Questions related to Academic Journals
I am looking for resources that providing updated management tools and also innovation for business administration. Apart from academic journals, are there any interest sources to recommend?
I am looking for journals that will publish newly developed tool/server/web application/pipeline that are useful in biology, or a newly curated database with biological significance.
Can anyone kindly suggest some journals that publishes Bioinformatics and Computational Biology papers that will publish -
- Bioinformatics Tools/Servers (Machine Learning, Deep Learning based or else)
- Text Mining
- Pipeline etc.
I know a few such as:
- Nucleic Acids Research
- Nature Scientific Data
- Nature Computational Science
- Briefings in Bioinformatics
- BMC Bioinformatics
- PLOS Computational Biology
- Journal of Cheminformatics
If you know more, kindly suggest the journal names. Thank you in advance.
I'm looking for information about the relative distribution of different article types preferably in education / social science journals but basically anything goes. More precisely, I'm interested in what percentage of published papers are reviews, empirical articles, thoretical articles etc. All tips are highly appreciated.
With kind regards,
Dr. Pekka Mertala
I have submitted my work to an academic journal 4 days ago. At first, the status was " manuscripted submitted", then it changed to "with journal administration" and finally today the status is " assigned to editor". Does this mean that my paper has passed the initial screening of the admin? Or no one has viewed it yet?
From where can I obtain the list of journals provided with impact factor by thomson reuters as a donloadable file or simply online view. I tried it from thomson reuter website. However the website asks for some specific institutional login. Any help?
- The journal that I am submitting my research paper to, indicated that Color art is free of charge only for online publication.
- I illustrated a heat map in my research which is in red and green colors.
- Do I have to make that greyscale as I do not want to pay additional money?
- If yes, how can I make a heat map with three colors (red, green, and black for zero) in just two colors (Black and white)?
- Thanks in advance.
In the 1980s Bealer wrote Quality and Concept which presented a type-free first-order approach
to intensional logic to compete with other higher-order, type-theoretic and modal approaches.
The presentation (both in the book and in a published article) is very sketchy (some non-trivial lemmas are merely stated) and the presentation is not easy to follow.
I was so impressed and intrigued by Bealer's philosophical arguments based on his system that I took it upon myself to clarify the presentation of his intensional logic and to furnish detailed proofs of the soundness and completeness results, which I hope might interest a larger audience. I wrote a paper containing this material which gives a general philosophical motivation and points out some open problems. I was interested in being sure of the correctness of these results before advancing to purely philosophical discussions on the advantage of this approach.
What would be a good journal to submit this paper to ?
A few weeks ago, I received an invitation to be a peer reviewer of a Spanish journal in category Q1. This is owned by a commercial academic publisher and charges the authors 835€ for publishing, adducing that this is the cost of translation and layout of the article. My response to the invitation was my rate fee proposal for this type of assignment.
This experience motivated the writing of this article, a reflection on receiving payment for peer review work in journals that charge authors with APC costs or charge readers for downloading.
Should journals pay for peer review work? http://tanialu.co/2021/07/01/should-journals-pay-for-peer-review-work/
The discussion is served.
do you know some UAV-dedicated Special Issues that are open for submission now? Both Magazines and Journals SIs will be highly appreciated! No discrimination on the publishers (IEEE, Frontiers, MDPI, Elsevier, River....)!
Thank you :)
PS: I think following this discussion will be useful. both to find Special Issues and/or to advertise them
I have noticed that some journals in which I have acted as a reviewer do not send the revised paper back to me before accepting (i.e., the editor decides to accept). I find this a bit problematic since sometimes I have requested some major changes that I would have liked to see before final accepting. Is this common and do you think it is a good practice?
Hello friends, my article has been published in AIJRPreprint online and it is also available on Google Scholar. Would it be count as a publication in my CV?
I publish papers in International Journals of Academic Research World (IJARW) which are :
International journal of Engineering and Information Systems (IJEAIS) ,
International Journal of Academic Management Science Research (IJAMSR) ,
International Journal of Academic Information Systems Research (IJAISR) ,
International Journal of Academic Engineering Research (IJAER) ,
International Journal of Academic Pedagogical Research (IJAPR) ,
International Journal of Academic and Applied Research (IJAAR) ,
International Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research (IJAMR) , and
International Journal of Academic Health and Medical Research (IJAHMR) .
and their ISSNs are
2000:000X, 2000:001X, 2000:002X, 2000:003X, 2000:004X, 2000:005X, 2000:006X, and 2000:007X respectively.
the problem is when I check the validity of the ISSN in websites like https://portal.issn.org/ , I found that its not valid ISSN .
What does that mean ?
I would like to use some of the figures in a book chapter that is going to be published in Springer. As these journals (source of figures) are open access, I would like to just confirm that is it sufficient for me to simply cite publications and no further permission required from journals. Also, is there any restriction in the use of numbers of figures from different articles? Kindly share any other important information regarding the matter.
When I click into reprints and permission, I got the instruction which is attached herewith.
So, I would like to confirm do I need further permission for using some figures from these articles in my book chapter.
Recently, one of my papers has been published after five year of its final acceptance by a SCI index journal, that to after lot of reminders. Can anybody suggest about fixing the upper time-limit for the publication of manuscripts at least in peer reviewed Journals?
Considering the good quality research publication, I need your suggestions on journal selection. What should be considered while selecting a journal for publication of a good quality paper, either journal category (like Q1, Q2, etc) or impact factor (Like 4,5,6) particularly in the Marketing Research?
I observed some journals having Q1 with low IF and some journals having Q2 with high IF like 3 or 4. Your feedback will be highly appreciated. Thank you
Foudation, evolution , institucional positioning and success of the Portuguese book club, Círculo de Leitores, along the three first decades of activity (1971-2001).
Some journals give reviewers 60 days, others give 40 days, 30 days, or 20 days to review a paper. MDPI journals give only 10 days, but it can be extended if the reviewer needs more time. In my opinion, 10 days might be too short, but 60 days is excessive. Allowing 60 days for a peer review is adding to the response time unnecessarily, and disadvantaging the authors. I can thoroughly review a paper in a day (if I dedicate myself to it), or two at most. A reviewer should only accept a review request if they are not too busy to do it in the next 10 to 20 days. I have encountered situations in which a reviewer agrees to the review, but does not submit the review at the end of 60 days, wasting those valuable 60 days from the author. What do you think the allowed time for reviewers should be?
I have three queries mentioned below:
- I have submitted my manuscript around two months ago at "COMPUTERS AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL". The average number of weeks to the initial decision is 4-7 weeks (as written on a Journal webpage) and it's been around 11 weeks and still, I have not got any updates from them. Please let me know what can I do next?
- Also, is it possible to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at once to save time? If any of the journals will reply me, I will withdraw the manuscript from other journals.
- Please let me know some free Scopus Indexed Journals related to Computer Engineering/Computer Security which will take little time to make decisions because I am in a hurry. It is my first time publishing a paper and I want it to be published anyhow at the earliest (because I need to go abroad and the deadline for scholarships is approaching).
I am trying to publish a paper for the first time and I do not know which journals would be good for my paper (having good reputation and short publishing time).
It would be great if anyone could suggest journals.
My paper is related to Application Security and Scrum Framework.
Nature materials-IF= 38.663
Advanced materials- IF=27.3
Nature Communications-IF= 12.121
IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation –IF=4.3
IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters-IF=3.7
IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine-IF=3.7
IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques-IF=3.4
Physical Review Letters-IF=8.3
Physical Review E-IF=2.2
Scientific Reports-IF=3.99 (required to pay charge)
Journal of Physics D Applied Physics-IF=3.17
AEU - International Journal of Electronics and Communications-IF=2.9
Optics & Laser Technology-IF=3.86
Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications-IF=1.3
IET Microwaves, Antennas & Propagation-IF=1.9
Applied Physics A-IF=1.78
IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility-IF=2.01
optik - international journal for light and electron optics-IF=2.18
International Journal of RF and Microwave Computer-Aided Engineering -IF=1.5
Progress in Electromagnetics Research (PIER)-IF=1.89 (required to pay charge)
International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies-IF=0.9
Waves in Random and Complex Media-IF=4.85
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine-IF=1.82
International Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics-IF=0.7
Journal of Communications Technology and Electronics-IF=0.5
Microwave and optical technology letters-IF=0.9
International Journal of Numerical Modelling: Electronic Networks, Devices And Fields-IF=0.83
There is a certain journal in my field, for which the first feedback is at least 8 months after submission. This is based on a number of anecdotal evidence, not just one. Even then, the feedback is scant and based only on a single very short and inaccurate review report. This journal is known as a respectable journal in the field, with a high impact factor as well. It is just not unfair, considering that the reviewer and the associate editor only took at most an hour to write their reviews (this is clear when you read the reports) despite the 8 month long review period, but also unprofessional and bad for the journal. If they keep doing this, they will deter people from submitting their work there, ultimately lowering the quality. What are your experiences with long review times?
I plan to post a research pre-print in arXiv.org of a paper that I already submitted for publication in a journal.
If the pre-print gets cited, I wonder if the citations can be attributed to its corresponding journal article once it gets published.
I hope those with experience on this can provide some insights below.
Particularly, I need good academic journals relating to the questions above that I can read in order for me to be able to discuss the issue extensively.
Manipulations of metrics take many forms, with new ones likely to emerge, but they all share some key traits because of the nature of the object they target: impact.
Editors increase their journal’s impact factor by entering into co-citation agreements with other journal editors, which involves having the authors of one journal cite articles from the colluding journal; some universities invite their faculty to cite each other to help improve the institution’s rankings; and other universities pay productive scholars from other institutions. The presence of fake collaborators also facilitates the publication and visibility of article thanks to the institutional brands they are associated with.
You'll find in the link below the kernel version of Beall's list - a list of potential predatory journals created by a librarian Jeffrey Beall. Also, a list of new predatory publishers is available in the link below:
Clarivate Analytics announced that it was moving toward a future that calculated the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) based on the date of electronic publication and not the date of print publication.
Will this results in a significant drop in journal impact factors?
Today I received an email from "[email protected]" with the following text:
Dear Author, Congratulations, Your recent publication has been provisionally selected for Research Awards and recommended by our scientific committee. So kindly nominate with your recent research profile/resume through an online submission system. After a few steps of profile verification and registration processes you will get your Research Award. Selected Award Category: Best Research Award Note: Submit your updated profile under the selected award category. With regards, The Award Manager, NESIN Research Awards An International Research Awards ScienceFather
There was also a nomination link, which I removed from the text above and that I did not try to open, as well as the abstract of a paper that was accepted a few days ago and made available online about 10 hours before that mail was being sent. According to the website (https://sciencefather.com/awards/), one needs to pay a registration fee in order to apply for an award. Is this a new scam? Thanks for your help.
It is well known of the importance of statistics in research to support your answers. Please define
any statistical test, what does it do and where to apply them.
Please explain the difference between test and statistical test.
The tests such as chi square are they normal tests or are statistical? Please give examples of both and explain as much as possible.
(the blood and urine tests are completely different tests and should be considered separately. In the same way as biochemical assays. Is there anything to add to the tests explained, tests, "as chi square" and statistical tests?)
Any kind of contribution will be welcome. I will from time to time add some tests to explain/complete or set names. I think it is an important question.
In the publications how many different kinds of journals/publications are there and please give an explaination to them. I could start by saying predatory, sleeping beauties and what was the name for a "common journal"? If there is another name I can find I will add it in. I would like to make a document with all your answers and load it to the question.
Maybe I will exclude if they are redundant. I might add threads of more questions related to the subject.
Thank you very much
I want to identify the best journal. To do this, I found three websites namely 1.SCImago Journal & Country Rank portal, 2. Web of Science, 3. Academic Journal Guide (AJG), also known as the “ABS list”. But I am in dilemma which one is the most accepted? May I able to mix any two for journal selection?
I'm pursuing a Ph.D. in the area of image processing. As per my academic regulations I have to publish two papers in SCI/SCOPUS indexed journals. Already I sort out some good journals but their publication time is so long. I want to complete my course as early as possible. So kindly suggest to me some rapid/fast publications in the area of image processing using deep learning. kindly help me in this regard. thank you for your consideration.
I would like to ask for your opinion on The Academic Times website / portal.
Recently, they contacted me to publish a short note about the research I'm doing. I noticed that the site is quite active on major social networks and describes research conducted by many leading research centers.
I wonder what is the reputation of this website and credibility. Do you know their business model? Actually, very little information about the company itself is available on their website.
Thank you for your help!
I am new to academic journal simulation, I want to use Cloudsim toolkit for my simulation but I don't find any comprehensive training for this, if you know any 0-100 training for learning simulation with Cloudsim toolkit please suggest it 🙏
We know the discussion about predatory journals. but.... what they publish? I found interesting articles in Journals which are (maybe) predatory journals and found articles that were formally excellent, scientifically fulfilling criteria but somehow I was missing the sense of the paper. If science should say something new, can we really millions of scientist, hundreds of thousands of researches and projects, thousands of journals ... find something new?
Is the market not made for "predatory articles" confirming everything already written - to be cited more and have more relevant sources?
My view can be subjective and partial, but somehow I see similarities among the recent research in social science and FF processes. Projects are financed for three maybe four years, results you should achieve in one or two years. We split the research into partial articles because they give us more "credibility" and better reward in the job..... etc.
I hope you share different opinions and you see the sense of science in helping the world understand what is happening and not to publish more, get more citation, have a higher value and better reward from the employer.
Sometimes I feel burnout and miss the sense of publishing with thinking about potential citation and acceptance and say something that many scientists can use.
One question scratches a corner of my mind, so I decided to ask it here. Do you think that sometimes peer review (single or double-blind) is too harsh and too cruel against the manuscript? Even though I have managed to publish some papers so far, I still get the impression that the reviewers seek a perfect paper. Even if the reviews stick to the ethical boundaries, being too hard can discourage beginners like me. Also, I think sometimes they do it deliberately to show the superiority of their knowledge and experience. Similarly, some comments can be the comments that have been provided just for the sake of providing something. What do you think about it? Thank you beforehand.
Does anyone know what referencing style the International Journal of Business Communications Referencing uses? The site just takes you around in an endless loop of no information. I've emailed the three emails on the contact us section and they have just told me to look on the website (after I have explained its an endless loop) or contact people on that contact section (the contact us section links off to a page that doesn't actually exist.) I could compare and contrast the different referencing styles Sage publishing uses but before I spend a lot of time on this can anyone in the world answer this question as Sage can't seem to answer it themselves.
Side note: I have no idea why these journals think they should not provide decent customer service.
Could you please explain the Merits and Demerits of journal publications under the special issue?
Dear RG community. I have a question that probably most of you are not facing. But where are the citations in RG to papers written in the former URSS? First-class Soviet Journals such that Journal of experimental and theoretical Physics (JETP and its letters) and Low-temperature Physics (from Kharkiv)
Thanks to various inputs to this thread, the topic of discussion became wider & more interesting: The kind of science made in the former URSS: Did it become after the cold war a forgotten ghost? or Did it spread all over the world? or Did former URSS scientists change their science schools for new ones?
The Dolos list has started to work well, but I do not think this opposition to predatory publishing is enough. From what I have seen, there is no collective or institute (consisting of researchers) of reference that denounces this sector. It could be a collective whose objective would be to establish regular reports and publish statements about this sector. The collective aspect would give more weight to this opposition. For the moment, I have the impression that these are mostly isolated actions from researchers. What do you think about this idea ?
I just have to warn you of one thing: A researcher who publicly opposes this sector would have to assume unpleasant consequences. For my part, a few days after launching the Dolos list, I was already receiving threatening messages.
Many authors are unsure the process of how academic journals work and how the process of manuscript submission to a journal proceeds, or how an editor thinks. Here a quick bit of information.
Rule 1 – best not to contact the journal editor for an update on your paper status. Only if it has been a really long time (maybe like 2 months). The editor is really busy, and you don’t want to get them upset. The world is not your oyster.
Rule 2 – you might think acceptance of your paper is all up to the reviewers – not true. The editors make the final decision. They click the button to accept or reject. So best to be respectful.
Rule 3 – when submitting a manuscript, don’t take any shortcuts or leave anything out. It looks sloppy. Like, don’t leave out any of the coauthors on the title page when the submission process asks. Don’t leave out your academic address when the submission process asks. Answer all questions completely during the submission process. Remember to write a letter to the editor for the journal you are submitting to.
Rule 4 – whatever you do, don’t leave markers of a prior submission to another journal in your submitted manuscript, like, Dear XYZ (editor of prior journal from a prior submission) or the name of the other journal ('We’re submitting to journal ABC.' Wrong!), or your IEEE status for a non-IEEE journal.
Rule 5 – address all reviewer queries one by one. Make some changes as requested, and state where they are in the manuscript. Mark in the text (highlight copy). Don’t leave anything unanswered. Make substantiative changes. If you can’t do something the reviewer requests, state why. Be polite. Never be argumentative.
Rule 6 – On revision, only include latest highlight and plain copy in submission. Do not include old versions of the manuscript or old letter or old anything else. It can confuse the reviewers and the editor and waste their time. Reject! If by some chance your paper is accepted like that, the dopy typesetter may publish an old version from your many versions included in the last submission!
Rule 7 – if your manuscript is rejected, don’t complain. Either don’t go back to that journal, or try try again with some other work when you complete it. Even if you had a paper accepted there before, doesn’t mean your new paper will be accepted or even reviewed. Reviews take the time of the expert reviewers. The wise editor will only have a paper reviewed, or re-reviewed, if it seems to have a good chance of meeting the journal's standards - and as a result, reviewers will be happy to review for the journal.
Rule 8 – don’t be discouraged if your manuscript is rejected. Editors make mistakes. Your work may be excellent, it just takes another journal editor to recognize it. Or, it may take many reviews and many rejections at many journals and many rewrites before the manuscript becomes excellent. Happened to me.
Rule 9 – get your revision done promptly if possible. Don’t pester the editor for more time if at all possible. Editors have limited time, and changing a due date is a real time waster for them. They will remember when it comes to checking the accept or reject box! Have consideration and get your work done on deadline.
Rule 10 – check if the journal has a fee (APC) beforehand. Look for it yourself on the website. Don’t waste the editor’s time by asking them. If you have to ask how much the fee is, you can’t afford it! Go to a free journal.
Rule 11 – similarly, don’t ask if a journal is fully indexed. You should be able to determine that yourself. Even if it is not fully indexed yet, it may already be a mainstream journal that many authors send their work to. Support the journal as it goes for full indexing.
Rule 12 - “presubmission inquiry” – this new phenomenon and terminology is never a good idea. Sorry to inform you, this is not LaLa Land. The editor does not have time to provide a personal in-depth analysis, performance estimate, or summary review for the inquirer. You are not special! If that paper gets submitted to the journal - Reject! Only in the case of an editor’s colleagues and coworkers, who sometimes feel that they should send a preinquiry, with justification, to stave off conflicts of interest.
Rule 13 – don’t use impact factor as the only guide as to where to submit your article. Other factors are important, like, is the journal becoming more prestigious. Here a place where you can find that out. Add a journal name and scroll down to the graphs. Are the trends up or down? https://www.scimagojr.com/
Rule 14 – don’t try to cozy up to the editor and become their friend. They know what you are doing and they don’t like it. Reject!
Rule 15 – suggest reviewers if you like, but don’t think they will automatically be used. First of all, only use the reviewer’s academic email address, not gmail or anything else. But, editor may not even feel like using suggestions, or may not need them. And if they try, most often the suggested reviewer says no – either too busy or they don’t realize authors of paper they are being asked to review.
Rule 16 – if you don’t have the money for the APC fee, don’t agree to it and hope you will have the money to pay for it later. Doesn’t happen. Collection agents will call your workplace, even from overseas! Bank on it! Happened to me.
Rule 17 – paper must have good English. Use an English language service or if your university has an English language office if needed. Papers with poor grammar rarely get reviewed, let alone accepted. Otherwise, send your paper to a journal in your own language. Gotta do it. You think it's not fair that the English should be perfect? Too bad! Next!
Rule 18 – paper must be well written. Add senior authors who know how to write a paper if helpful. Do everything they tell you. It may take many revisions and months but you get a solid paper.
Rule 19 – hyperlinks are being used more often now in the text of the manuscript and even in the references. Every link better work. An editor finds broken links? Fail!
Rule 20 – check your paper for spelling. Every word must be perfect before submitting your manuscript. A spell check takes a few minutes. Do it!
Rule 21 – get your citations in order. Too lazy to fix it? The editor will think so. If you are doing references manually and you get something out of order and have to reorder everything, or in a revision need to add, tough. That’s life. Get it right.
Rule 22 – don’t complain that somebody published something out from under you. Get your work done. If you give a presentation at a meeting, let your work sit around for 2 years and then somebody else has published it – too bad! Life is unfair. A personal pity party won’t help.
Rule 23 - don't think the editor is discriminating against you on the basis of your country if you get a reject. Any editor worth their salt is considering the impact of the paper, not where it is from. If an editor starts rejecting papers on the basis of country, they are going to miss good papers, their journal goes downhill, and no more editor. So don't think 'poor little me' and believe that your country or your name is the reason for the rejection. More like, you need to improve your papers!
Rule 24 - don't expect special treatment on your submission if you review for the journal. There is a Latin phrase for that, it is quid pro quo. It would compromise the review process.
Rule 25 - if your manuscript does pass initial screening and is reviewed, in a perfect world, there would be maybe 2 or 3 reviewers, they would all hand their reviews in on time and they would all heartily agree on the fate of the submission. Wrong! Almost never happens. Reviewers are often late, sometimes they never even hand anything in (maybe they ask for another week and still turn nothing in), and some may say accept while others say reject. They can also get huffy if the editor doesn't do what they say. To make sure there are sufficient reviewers, and if there is a lot if interest, you might get 4 or 5 reviews. If there is less expertise or people are busy you sometimes only get 1 review - even a great paper. That's just the way it is. Some things will never change.
Rule 26 - Citations need to be in perfect form. Do not have some et al. and some full set of authors, unless that is the journal style. Do not show some cites in the text as numbers and others as author names. Sloppy! References should be in the journal style. Too lazy to do it? Fine! You can publish in low-level journals for the rest of your life!
Rule 27 – many authors have some notion of how their paper is screened being like the old days – the editor and editorial board are sitting around a huge conference table all day, studying stacks of submitted manuscripts in paper form, smoking pipes (at least the guys) and drinking tea and coffee, spending an hour or more discussing the merits of each submission, and then voting on it with a roll call. Wrong! The screening process consists of the editor taking a quick look at the paper, maybe on a tiny laptop, reading the Abstract and some of the content, checking for plagiarism, perhaps studying prior submissions by the authors and their outcomes. A seasoned editor can do that in 3 minutes and thereupon make a decision to send for review or to desk-reject. If the system is set up correctly, the editor receives an email assignment of the manuscript immediately after it is submitted, and if they’re not too busy, they may look at it then and there. So don’t be too surprised if your submission comes back with desk-reject less than 5 minutes after you submit it. It means the editor is on top of things!
Rule 28 – you might think that every manuscript submitted to a journal gets a review. Nope! At the best journals, it may be like 1 in 10. They get 5000 submissions per year. It would be virtually impossible and not fair to reviewers to ask them to review 10x their current workload just for one journal. So the wise editor limits reviews to those manuscripts with a fighting chance of being accepted. Everything else gets a desk-reject.
Rule 29 – if you don’t hear anything in 24 – 48 hours after submission, even for slow journals, it probably means that your work has passed the initial screening and is going to review. That’s good! The editor thinks the manuscript might have merit for their journal. But it’s only a first hurdle passed.
Rule 30 – if your submission comes back after review with request for revision, huge! It means the editor wants to publish it! Don’t blow it! Make sure that you do everything the reviewers ask as much as possible! Take the time to do it. Make the manuscript perfect! And often, it will then be accepted.
Rule 31 – if your submission comes back with suggestion for de novo submission, that’s still pretty good. It means the editor finds merit with the submission, but not all reviewers are on board, and / or there is a major amount of work yet to do. If you are willing to take the time to fix everything that they mention, you can resubmit a de novo version and probably get your work accepted.
Interested in publishing scientific research in the Arabic language for special requirements in Arab journals classified within the Scopes database and in the field of business administration with a reasonable cost and time
Depending on your experience, is there any journal that can be recommended by you?
Thanks in advance for sharing your experience
The Beall's web site scholarly-oa.com does not host the Beall's list of predatory journals and publishers anymore.
I have recenly found a web site https://predatoryjournals.com/ which claims to build on it and expand this list (see https://predatoryjournals.com/about/ ).
What do you think of it?
Update [August 1, 2019]: The question was originally posted on December 26, 2017 but now it looks like the site in question remains dormant and was not updated since 2017, which makes the question somewhat moot.
kindly provide list of physiology/ yoga journals with no publication charges indexed in pubmed/scopus/WOS/DOAJ.
I wonder if it is possible for the same conference, which takes place in different countries for the years with different committees, to have slightly different approaches to evaluation? Does the assessment depend on the reviewer? Could it be that in one country it is easier to pass reviewers than in the other? Please share your experience and knowledge.
Hi, I am a medical graduate working on a systematic review. My institution has subscribed to Science Direct and OVID. My team currently has searched pubmed, Science Direct and Cochrane.
I want to enquire if Embase, Scopus and Web of Science are mandatory for a systematic review?
It has been seen that most of the academic journals are either indexed in Scopus or in ABDC. It is difficult to find a journal that is indexed in both.
What is the best way to improve the quality of peer reviews for journal articles? In my experience, both as a reviewer and as an author, I have seen great variation in terms of the quality of peer reviews. This leads to inconsistency in terms of the quality of papers published in academic journals. It also leads to fairness problems. While a reasonably good quality article is rejected, sometimes you see a very low quality article appear in the same journal that rejected the former. Some reviewers write very short, hastily put together, thoughtless, and even wrong reviews, and yet, they are still used in the process. Others write extremely wrong reviews, full of inconsistent and fallacious arguments, and they affect the review process. What can be done to prevent this? Shouldn't there be a screening process to determine the eligibility of reviewers for the field that they will review the papers for? Can the reviews be reviewed by other reviewers? I have seen many unfair reviews (in both directions), and the problem is not isolated to certain journals or disciplines.
Sometimes peer reviewers write incorrect comments about your paper, or they disagree with you on some issue, but you know that they are wrong. If you are lucky enough to be given a chance to revise your paper, when you explain that they are wrong, they get defensive and write even worse reviews and change their recommendation to reject. What is the best way to handle this issue? Withdrawing the paper and submitting it to somewhere else? If we have to change our papers according to referee comments, just to have a chance to publish it, then it will be bad for academic discourse. I have seen this too many times that I recognize it as a problem in academic publishing. Unfortunately, people who are not very knowledgeable about an issue volunteer to review papers on that issue and yet, their review reports are given more weight than your rebuttals, when it comes to the decision on your paper. I have never seen a case in which the editor sided with the authors, when there is disagreement between the authors and reviewers. Peer reviewers always have to be satisfied, that is the unestablished rule. This kills plurality of ideas, causes to propagate wrong information, inflates irrelevant citations, inflates the size of papers, reduces the quality of published articles, etc.
When we decide to select a journal for publication of a research article. Sometimes we get confused among impact factor and quartile ranking. Some journals have high impact factor but low quartile ranking and vice-versa. So, Readers are requested to express their valuable suggestions for the same.
This discussion will focus on research that is related to FDI. It will primarily be a discussion and a sharing platform of Resources and Knowledge for the research on FDI. It is with collaborating that we can improve upon the quality of the research on FDI. I will be sharing my resources here so that the scholarship can benefit from it and a lot of time and effort that is put into searching for resources and knowledge about the research is saved here.
For The Sake of Research
- Bilateral FDI flows of the World Economies.
The source of the data is UNCTAD.
- Journal of Finance in SCOPUS.
Ranking and metrics of Journals of Finance in SCOPUS
- Country Wise Bilateral FDI Datasets
| 2001-12 |
|INFLOWS & OUTFLOWS|
|INSTOCK & OUTSTOCK|
Hi all researchers
Please note that the International Journal of Business & Social Science is a predatory journal.
I am currently working on a paper that will probably surpass the common limit of 8000 words (excluding the appendices). I tried to limit the words and deleted as much recurring details as possible but it won't make it. The methodology is just lengthy for a sound reason.
I wish it to be published but the length will only make the cut for a handful of journals for the topic. Now, the question is...
Is it wise to divide a paper into two when they technically share similar literature and set of data for the analysis?
For other details, the paper basically has three goals:
1. To find statistical evidences that the construct exist
(It is not covered by traditional validity indices. Can be considered as experimental.)
2. To see whether the construct affects a test's reliability
3. To see whether the construct affects a test's validity.
I am thinking of dividing it into two where the first paper covers the 1st goal and the second paper covers the 2nd and 3rd. But as far as I can see it, they will basically have similar literatures and theoretical framework. The discussion will also be more fluid if they are all merged in one paper.
But still, the length of the paper. So, do you think I should divide it, or just go for the journals that accepts longer manuscripts?
Will dividing the paper have advantage other than having more journals that may accept it? Will dividing it count as a form of duplicate publication?
When it comes to choosing a good journal, it has always been debated which one is more important? Impact factor (IF) or journal quartile (Q)?
I give an example, you have three following journals, which one would you choose?
1- IF: 1.3 & Q1
2- IF: 2.5 & Q2
3- IF: 3.9 & Q3
Please select one of the three journals above and give a reason for that.
Recently, I found an article that has been published in IEEE Access (DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3045008), which is directly copied from a research article of ours (DOI: 10.1007/s00170-019-04213-z). A lot of figures and tables, and the text in body of the paper are same as our published paper. Moreover, most of the data are the same or have been only slightly changed and the text in the finding and discussion section is also mostly identical. We can see the same text with the same references (see the attached file).
Regarding this essential problem we sent an email to the editor handling of the paper. Then, the first author of the paper sent us an email, in which he tried to persuade us to forgive him. In fact, he confessed to committed plagiarism and asked us for mercy. Following reporting the problem to the EIC we received an email from IEEE Access as an investigation outcome as follow. "In the present case, we performed an investigation and discussed the case with the EIC, IEEE Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and myself. We believe that the article overlap is small enough that it does not warrant any further investigation."
We spent so much time on our paper, and they have just looked at our paper, modified it, and written another one. This is not fair at all. What can we do now? I would appreciate any kind of help.
I am currently conducting a comprehensive literature review on brand loyalty, using a deductive approach. So far, I analyzed more than 340 articles, but I was told that I should narrow my analysis to the articles published in top journals, if I want to publish my paper.
Do you know what is the best practice for this type of systematic review? If yes, do you know some articles that are arguing this issue of inclusion criteria (the fact of including only peer-reviewed articles, top journals, or on the contrary to also include conference paper, grey literature...etc)?
What are some of the difficulties or disadvantages, if any, of publishing in high impact journals?
Thanks in advance for your participation!
Hello fellow Template searcher,
I was looking for Analytica Chimica Acta Template but I could not find it anywhere. So I decided to make one my own and share it. Enjoy all the styles that I have created.
This template could work for most Elsevier journals.
I have come up with a method and had written a paper on it. Paper got rejected by a journal stating that there is no theoretical novelty.
I am kind of confused on why the novelty that I am able to see, is not visible for the reviewer?
How do I highlight it?
I have submitted to an article to a reputed journal. But I now find that the journal has time to first decision of 130 days. Is it possible to withdraw the manuscript. It is not yet assigned to an editor.
I have recently received a invitation from the journal "Current Pharmaceutical Bio-technology" to submit a research article. As i didn't received any invitation before. so, is it normal to to receive such invitations or is it a big thing ???
I am interested in independent director,board composition,political connection,CEO compensation,Board diversity topics and firm performance of Chinese listed firms,but I want to follow some good journals in the field of corporate governance and also some blogs ,or conferences from that I can select my topic .so could you please share your experiences with me,that which journals will be good for my topic selection and how can I know that which area is new one in the last 3 years.thank you
I submitted a research article and a new manuscript for consideration for publication in a Journal (Q1 and IF=3.9) about 20 days ago.
It was mentioned in the last step of submission, "You will receive a message from Electronic Manuscript Upload System through the corresponding email: **********. If you do not receive a confirmation in a day or two, please contact us at **********". We did not receive any submission confirmation. My supervisor sent an email to *********** 17 days ago, and we have asked for information on the status of the submission of our paper. But we did not get any reply from ***********.
We have sent several emails to the editor-in-chief of the journal. But we did not get any reply.
Did they receive the article at all?
I want to withdraw my article, but when they will not reply to our emails; how can I do this work?
What do I do now?
Would you please help me.
thanks in advance
The researchers are always conducting research as well as they are publishing their research findings in the reputed journals. We all are aware that to publish a scientific article in the renowned journal needs more efforts and surely needs more time. However, the researchers need to spend their valuable times when they are writing the manuscript especially when they are unable to publish their desired journal, then, they need to spend more time for the changing of the reference writing style. Therefore, do you agree that the similar reference writing style in different journals is useful for the researchers?
We are preparing to submit a manuscript in field of Computational Chemistry (Computer aided-drug design). However. due to our current budget we won't be able to afford the cost of the processing fees charged by most open access journals.
Is there any available free-to-publish journal(s) that can publish our work - either open access or "society" journals?