If you had an article that fitted well with the described aims & scope of a brand new journal, would you submit it, or stick with more established publications?
I guess all journals had a 1st issue, so everyone took a risk. But the obsession with impact, the fact that 'online' has changed the visibility of work, and the perhaps naive wish to think and act positively about a new journal, are influential factors.
What do you think?
If the journal truly covered an aspect not covered in previous journals, of relevance to your work, then why not? As someone with a presence on professional social networks, it could help get the new journal the attention it may deserve (if it doesn't, of course don't bother). As someone relatively new to the field, it is an interesting way to get something published. Just make sure you share it widely :-)
I think that is one of the central points: does it deserve attention? In my experience, there are lots of established journals whose actions do not conform to their PUBLISHED aims and scope. 'We support x,y,z', so you give them an article specifically about x,y,z, and they do not even send it for review because ... 'We do not feel the article's topic is in-line with the interests of our readership' ... ahghhh !!!
I took that as obvious. Look at the focus, who is the editor, publisher, editorial board, ...
It should be obvious . When the journal's published aims and scope are clearly written, and your work seems to tick all of the boxes (conform to the methodology preferences, address the correct audience sector, etc.), then you feel that they should send your work for review. Whether the reviewers like it is a different story, but as long as the work is 'academically sound', it should get entered into the system. This is not always the case, and the 'large volume of submissions' (moderated by a 'no reflection of the quality of your paper' by-line) seems to be a go-to option.
If I reach the highest academic rank i.e. to become a full professor and i am not under pressure for high impact publications.
If the new journal is published by a reputed publisher, say Elsevier where I published many articles in the past.
If I am invited to contribute to an article in the first issue especially a review article.
If I choose to publish preliminary and trial results of an ongoing project which has commenced in the recent past.
If I have a manuscript that is continuously rejected by several journals over a period of several months or few years and still struggle to publish.
If I become the editor of that new journal, I will ask my scholars and coauthors to submit a manuscript.
If the journal is so specific to my research field, and carry my research area in its name, say welding or composites or casting.
If the editorial board is comprised of eminent professors who are well known experts in the concerned research field.
If the first issue is a special issue focusing on my research area, it would be tempting.
Impact is an important issue because it gives positive and negative bias, as well as posing a potential obstacle to career progress. All journals will have started with 'no impact', and have had first issues. If a journal is new, its quality is unknown, not necessarily poor. If people do not submit quality papers, the journal may not have the opportunity to develop a quality reputation.
I would like to take the position that unless there is evidence that a new journal is of 'low quality' (i.e. it stems from a predatory or documented low-grade publisher), then publication in it can be seen as valid. Especially given that web-based publication now allows far greater exposure and testing of publications than before, I would like to see a less credentialist (superficial?) approach to taking high-end IF as the be all and end all of scientific communication.
I usually depend on trusted and indexed journals, so that means, I will submit my paper in such case.
Presentation How to Select a Trusted Journal, by: Asst. Prof. Dr. Emad K....
Thanks for asking this important question sir.
Emad
There have been occasions when I contributed to first issues of a journal. Your question made me think why I actually did this. Reflection suggests two things. 1. When I was starting off I was looking for all kinds of occasions to get a paper published. So I guess this was related to my inexperience and a desire to become a published author. 2. When I was more experienced, and had already published in established journals, there were still times when I submitted a paper for a first issue. The motivating factor here was either 'doing a favour' to someone or else as part of a team effort meant to help a young researcher get published for the first time.
The one time I did this, was for a new journal from a reputable publisher. The reason for selecting that journal was that it had a timeline. There was a deadline for submission and a timeline to expected publishing of that first issue.
The paper in question was on a new direction in the field, with several researchers exploring this direction but no published journal papers yet. Hence, opting for a vol 1(1) meant that our paper was one of the first to be published. This contributed to it now being my most highly cited paper. Several other researchers in this field had papers under review with other, more established journals, but it took quite a while for those papers to actually appear. (note: this was in 2008, when 'early view' wasn't as developed as it is today)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals