Yes, good question, Dean. It is often said that the good student should surpass a good teacher and I can see issues with this in the apprenticeship idea, but, in this instance, it might serve to keep a senior member sharp and at the cutting edge. They may also have two or three apprentices at different stages of their careers, who are looking at different but connected research ideas (in the same way we supervise students). It might also allow the senior member to priorities finding research funding- something that they are likely to be more successful at due to their resume, and something that their institution will definitely like.

It is align with the law of nature; the people on top and bottom are less in number. So the people confused will stay in middle order and people with full confidence and no confidence to submit will be small in number. And the confusion of the people will lead them to upgrade their studies.

Amir and Phillip - many thanks for the responses. Yes Phillip - it's perhaps a sad day when ability to find money to publish articles 'trumps' ability to write them. There have been quite a few questions threads on RG, to date, that ask questions such as 'which journals are the easiest, fastest, cheapest etc' - rather than the questions asking which are the most supportive, encourage personal development, peer support, approachable editors etc

Our university runs Writing for Publication workshops twice yearly. They are well attended (35-40 academics) and an open forum. The glass ceiling effect certainly seems like a valid position based on discussions within these workshops. Many colleagues mention their fear of peer review and their feelings of not being worthy. People are not standing on the shoulders of giants but crushed under the weight of them. Perhaps senior academics and 'big names' in various fields should be encouraged to work with junior scholars in a kind of apprenticeship. If universities then recognized these scholarly activities as part of the senior members output, then internal competition might be reduced and a more supportive environment established. As for open access..... it's a two edge sword. Great to have the work out there but it means that money talks. OA will take a time to settle down and hopefully, with better understanding of what a 'good' journal is, we will have a more equitable system. For me, the secret to OA is open peer review - if we get that right we might get a better understanding of what high quality academic work looks like.

Erik - a very good response. Most 'progressive' universities actively try to encourage 'peer review' and 'mentoring' systems to assist neophyte researchers/authors. However, how individuals rationalise their 'worth' is probably independent of these processes when they are in place. Another consideration may be that, if active support systems were in place so that all apprentices were able and capable of publishing, how much more competition would that create? That said, your suggestion of collaboration between apprentice and senior members is a compromise - but - for how long does an apprentice remain an apprentice - until they become the 'competition'?

Yes, good question, Dean. It is often said that the good student should surpass a good teacher and I can see issues with this in the apprenticeship idea, but, in this instance, it might serve to keep a senior member sharp and at the cutting edge. They may also have two or three apprentices at different stages of their careers, who are looking at different but connected research ideas (in the same way we supervise students). It might also allow the senior member to priorities finding research funding- something that they are likely to be more successful at due to their resume, and something that their institution will definitely like.

Dean, most of us have been through some type of experience similar to what you are describing here. But I think that this should be just a period in our academic life. Sometimes I regret that I didn't send my paper to a higher profile journal, because I wasn't confident enough of the impact of my data, and then the paper becomes a success, and I wonder if I would submitted that manuscript to the top journal, would it be accepted? Would it had a higher impact in my field... But some other times I thought I had something worth to be published in the top journal of my field, and the top 5 journals reject the paper, then it is published in a middle impact journal, and again, the paper may become a success. So, self-confidence is not the key problem. In fact, most of the fears you are pointing, may need a professional attention, and I mean, maybe most of us need psychotherapy to overcome our fears towards rejection and criticism.

Ernesto - yes - it's a 'minefield' out there. Who knows - one day we may have academic 'training coaches/psychologists' - much like professional sportspeople often do - to get the best performance out of us. It's competitive enough out there I would argue for such a service to be seriously considered - especially someone employed by say a whole Institution or Department. Many universities have, for instance, research officers etc - but they are more for the logistics of say grant capture - rather than publication. That raises another point to me; 'why would Departments invest good money in research assistance but, then when it comes to publishing findings, the inference is "you're on your own"?

Dean,

I would even say that it is TOO competitive and too stressful for some.

Although my career is very short (so far), twice articles I wrote were rejected by 'established' reviewers, colleagues, who stole the concept and wrote a similar articles in sister-journals.... and I am sure I am not an isolated case....

...it would be good to invest in ways to get some of our colleagues a bit more ethical....

Dean, Very much agree with Phillip, the Tsunami is Open Access. I do notice however, that in some countries without an effective commercial / academic industry Open Access provides the only business model. Not all open access is poor, but the bad at the moment drives out the good. I am sure that will change as credible academic researchers respond on the issue of quality. A favourite tactic is placing spoof articles in suspect journals to hold them to ridicule. I am waiting for the moment when researchers try to buy back their articles because their very presence in poor quality OA journals threatens their careers.

But back to the point, getting published is not only an end in itself, it is a process of learning. The responsibility is on the experienced and published academic to mentor others. With sufficient informal review no article should go for Peer Review in such a poor state that authors need fear the comments they get back. BW Matt

C - What you describe I've never come across before. If I ever saw or suspected that of a reviewer, I would go out of my way to ensure that they were somehow 'named and shamed'. Obviously, i'm not sure of the context of the journals - and might even relate to Matt's point about a proportion of unscrupulous open-access journals - which I do not submit to.

Good points Matt. Yes - the spoof thing keep s doing the rounds. It might become so common that, some day soon, there are more spoof articles circulating open-access than authentic ones!! It certainly does nothing to add to the damaged reputation of much open access journals. To be quite honest - until the whole open access industry has sorted itself out - part of my advice to neophyte authors would be either to avoid them or check them out very carefully indeed. Newly-emerging authors may well consult experienced mentors - and that should be strongly encouraged - but can be part of the 'ceiling affect' - that they don't feel they are worthy or should bother such people; and so often they 'go it alone'. That's how I started my publishing career - but that was back in more 'innocent time'.

"Authors might not feel that they have the skills or confidence to submit, they don't feel supported, they don't trust their study findings, they feel that their findings are not as valuable as others, they do not want to subject themselves to 'constructive' criticism etc"

Unless they suffer from the Imposter Syndrome, I don't think such authors should be encouraged. If they do not have confidence in their own contributions, why should anyone else believe their findings?

Hello God Looking !