I strongly recommend our Community reads this editorial before your next submission. What partially hit me is the fact that the number of new journals is growing at an accelerated rate. But decentralisation isn't that bad if the quality of review is placed as the priority over metrics. This editorial also mentions questions that I've been asking myself about each of my submissions from the very beginning of my career: - Do I need to write that paper? - What differences would my paper make? - What scientific (or engineering) problems would my paper help to solve, and what new questions could my paper answer? - Are these interesting, meaningful, and significant advances? - Do I need to write a review manuscript when I do not have something burning to say and reviews on similar topics already exist? Academics, researchers what are your thoughts on this?
The full text of the editorial can be found here: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acsenergylett.4c01991?ref=article_openPDF