissions. However, the performance of CSA cement remains unknown with regard to its hydration mechanism, mechanical and long-term performance. Therefore, it would be beneficial to consolidate the literature on CSA cement to facilitate its use in the construction industry. To this end, recent progress and technical challenges of using CSA cement are discussed in this paper. We begin with the introduction of the different types of CSA cement and the manufacturing process. This is followed by a detailed discussion on the hydration mechanisms and phase assemblage, mechanical performance, and long-term durability of CSA cement. Finally, the applications of CSA cement are discussed.
My question does the journal accept or reject papers on the basis of relationship and politics is the research include also some corroupted and bais basis.
Please i would like to be answered for once
Dear Amr Maher Elnemr ,
The abstract is from: Yaxin Tao, A.V. Rahul, Manu K. Mohan, Geert De Schutter, Kim Van Tittelboom (2023) Recent progress and technical challenges in using calcium sulfoaluminate (CSA) cement, Cement and Concrete Composites, Volume 137, 104908, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.104908.
Your observation about ‘lack of novelty’ is because it is a review and from as far as I can see a well-respected institute “Magnel-Vandepitte Laboratory for Structural Engineering and Building Materials, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium”.
There is a fundamental difference between a review and an original paper/research paper etc. The first one serves as an (literature) overview while the second one requires a certain degree of novelty.
Best regards.
PS. It is a high impact factor journal with an acceptance rate of 20% https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/cement-and-concrete-composites
This my question that this is accepted in this journal. It doesn't make sense, if even get high institute. The institute should not be governing the acceptance
I cannot comment on this specific case, since this is not my domain of expertise, but I can add that some publishers do not care very much about the quality, novelty or whatever we may consider as quality indicator. For some of the open access journals (generalisation is not fair here as in many other situations), what matters is the payment of the processing fee.
I have the experience of reviewing for one publisher that claims to have papers published slightly above one week after reception, which is phantastic. The point is that reviews are mostly a make-believe action.
A few months ago, I was invited to make a review for one of those journals and was asked to do it in 10 days (after I having said that one week time was too short). After one week, the publisher had already two extremely superficial reviews that accepted the paper without major modifications, while discarding mine that added a 30 points list of arguments to reject it. The paper was published, and I never again accepted the many invitations they are continually making.
Therefore, we must read each new article with a critical sense and not accept that everything written can be taken as valid.
I fully agree with the comments of Jose Delgado. I could also give a couple of exemples practically identical to that exposed by Jose. A couple of surficial comments from two referees and mine, harcer than other, was not considered.
My feeling is that this is a matter of busines. Just keep in mind the fees to process an article...
- Badges
- Science topic