Journal Targets - Increasing your research output..

[Tyler D]

I'll keep it short..We all know the proverb..
"Publish or Perish"
So lets start a useful thread for potential journal targets which follow criteria:
- Fast Turnaround time ( Time between submission to first decision)
- Easy Acceptance (anything 70% and over)
- PubMed Index (So we get a PMID for our CVs)

I ll kick off..
Plos One
F1000 Research..

Please comment if you have any suggestions..It will help us all..
(Please no sarcastic comments..get down from that high horse we all know u would like a few more publications on ur CV.. we all do )

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

You should consult with your PI on where to publish. They clearly have the most experience, and the journals worth publishing in vary a lot by field.

Also, I'd rather spend more time on a project than have publications from places like F1000. You're not going to fool any PDs or scientists just by number of publications, but rather you need quality. I just spent the last 2 years working on something for Journal of Neuroscience. I'd rather have that than 10 F1000 first author papers.

 

[Neuronix]

Easy acceptance? What if the article is junk? Frankly, authors don't often know or care that what they're submitting is junk. If a journal starts accepting whatever is sent its way, authors will flock to it, and the impact factor (citations of said junk) will drop. However, when authors pay to publish their own work, all of a sudden journals are more welcome to accept more junk, because publishing becomes an almost for profit business. Do you have the $1,350 to publish in PLoS One? How about the $1,000 for F1000? So just because a journal is "easy to get into" does not mean it publishes quality material. When people are evaluating you, they are not going to be happy to see a CV loaded with junk. Maybe it'll help you get that residency position you want ("I had a publication! ZOMG!), but it's bad news for the rest of your career if you keep it up.

Any journal should be indexed on pubmed. The rare exceptions are ones that are brand new. The only requirement for pubmed is that the journal has existed for a few years. My anecdote is that there's a journal that a lot of people ignored because it was not pubmed indexed, but is backed by a major medical society, and had fairly lax publication standards despite everyone knowing about it for its first few years. I thought it was silly to overlook a journal that would certainly last and be pubmed indexed in the near future, and shot a few manuscripts their way that got accepted. Whether that was wise strategically in the long run is unknown. Still, I think overlooking a journal just because it is *new* is not a good idea.

 

[Tyler D]

You should consult with your PI on where to publish. They clearly have the most experience, and the journals worth publishing in vary a lot by field.

Also, I'd rather spend more time on a project than have publications from places like F1000. You're not going to fool any PDs or scientists just by number of publications, but rather you need quality. I just spent the last 2 years working on something for Journal of Neuroscience. I'd rather have that than 10 F1000 first author papers.

The journal you published in is great...however many senior doctors are publishing in PLOS one and F1000.
If i were you i would look at the list of recent authors before making assumptions on the quality of the journal.

 

[Tyler D]

Easy acceptance? What if the article is junk? Frankly, authors don't often know or care that what they're submitting is junk. If a journal starts accepting whatever is sent its way, authors will flock to it, and the impact factor (citations of said junk) will drop. However, when authors pay to publish their own work, all of a sudden journals are more welcome to accept more junk, because publishing becomes an almost for profit business. Do you have the $1,350 to publish in PLoS One? How about the $1,000 for F1000? So just because a journal is "easy to get into" does not mean it publishes quality material. When people are evaluating you, they are not going to be happy to see a CV loaded with junk. Maybe it'll help you get that residency position you want ("I had a publication! ZOMG!), but it's bad news for the rest of your career if you keep it up.

Any journal should be indexed on pubmed. The rare exceptions are ones that are brand new. The only requirement for pubmed is that the journal has existed for a few years. My anecdote is that there's a journal that a lot of people ignored because it was not pubmed indexed, but is backed by a major medical society, and had fairly lax publication standards despite everyone knowing about it for its first few years. I thought it was silly to overlook a journal that would certainly last and be pubmed indexed in the near future, and shot a few manuscripts their way that got accepted. Whether that was wise strategically in the long run is unknown. Still, I think overlooking a journal just because it is *new* is not a good idea.

Thanks for the medical society journal suggestion, that seems like a good idea.
I dont think Plos One is crap..many senior doctors and leaders in research publish in it.. I personally know 2 doctors who have had until now published more than a dozen papers in NEJM but recently have started to publish in Plos One. The time journals like NEJM and others take from submission to acceptance is crazy..stretching from a few months to almost a year in some situations.
Thats like doing a research for a year and then having to wait the same amount of time to just get it published.

Yea I am actually trying to get into a very competitive residency. I have published in the past as a first author in journals such as World Journal of Surgery, Injury International,etc. I currently have 6 first author pubs. I would appreciate it if someone suggests a journal for case reports and original research specifically in Urology and also in Surgery as a whole.
Thanks for your responses.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

The journal you published in is great...however many senior doctors are publishing in PLOS one and F1000.
If i were you i would look at the list of recent authors before making assumptions on the quality of the journal.

I have a publication on PLOS-One as well. You're right on that one. I think it's a good journal, but you can't forget that the journal doesn't really do impact factor. It's mainly for projects that aren't novel, which not all projects have to be. However, one should aim for better journals, but if one's project doesn't yield the expected results, you begin to look into journals like PLOS-One. I felt you were looking just to put stuff out instead of doing a real project, which defeats the real purpose of science and won't impress anyone.

 

[aegistitan]

I was wondering, for medical school admissions would a school be more impressed by a first author publications in less prestigious journals (F1000, PLoS) or 1 second author publication in a more well known and prestigious journal? Does "the more the merrier" concept apply? As in a few (3 or 4) less prestigious publications is better than one fancy publication as a second author? The answers above are given from a non-premedical perspective, and I can understand the reasoning behind why when competing for residencies quality is more important than quantity. However, as an undergraduate isn't the point of research (in regards to medical school admissions) to clearly demonstrate that you know what it takes to be a successful scientist? Even if papers are not published in fancy journals (Journal of Food Protection, International Journal of Food Microbiology), wouldn't they still show that the undergraduate student that did the work knows how to take a project through analysis, writing, and the various steps of publication?

 

[Neuronix]

you can't forget that the journal doesn't really do impact factor.

That doesn't matter. The impact factor is calculated independently of the journal's participation.

I was wondering, for medical school admissions would a school be more impressed by a first author publications in less prestigious journals (F1000, PLoS) or 1 second author publication in a more well known and prestigious journal?

There is no data on this, just opinion. I personally look for first author work (real conference presentations, publications) in medical school and residency applications. I find that undergrads are often added as middle author to things that they contributed little to, don't deserve to be on (often nepotism factors), and they often don't understand the papers their names are on. First author usually shows that real effort went into the project on the undergrad's part. Undergrads don't really have control over their projects, so it may not be a high impact project meriting high impact journal publication. That's fine. It's so uncommon to see an undergrad (or med student, for that matter) actually follow a research project through to completion, that those types stand out in my mind.

Also I find that undergrads and med students vastly overestimate their abilities and underestimate the difficulty of getting papers published at all, let alone in high impact journals. It's much more common for them to contribute something minor to a graduate student's four years of hard work sometimes culminating in a single publication, and get second or some other middle authorship on their work. I personally nearly disregard that effort, and am rather annoyed when I hear people talking about their "publications" resulting from those minor contributions.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

That doesn't matter. The impact factor is calculated independently of the journal's participation.

I don't understand what you mean? Are you trying to say IF is not important to the quality of your CV?

 

[Neuronix]

I don't understand what you mean? Are you trying to say IF is not important to the quality of your CV?

No. I was trying to say that while PLOS One's "aim is to challenge academia's obsession with journal status and impact factors", they cannot stop their journal from receiving an impact factor and being judged (in part) based on it.

 

[JoshSt]

Thanks for the medical society journal suggestion, that seems like a good idea.
I dont think Plos One is crap..many senior doctors and leaders in research publish in it.. I personally know 2 doctors who have had until now published more than a dozen papers in NEJM but recently have started to publish in Plos One. The time journals like NEJM and others take from submission to acceptance is crazy..stretching from a few months to almost a year in some situations.
Thats like doing a research for a year and then having to wait the same amount of time to just get it published.

Yea I am actually trying to get into a very competitive residency. I have published in the past as a first author in journals such as World Journal of Surgery, Injury International,etc. I currently have 6 first author pubs. I would appreciate it if someone suggests a journal for case reports and original research specifically in Urology and also in Surgery as a whole.
Thanks for your responses.

For the obvious - International Journal of Surgery Case Reports (although costs ~$400, but is Pubmed indexed)

 

[JoshSt]

Easy acceptance? What if the article is junk? Frankly, authors don't often know or care that what they're submitting is junk. If a journal starts accepting whatever is sent its way, authors will flock to it, and the impact factor (citations of said junk) will drop. However, when authors pay to publish their own work, all of a sudden journals are more welcome to accept more junk, because publishing becomes an almost for profit business. Do you have the $1,350 to publish in PLoS One? How about the $1,000 for F1000? So just because a journal is "easy to get into" does not mean it publishes quality material. When people are evaluating you, they are not going to be happy to see a CV loaded with junk. Maybe it'll help you get that residency position you want ("I had a publication! ZOMG!), but it's bad news for the rest of your career if you keep it up.

Any journal should be indexed on pubmed. The rare exceptions are ones that are brand new. The only requirement for pubmed is that the journal has existed for a few years. My anecdote is that there's a journal that a lot of people ignored because it was not pubmed indexed, but is backed by a major medical society, and had fairly lax publication standards despite everyone knowing about it for its first few years. I thought it was silly to overlook a journal that would certainly last and be pubmed indexed in the near future, and shot a few manuscripts their way that got accepted. Whether that was wise strategically in the long run is unknown. Still, I think overlooking a journal just because it is *new* is not a good idea.

I don't disagree with your post and logic but consider if this is from a late in the year MS3 or early MS4. Submitting to a shoddy, fast turn around journal makes it more likely to a have a 'published' or 'accepted' manuscript on ERAS rather than 'submitted'. Further, in Pubmed/not in Pubmed is another metric on ERAS. Submitting to better journals comes with risk of rejection. This is especially true in case reports, those are typically very hard to get published in the better journals and run the risk of being rejected and having to be resubmitted.

In pure black and white, would you rather interview a candidate that has a 'published' manuscript in a meh/unknown journal or someone that has 'submitted' a manuscript to a more prestigious journal?

Again though, I do agree with your logic and think that in academics in terms of tenure, that promotion committees would not be too impressed with a bunch of PLOS None's. The med student with the approaching ERAS deadline has a unique timeline dilemma. I'm going through that know with a couple of manuscripts that were rejected on their first pass and crossing fingers they'll be accepted on the backup submissions.

 

[Neuronix]

In pure blackabstract
te, would you rather interview a candidate that has a 'published' manuscript in a meh/unknown journal or someone that has 'submitted' a manuscript to a more prestigious journal?

Submitted means it's not a publication. I can FedEx a chicken to Cell and call it a submitted manuscript, and it means nothing. The reality is that people do lie about having things "submitted" all the time. Heck, they lie about publications all the time.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...dency+applications&btnG=&as_sdt=1,10&as_sdtp=