Dear prof R K Lal

I have had the same experience as you mentioned in your last parts of your answer. The key role of reviewers should be considered by editors otherwise they disappoint the researchers.

Best wishes

Peer- reviewed ones are more preferable .

Sure, the court is better

Its obvious who would chose a non peer reviewed 😂

Dear Adnan Z. Mkhelif

I think its better to publish your journal in peer-reviewed journal. Scientific endeavor has profound intimations for the advancement of the society as whole. That why a process of quality control is important as in the form of 'peer review' before they are published. Peer review scrutinize the author's scholarly work by other experts in the same field to check its validity and evaluate its suitability for publication. It also helps the publisher to decide whether a work should be accepted or not.

Regards

Md. Israt Hasan

Generally, peer-reviewed works are mostly preferred since they're expected to have more credibility due to the rigorous efforts of reviewers.

Of course its better to publish in peer reviewed journals. Bcos the research manuscript will be checked by at least two experts in that field of research, and recommend further corrections and advice's to standardize the research work. All good researchers and students like to publish in peer reviewed journals. Recognitions of researchers and considerations in promotion are only given to peer reviewed journals. National and international grants are only acknowledged in reputable peer reviewed journals.

Peer reviewed journal is good to publish as these journal have good reputation and published quality work.

Peer reviewed journals are the best to publish ur quality research. There are numbers of expertise who review the manuscript to assure the quality of research. One should always prefer the reviewed journal to maintain standard of research work.

Publication of journal initially may be for reading but for the publisher when it comes to review may be to find out the status of journal .

This is my personal opinion

Generally, the opinions, observations, critiques provided by the reviewers lead to a stronger paper of more interest to the reader and of enhanced scientific merit. Who would not want that kind of input? Sure, an occasional reviewer can be a bit quirky.

Adnan Z. Mkhelif

Most of time it appears that it is better to publish in peer-reviewed journals. In such journals your research has to pass many hurdles before getting published. So publishing in a peer reviewed journal means that the research gets tested before getting published.

However, sometimes many first time and novice researchers choose to publish in non peer reviewed journals. More than testing their research, it is a tremendous joy for them to see their writing and their names in published form for the first time. They don't think too much about the acceptance of that publication. They just go ahead for the sake of enjoyment. Sometimes article processing charges may be a factor that may instigate a researcher to publish in non peer reviewed journals. At least in a developing economy this is a very strong factor.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Anamitra.

Peer reviewed journal better because

A peer-reviewed publication conveys more research authority because its findings have been vetted and then accepted -- at least to some degree -- by other members of the discipline.

To improve the quality of your paper, it is better to publish in peer-reviewed journals :)

Best regards,

RM.

Of course peer-reviewed journals are better and more credible than non-peer reviewed journals. Peer review will subject the manuscript to a lot of criticism from different opinions and this will eventually improve the content and substance of the manuscript

In addition to the all known advantages of publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals, it also help building a better academic reputation for your self.

Wish you all the best.

Peer-reviewed journal are best to publish since it will improve the quality of the article and it help to build a good acedemic reputation.

Sure, it better to publish in peer-reviewed journals for sobriety of research and obtaining the quality of the paper.

Dear Adnan Z. Mkhelif

Certainly, it is better to publish in peer-reviewed journals because this guarantees you the copyright and also guarantees that your search will take more citations and have a better reputation..

Best regards

Peer reviewed journals better

Peer-reviewed journals are more credible and reliable

Non peerreviewed sources such as newspapers and magazines are often biased

Newspapers. Newspaper articles aren’t written by experts on their topics. While they do undergo review by an editor, they don’t receive peer review and are often biased to some degree. This doesn’t negate their value, however, as tools to establish current or historical context.

Magazines. Similarly to newspaper articles, magazine articles might be edited but they usually don’t get peer reviewed. These can also be tools used to establish public opinion about a topic, or to gain current or historical context.

https://research.library.oakland.edu/sp/subjects/tutorial.php?faq_id=265

Peer review increases credibility. Peer review involves subjecting the author's scholarly work and research to the scrutiny of other experts in the same field to check its validity and evaluate its suitability for publication. A peer review helps the publisher decide whether a work should be accepted. https://www.publisso.de/en/advice/publishing-advice-faqs/peer-review/

Peer-reviewed (refereed or scholarly) journals - Articles are written by experts and are reviewed by several other experts in the field before the article is published in the journal in order to ensure the article's quality. (The article is more likely to be scientifically valid, reach reasonable conclusions, etc.) https://www.angelo.edu/services/library/handouts/peerrev.php

Some time good paper, but rejected by peer review journals and also they recommend you publish in this open access paid journal and some time simple article published. Some time non related subjects reviewers also play a great roll for publication or rejection recommendations of a good research article. Therefore, if yours research papers is good then no matter whether peer review or non peer review. Right suject reviewers paly an important role. Some time texonomist review plant breeding papers or Chemist review Biotechnology papers and soon

Dear prof R K Lal

I have had the same experience as you mentioned in your last parts of your answer. The key role of reviewers should be considered by editors otherwise they disappoint the researchers.

Best wishes

For maintaining scientific standards and quality.

Peer-reviewed journals are always recommended and preferred. They help maintain research and ethical standards and make significant impact and professional development.

Articles published in peer-reviewed journals are more valid and reliable and have higher citation rates.

Recommended peer-reviewed journals are still preferred. Which help to uphold identified in the research principles and make a major effect on the advancement including its field.

I think publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is more credible .

Peer reviewed journals are better

Surely, it is better to publish in a peer reviewed journal, since we have an opportunity for the article be criticised by expert in the field which categorically meet the standard.

Peer-reviewed journals of course.

Sanaa N Al- Haj Ali

Mhd. Syahnan

Chinaza Godswill Awuchi

Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak

Parisa Ziarati

Better to be peer reviewed. A lot more improvements and corrections make the quality improvement!!!!

Dear Adnan Z. Mkhelif you should always go for international, peer-reviewed journals. Only this makes sure that your work will be read worldwide and eventually cited by other researchers. No peer-review means predatory journals!

peer reviewed is better, because it give you a idea about your writing style and level

Peer-reviewed articles, also known as scholarly articles, are published based on the approval of a board of professional experts in the discipline relating to the article topic.

For instance, a paper discussing the psychological effects of homeschooling a child would need to be reviewed by a board of psychology scholars and professional psychologists in order to be approved for publication in a psychology journal.

Scholarly/peer-reviewed articles differ from other easily available print sources because the review process gives them more authority than, for example, a newspaper or magazine article.

Newspaper or popular magazine articles are written by journalists (not specialists in any field except journalism).

They are reviewed only by the magazine/newspaper editors (also not specialists in any field except editing).

I think, peer reviewed journal is better, surely.

Newspaper articles aren't written by experts on their topics. While they do undergo review by an editor, they don't receive peer review and are often biased to some degree. They aren't reviewed for publication.

Peer review involves subjecting the author's scholarly work and research to the scrutiny of other experts in the same field to check its validity and evaluate its suitability for publication. A peer review helps the publisher decide whether a work should be accepted.

Essentially, peer review is an academic term for quality control. Each article published in a peer-reviewed journal was closely examined by a panel of reviewers who are experts on the article's topic

Mohsen Kia yes, peer-review is quality control. This is why I strongly suggest to never publish in journals which are not peer-reviewed!

Peer-reviewed journals of course.

Peer reviewed is better, because it give you a process of quality control, also it give you a good validate and evaluate your work .

Dear Adnan Z. Mkhelif peer-review is always better! I'm sure you don't want to step into the traps of predatory journals. Am I right?

At my university, only peer-reviewed publications count toward promotion.

Now most of the peer review journals suggest to publish in this or that paid journal of course predatory journals. This in addition to my previous comment. Every people knows very well for publications in thr peer reviewed high impact factor journals are good.

In my personal list of publications, only papers in international peer-reviewed journals are listed, i.e. no Abstracts, conference papers, national journals etc.

Dear Adnan Z. Mkhelif submitting manuscripts to non-peer-reviewed journals is not really worth the effort. Chances are that these journals are predatory and your valuable research work is lost.

i think peer-reviewed journal is one quality

peer-reviewed journal is one quality

In my personal opinion and experience, peer-review is the only way to ensure high quality of research papers.

Yes, I agree with all of you, international peer-review journals always preferable.

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is much better than that in no a peer-reviewed one. In the first case, the quality and value of the submitted manuscript are evaluated by competent specialists. If the manuscript merits to be published and then issued, it will have a considerable estimation by authors interested in the published subject.

Non-peer reviewed will be then a just news paper. It will stop the scientific growth.

I thank you Dr Hermann for your comment. I know you since years and I appreciate much your scientific competence

In my personal opinion, peer-review is the only way to ensure the high quality of research papers. By the way, Scopus journals have a high quality.

Peer-reviewed is the only way to authenticate your work. A non-peer-reviewed article might be just a piece of paper in most of the cases.

Dear Ahmed Hamad thank you for copying my answer!

Dear Hermann J Heipieper how could anyone possibly "force authors to cite articles in the published journal"?? We never forced anyone to cite our work. It just happened.

Generally, it is better to publish in peer-reviewed journals, as the reviewer's comments will help to improve the quality of the manuscript. Yet, as pointed by Dr Hermann J Heipieper , there are bad practices of peer-review occasionally. Dr Subhash has also discussed some possible misconduct in peer-reviewing in the following discussion thread:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_there_is_need_of_review_process_for_research_papers

Dear Ligen Yu I fully agree with you in that it is always better to publish your valuable work in peer-reviewed journals.There may be occasional "bad practices" in the peer reviewing process, but what would be the alternative to peer-review?

Dear Adnan Z. Mkhelif

Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal has a higher impact on the research world. it has more impact and contribution to new knowledge while non-peer-reviewed journal. A peer-reviewed journal gets more citations and peoples can rely on the research as the articles are verified.

Dear Adnan Z. Mkhelif non-peer-reviewed journals are normally predatory journals!

Non-peer-reviewed is a type of publication in which authors are reviewers of their own work. Why do researchers even submit their articles to journals that are not peer-reviewed? The question needs to be this.

Dear Prof Frank T. Edelmann , if someone finds that peer-review is troublesome, yet thinks that his work is worth to be published anyway, then he can just publish his work at a platform like RG. RG can also provide DOI. Actually, all our questions and answers on RG are regarded as publications. If a journal receives a manuscript which has content exactly copied from RG Q&A, it will be detected and regarded as plagiarism.

Hermann J Heipieper I never found this phrase in the Editor's comments. Perhaps Editors of chemical journals tend to be more serious. 😎

Usually a person doubts his or her conclusions. The review gives him the opportunity to clarify and "hone" his logic. No wonder in Russia they say: "One head is good, but two is better". Of course, if a person believes that his article is the ultimate truth, then he will not accept peer review.

Peer review is an important quality control for publishing. Journals without peer review are mostly predatory journals.

I think quality matters, not the quantity.

The mode which favors your time, money and efforts, and the promotion.

But peer reviewed is most favored.

We never published any paper in a journal without peer-review. Of course this process can be tedious. In the end, however, the reviewers' comments always helped improving the quality of our manuscripts.

I think it's better to published peer-review journals. Because peers or reviewers comments and recommendations helped to improve the quality of publications.

I believe peer-reviewed journals are better. Even though it is a time consuming process, the suggestions and comments from the experts in that particular area of work will definitely help to improve the quality of the journal.

The process of reviewing any piece is of great significance because no writer or author can 100% control his/her own piece. Slips and flaws happen and, psychologically speaking, the author's eyes can not see such slips and mistakes, whether they are grammatical, structural, punctuation marks, or even defects in the contents. Then, the answer of your question is clear

Dear Adnan Z. Mkhelif although some people call it "censorship", peer-review is the best way to ensure a high quality of research papers.

Peer reviewed journals are more reliable.

Dear Adnan Z. Mkhelif only the peer-review process can assure you that your revised manuscript meets the high scientific standards of the journal.

Peer-reviewed journals are considered more reliable

Hope this document will helpful u.

Always peer-reviewed journal.

Dear Adnan Z. Mkhelif in my official "List of Publications" your will find only research papers published in international, peer-reviewed journals. In my personal opinion, only peer-reviewed journals guarantee you worldwide recognition and (perhaps) citations. Thus my publication list does NOT contain articles in national journals, research reports, Abstracts, papers in conference proceedings etc.

Research Single author papers by Frank T. Edelmann

Research List of Review Articles by Frank T. Edelmann

For sure the peer-reviewed journal because peer-review process can ensure whether an article meets the high scientific standards or not, though it's a time consuming process.

It is alwyas better and recomended to publish work in peer-reviewed journal to make pake paper more presentable and enhance its quality. Papers published in non peer reviewed journals usually contain errors and flaws which are usually reduced or altogether omitted by peer reviewing process. As no person is complete in this world therefore, errors in any bodies publication are natural.

Dear Adnan Z. Mkhelif personally we always published in international, peer-reviwed journals. Of course it can be a somewhat tedious process which often takes months and can even lead to rejection of a manuscript. However, in my personal experience the comments of the reviewers in ca. 90% of all cases greatly helped improving the quality of our manuscripts. However, I can speak only for our discipline, chemistry. Researchers in other disciplines have certainly made very different experiences with peer-reviewing. In this context please also see my new RG thread entitled "Is peer-review censorship or necessary evil?" in which a different aspect of peer-review is discussed:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_peer-review_censorship_or_necessary_evil

بالتاكيد النشر في مجلات محكمة افضل لامرين الاول الثقة في التحكيم وتراكم الخبرات يعزز من جودة الورقة البحثية المعايير العلمية العالمية تتوفر في المجلات المحكمة وعن نفسي افضل المجلات المحكمة

Along with the standard requirements for an article, there is another important aspect - the non-compliance in logic which the reviewer can identifies. Sometimes a qualified reviewer can pinpoint a weak nexus in an author's logic very accurately. Clarifying a position, explaining it in such a way that it is understandable not only to the author, but also to the reader is an important result of the reviewer activity.

I have always insisted that the reviewer is a qualified reader, if he is satisfied with the text, then others will be able to understand and appreciate it.

I personally think it is always better to publish with peer-reviewed journals. This is one of the best ways to validate and confirm findings/studies. If it passes the peer-review process, your paper or work will bear more weight and can now be used as reliable references for other studies.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rebecca_Winston

You are right.

Research published in a peer-reviewed journal has under gone through a sieve by experts in that content area and hence more trusted

I remembered a quote that, as it seems to me, is related to the topic of discussion: When they cut me (it means "my text" - V.G.), I endure, but when they supplement me, it becomes intolerable! ((C) G. Gorin. The same Munchausen).

Peer review analysis by experts will enhance the quality of the manuscript. So, it is good to publish in peer review journals.