We often try very hard to publish our breakthrough findings in high impact journals but get disappointed when our manuscript is rejected for silly reasons. In contrast, we also see some mediocre works from reputed research groups are published in those journals. How do we counter such double standards?
One thing researchers can do is not to cite unimportant papers published in those journals in their manuscripts. After all we are the one who boost the impact factor of those high impact journals by citing their papers. The fact is that some good papers published in low impact factor journals attract much more citations than those published in high impact journals. So, my suggestion is to go for popular journals where you get a fair deal from the editors.
Hi Dear John
I think the impact factor is very important to other index
what are silly reasons?
how you define mediocre?
High-ranking journals are submersed by shit - so they have to be hard and put clear limits!
Editors are fair, don´t put the fault on them but look at yourself!
"The fact is that some good papers published in low impact factor journals attract much more citations than those published in high impact journals." --> this mean that you have to choose the RIGHT journal for YOUR community, then your paper will be read!
Alex is right. Don't hate the game - just be a better player :-) Good luck!
Do you need to get a Science / Nature paper to be happy in your life? Me not! I want my paper to be read! That´s why we select the journal which SUITS our needs in terms of visibility / access! What does it bring you to wait 1 year in unended discussion / resubmission etc? To be key player you have to publish first!
If you think the decision is not okay, you can discuss this - sometimes it helps.
"I would like to elaborate my points:
In 1994, a breakthrough research findings submitted to Nature was rejected, citing lack of interest for a broad audience. It was subsequently published in PRL." and it came back in 2006? Nobody get interested before? It was then a very specialized question! Why haven´t worked this out before? What was the story then to publish in Nature? You throw arguments which are not precise enough to decide...
" Because of desperation on rejection, the reviewer is likely to recommend rejection of the new paper!" are you serious 5 minutes??!!!
"If you are a new independent reseracher working on a new domain (with no published papers), it is almost impossible to publish your new discovery in a top journals. " I am the living proof that it is not true! (Cf my JACS paper)
"There may be many honest and neutral reviewers but it is unlikely that the paper would go to them. Most of the outstanding reserachers have no time to review papers of unknown reserachers! No editors want to take risk ! " who are you to say this??!! (Cf our ACS Nano papers etc)
Well, "the first impression" tells you if the work is okay or not, because very fast very bad papers can be identified - bad graphs, poor summary or just stupid assertions.
In summary, I have the strong impression you are just a kind of a bit disappointed because your talent is not recognized. Relax!
"In 1994, a breakthrough research findings submitted to Nature was rejected, citing lack of interest for a broad audience. It was subsequently published in PRL. Research on that new topic was continued. In 2006, another reputed research group published the same findings in a slightly different way (concept and principle exactly the same) in a reputed chemistry journal with impact factor 12 and a year later another in Nature nanotechnology! When we send the orginal papers to the lead author, he appologized for not citing the original article and also pleaded his ignorance of the published work! The matter was closed in good spirit.
How nature‘s stringest review process passed this paper?
The same group continued to published those results in so many ways in high impact journals for many more years by citing (but in a veiled manner) or without citing the original work."
I just wanted to indicate that there is a new internet service, www.ScientificCitations.org, which is aimed to solve such bias. The main idea behind it is that it provides a platform for suggestion and discussion of missing references to be added to already published scientific papers. Such Post-Publication Citations are freely available at the website. Thus, by using this new post-publication system, the entire community of science readers can work as a team to compose comprehensive reference lists.
I always try to communicate my research papers to high impact journals in order to improve my status in my field of research.Till now I have not published my papers in high impact factor journal.I always feel papers can be improved in the light of critical comments provided by the high impact journals
Hi Dear John
I think the impact factor is very important to other index
http://ijaridea.com/Directory-Of-Research would answer your question
A useful MOOC course regarding publishing in High-impact journals. Discounted course link pasted below:
https://www.udemy.com/publishing-in-impact-factor-journals-tips-and-tricks/?couponCode=ABC100
Dear Friends,
I have attached my last publication here which is a bout Impact Factor and Citation rate.
Please find the attachment.
I hope this would help with your success.
All the best!
Lotfipanah.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Impact Factor