Dear friends, I'm concerned to learn more about journals with impact factor.  Many of us are concerned that our work has impact, but on RG, I'm learning the importance of impact factor as well.  I have learned a few good things from some related questions, like Prof Mahfuz'.  Thanks to all of you.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_would_you_do_if_you_received_a_report_from_the_reviewer_of_your_paper_asking_for_a_major_revision_with_which_you_completely_disagree#view=543a945dd4c1184b018b4731

Dear friends, I'm concerned to learn more about journals with impact factor.  Many of us are concerned that our work has impact, but on RG, I'm learning the importance of impact factor as well.  I have learned a few good things from some related questions, like Prof Mahfuz'.  Thanks to all of you.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_would_you_do_if_you_received_a_report_from_the_reviewer_of_your_paper_asking_for_a_major_revision_with_which_you_completely_disagree#view=543a945dd4c1184b018b4731

Dear Miranda,

Thank you first of all to point to my question. In fact, most of reviewers are "good viewers" but sometimes you face, I would say "not good viewers". What can you when the reviewing process takes more than one year?

Dear Prof and friends, recently I sent 3 papers on different aspects of science education to a journal with IF.  I wonder if it will take an awfully long time for review.  So far, the quickest was a local online journal, but it has no IF, that published my paper on collaborative learning.  Some RG peers actually sent me a message that they like the paper.  Perhaps because I wrote in simple English, efficient to communicate info.

Article Facilitating Cooperative Learning Among Matriculation Biology Students

The peer- review sys­tem requires peo­ple to donate con­sid­er­able amounts of time to writ­ing reviews. In gen­eral, they do a great job and pro­vide help­ful com­ments. So it really annoys me when reviewers treat the sys­tem as a game with the aim to reject a paper at the quickest possible time, and with no inter­est for publishing.

Dear Dr Shanmugam, thanks for your post.  I will heed the good advice: 'sometimes it so happens that nearly relevant to my research topic is published in a journals with out IF by some other author and it is cited also by the time mine is published'.

But the whole research culture seems to be bent towards IF, although I'm sure that some of our papers in Scopus journals without IF have been cited.  

Now, I quote: The vice-chancellor 'can make a rule that says from now on every academic staff must publish, say, three ISI articles per year, but to comply with the new rule is not easy given the kind of culture it is embedded in the system.  Remember one of those outbursts from Mahathir? If the appointment of academic staff has been based on meritocracy, at least 50 percent of them would have been disqualified.'  (Dr Mahathir is an ex Prime minister.)

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/173470

Dear @Umachandran, thanks.  As researchers we can only do our duty, then follow the journal author guidelines, and hope to have a responsible reviewer who will not 'treat the sys­tem as a game with the aim to reject a paper at the quickest possible time, and with no inter­est for publishing.'

But now, we have moved another step since my dear friend Naveen asked this question, moved to publishing in journals with IF....I wonder what's the next move?

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

In knowledge economy, reputation is a crucial asset, and sharing knowledge is therefore also a source of power, providing that one’s community serves as a platform to build a reputation. The advantage of research community is that it allows to build a reputation beyond working team, such reputation building depends on peer recognition. Peer recognition: Research community-based feedback and acknowledgement mechanisms that collaborate participation.

http://iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/knowledge-management-as-a-doughnut#.VDt_O1ckyX0

Dear Miranda, 

Sending papers to the journals with IF is still before me. I want to say that I wrote until now rather books or sent papers to journal without IF. The entire review process in Poland is involving two blind reviews in journals without IF, but scores given by our Ministry of Science. 

Dear friends, thanks for your posts. @Beata, it's also a double blind review process involving 3 reviewers for each of my papers, for the journals without IF.

I hope someone can enlighten me on this:  I got email from the Journal to say '...the manuscript has been forwarded to the Associate Editor.  Depending on the nature of the reviews, the Associate Editor may wait for additional reviews or proceed with a recommendation. Barring a need for additional reviews, you should expect an update from us in 2-3 weeks. As always, you can monitor the progress of your manuscript at any time by logging in to Manuscript Central'

This journal with IF includes Associate Editor.  It means that the Editor sent out the paper, and got reviews from 3 reviewers already.  Now what is really the actual role of Associate editor?  What do you think are the pros and cons, if any?  I hope to hear from experienced folks like Hanno, and researchers who are maybe 50 years old :)

Actually dear friends, I'm more concerned about the impact of my research on my students' learning; but we are all caught up with IF.  Consider this:

'As Editor-in-Chief of the journal Nature, I am concerned by the tendency within academic administrations to focus on a journal’s impact factor when judging the worth of scientific contributions by researchers, affecting promotions, recruitment and, in some countries, financial bonuses for each paper. Our own internal research demonstrates how a high journal impact factor can be the skewed result of many citations of a few papers rather than the average level of the majority, reducing

its value as an objective measure of an individual paper. Proposed alternative indices have their own drawbacks. Many researchers say that their important work has been published in low-impact journals. Focusing on the citations of individual papers is a more reliable indicator of an individual’s impact.'

The review can be an asset (tips improve a job, correct errors, suggest a presentation model aesthetically beautiful, stimulate the interest of readers). Of course it can also be a bad thing, but in this case it is a necessary evil.

Dear Enzo, thanks very much.  It can be a necessary evil, but it can also be a great good to open transparent folks like us who have nothing to hide; no skeletons in our cupboards.

'Peer Review is a process that journals use to ensure the articles they publish represent the best scholarship currently available. When an article is submitted to a peer reviewed journal, the editors send it out to other scholars in the same field (the author's peers) to get their opinion on the quality of the scholarship, its relevance to the field, its appropriateness for the journal, etc.'

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/lsl/help/modules/peer.html

A agree with Prof. Mahfuz that most of reviewers are "good viewers". All the journals though claim to exercise a meticulous peer review of submitted papers; however, it is not universally true for all. It depends on the panel of reviewers of the journal concerned. A number of reputed journals with high IF select competent reviewers with specialized knowledge and who will be fair and unbiased in the review process without conflicts of interest and complete their work on time as well as write constructive comments on the submission. In the case of multidisciplinary journal, editors also need some means of matching reviewers with submissions. Some more specialized journals often rely mainly on their normal editorial advisory boards for reviews, but ad hoc reviewers carry most of the load for larger journals resulting in long delay in the review process. Sometimes, papers are sent to unconcerned reviewers resulting in irrelevant comments and suggestions. One of my papers was returned from an Internal Journal office suggesting certain modifications which in my view was not proper. Then I send the paper to another journal with greater IF and it was accepted in one go.

I think that the main difference between IF- and non-IF journals in the reviewing process: IF journal usually have better choice of professionals in exact field of the submitted manuscript, because researcher is more likely accept invitation from IF journal accompanied by additional benefits like one-month access to all journals of the publisher, etc... When invitation to review from non-IF journal is often stay without reply. Thus, exact-field expert will be more critical to the contribution, if there is no new important findings were described or the work was done at highest methodical level.

Dear Miranda,

A very demanding question this is!

I think that IF is simply an academic legend of our own making! The value of any research come from within; not from without!

I have seen that reviews by better-known and high impact factor journals  are  more rigorous than the non-impact factor journals. Also, the practices of high impact-factor journals reflect more objectivity and fairness.

Thanks dear Prof Marwan, 'IF is simply an academic legend of our own making!'.  As I said, I have considered that impact is more important than IF.  Impact on students, paddy farmers, fisherfolk, rubber tappers, palm oil growers; and impact on our environment matter a lot more to you and me!

Thanks @Alex, I agree that IF journals are better able to get skilflul reviewers, for various reasons including 'researcher is more likely accept invitation from IF journal accompanied by additional benefits like one-month access to all journals of the publisher, etc'

Thanks @Prof Debi, I find these words of yours very encouraging 'reviews by better-known and high impact factor journals are more rigorous than the non-impact factor journals. Also, the practices of high impact-factor journals reflect more objectivity and fairness.'  Wonderful!

Dear @Yogesh, thanks very much for your sharing.  I think it's encouraging to all of us.  For me, it's almost regretful that I waited so long to send my papers to such journals.  But my local journals are usually Scopus indexed.  

Thanks very much for 'journals with high IF select competent reviewers with specialized knowledge and who will be fair and unbiased in the review process without conflicts of interest and complete their work on time as well as write constructive comments on the submission'; and for 'Sometimes, papers are sent to unconcerned reviewers resulting in irrelevant comments and suggestions. One of my papers was returned from an Internal Journal office suggesting certain modifications which in my view was not proper. Then I send the paper to another journal with greater IF and it was accepted in one go.'

I do not experimented journals without IF yet.  However i think that journals with or without IF should be professional and serious unless they could loose their credit. Their choice or invitation of  reviewers should be based on ethical and serious parameters since reviewers are an editorial accompanying framework and their contribution is assumed to be an added value to  journals' credit from papers' quality improvements

Thanks dear Prof Kamal and Fairouz.  I agree with both of you that reviewers should always be fair, otherwise the journals would lose credit and lose our confidence.  But some other friends have shared that journals with high IF are likely to be fair and unbiased in the review process without conflicts of interest and complete their work on time as well as write constructive comments on the submission.  

Thanks to all dear friends, you greatly encourage me to be hopeful as I wait for the 3 papers sent to the journal in Michigan, to be reviewed.

Of course, as in any business in life, there will be black sheeps among the reviewers of both for-profit (non-open?) and not-for-profit (open?) journals, although the percentages may be different for both. I call a reviewer a black sheep, if he or she isn't genuinely interested in the content and quality of the manuscript in order to guarantee and maintain a high quality profile for the journal, but in any kind of personal motives, be it reputation or money or power.

However, the bigger problem is with the very process of peer review, not with the people playing the role of reviewer. The process itself is flawed, in multiple ways, as demonstrated again and again by a lot of sincere people in scientific research. Just have a quick search at Google Scholar and you will find enough documented analyses of the facts. You will also find evidences and references in related discussions on RG.

Of course, if there were no black sheep at all, and an adequate, fully operative peer review quality control process, we should have no problems at all. But neither the former nor the latter is the case, as we are dealing in both cases with fallible human beings. We may worry about that, but we have no reason to wonder about it: science isn't a paradise, nor utopia. However, you may help to push a little bit in that direction (or at least avoiding it drifting away in the opposite direction) by openly criticizing any case of misconduct or mischief you become aware of.

The best protection of all is to play a fair game yourself, and to be quite strict about it in your discussions with colleagues or students.

Dear @Miranda, yes,  the review process is basically the same, whether the journal has impact factor or not. I do strongly recommend researchers to publish their results, regardless the value of IF! 

Thanks Paul.  You have brought into our discussion some things into our discussion.  It's interesting to hear your description of black sheep, and a review process that has its flaws.  Yes, I have asked why should the review be double blind.

Thanks Prof Ljubomir, because of friends like you, Nageswara and Raoof, Paul, Patrick and Lijo, I am able to write and publish more.  I'm looking forward to write with Pardis :)

Dear @Miranda, I hope that your wishes will be fulfilled and you will be very successful co-author tandem! Regards to dear @Pardis!

Many thanks for kind words and remembering of our dearest friends!

Generally, it's approximately the same.

Some times, when paper merits to reject, the Journal without impact factor open the door and make decision as : serious major revision in their reviewer comments.

Dear Paul, In my view both open access and non-open access journals are usually for profit except perhaps for those which are supported by societies or government (public) agencies. In the open access model, it is the authors who pay to have their papers published whereas in the traditional non open access journals it is the readers who pay to read the papers either through personal journal subscription or more commonly through the subscriptions of  institutional or public libraries. However, unfortunately in the open access model, some abuses of the peer review process had occurred in journals published by what Beale termed as "predatory publishers." The pioneer of classifying journals by IF was Eugene Garfield the founder of ISI now part of the ISI Thomson Reuters group in an effort to help librarians choose journals to subscribe to. Now many bodies publish IF values for  journals which they list for example SCOPUS , ISC, Index Corpenicus, Google Scholar etc. If applied honestly, the peer review system should be the same irrespective of whichever business model the journal uses.

Dear Prof Tan, is this recent:  'Now many bodies publish IF values for journals which they list for example SCOPUS , ISC, Index Corpenicus, Google Scholar etc.' ?

In this case, what is the IF for JTAS, and for JSSH?  Actually Sribas and I have papers published by JSSH, Journal of Social Science and Humanities.  Thanks, miranda.

Dear Mishael, do you mean that a journal without IF doesn't tell the author clearly why the paper is rejected, while a journal with IF will do this?  But I wonder why, because the author should have this knowledge; our research and writing are a process, and not a destination...

Dear Miranda, You can get such information on journals from Malaysia at the website of the Malaysian Citation Centre  (MCC) at www.myjurnal.my/public/browse.php. While many bodies including MCC now have their own IF value listings, many people still use only those from ISI Thomson Reuters  as they are the pioneers in giving the IF values of journals which are in their journals list. Reputable journals with or without IF will give the comments of the reviewers to the authors irrespective of whether the paper is accepted or rejected for publication. This is so that the authors will know why the paper is accepted/rejected and to help them in the revision process either for resubmission to the same journal or to another journal if it was rejected by the first journal.

Yes @Eraldo, thanks.  So far, the reviewers I met gave good comments that improved my paper, with only two exceptions, whose comments weren't constructive at all.  But so far, my local journals don't have IF.  I sent 3 papers to the journal with IF, but I haven't received feedback yet.

Dear friends, I got an email from the editor.  They rejected one paper, saying that I 'need to create strong links to the existing literature in science education that can build a case for you completing this research. You provide your own personal goals, that are fine to do, but you also need to build a rational from the literature.'

And: 'I would encourage you to read several manuscripts from (their Journal A) before resubmitting or submitting a new manuscript. Reading various articles published in (their Journal A) will help you see how manuscripts published in (their Journal A) are written.'

But I don't have access to their journal articles.  Is anyone able to help me to get just about 3 or 4 papers on motivation, on self directed learning or independent learning, on English as language of science, and/ or mnemonics in learning?

Then I would be able to cite their papers as well.  Do journals with IF seem to require that we cite their papers?  (That journal is JRST.)

Reviewers usually recommend that all the relevant literature be cited not only those from specific journals. If journals requitre that only papers from their journals be cited than this is clearly unethical behaviour and indexing bodies like SCOPUS and ISI-Reuters have been known to delist such jouranals form their list. Do report such behaviour.

Thomson-Reuters                  

Dear Prof Tan, I will wait.  Besides, I'm busy on one paper right now.

The editor also said, 'Because of our decision, we are returning the manuscript to you without the delay of additional review so that you may seek other venues for publication.'  

(Anyway, 2 of my papers have been accepted recently; one by RECSAM journal, and the other by JSSH.)

Very glad to note your success in getting your papers accepted by reputable journals. Keep writing so that you can share your knowledge and the results of your studies. Treat reviewers' reports as helping to improve your manuscript and if your paper is rejected by one journal imporve upon it and submit to another if you have something worthwhile to say. Reviewers are only human and have their own preferences,  views and biases and are subject to errors.  There are caaes where one reviewer say "accept as it is" and another "reject" a particular manuscript although both are experts in the field. 

Thanks Prof Tan, that's what I have been doing: Keep writing so that you can share your knowledge and the results of your studies. Treat reviewers' reports as helping to improve your manuscript and if your paper is rejected by one journal imporve upon it and submit to another if you have something worthwhile to say. 

The editor said, 'Overall you extended the work of Prociuk (1990) and Thompson & Sheckley (1997), but you failed to make connections to the literature in science education. This lack of connection to the literature influenced how thoroughly you could discuss your findings.'  I think that extending the work after those 2 studies is my contribution, but they don't think it's enough.  Nevermind.

Dear @Miranda, my opinion is that you should seek other venues/Journals for publication! wish You the best!

Dear Prof Ljubomir, I will make a few changes and send to another journal. At least the editor admitted that I extended the work of Prociuk, and Thompson and Sheckley. I thought that the objective of a study is just to extend the previous work, and when that is achieved it's fine.  That's why I got the feeling that what they want me to do is to cite their papers.  As I said, for some it could be: '3 citations now is better than 6 in the future'.