The prominent journals are making lots of money but they don't assign either editors or reviewers to make the review process faster. The case is more severe when a review paper is published after more than a year of its submission when already new things came into the field.
Good point! But, perhaps your research is needed to at least show how the field has grown, so others can have appreciation for the work done.
many thanks,
Debra
I have had such bad experiences with Scopus journals. It may be a good idea to strike out that particular journal and not consider it in future. I don't mind the wait for Scopus journals as impact factor is higher and thus, its worth the wait. However, you have a valid point in terms of the paper becoming less relevant after a year. Unfortunately we academics are still put to wait inconsiderately.
Regards
IF is not important (sometime even negative) in some subjects like Math. For example, when a very important and diffcult math problem is solved by a mathematician, who has done that study for 50 years..., the finding may never be cited by anyone for two reasons:1) the problem is solved and no need to extend; 2) the problem is too difficult, there are only very few person in the world can understand this problem. Consequently, this very important finding (represented by paper) may has 0 IF...
Hi! A thought-provoking question after having been a year and a half waiting for the first review. In the meantime I had time to enlarge the data and write another, more complete paper... There must be some measures we could take to make this process work faster.
Laura
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher