Publishing in Low-Rank Peer-Reviewed - How Hard?

[armstrong77]

Hi all

Just wondering what the collective opinion is on the difficulty in publishing in lower-rank peer-reviewed journals.

Any anecdotes or thoughts? Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TundraT100]

Impact factors don't make a journal. It is a poor metric to measure the quality of a journal. There are many reasons why this is true including journals that publish more review articles have higher impact factors, journals that have published for a longer time would have higher impact factors, and journals that publish more often have higher impact factors. None of these things have anything to do with the content or value of the manuscripts that are submitted.

Let me give you another example. In neurosurgery, the two biggest journals are Neurosurgery and the Journal of Neurosurgery. The impact factor of both of these journals (2.692 and 2.424 respectively) is below that of the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry (3.63). But if you talk to most neurosurgeons, they would much rather have their manuscripts published in JNS or Neurosurgery than in JNNP.

 

[Faebinder]

Impact factors don't make a journal. It is a poor metric to measure the quality of a journal. There are many reasons why this is true including journals that publish more review articles have higher impact factors, journals that have published for a longer time would have higher impact factors, and journals that publish more often have higher impact factors. None of these things have anything to do with the content or value of the manuscripts that are submitted.

Let me give you another example. In neurosurgery, the two biggest journals are Neurosurgery and the Journal of Neurosurgery. The impact factor of both of these journals (2.692 and 2.424 respectively) is below that of the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry (3.63). But if you talk to most neurosurgeons, they would much rather have their manuscripts published in JNS or Neurosurgery than in JNNP.

It's the audiance's perception of the journal that matters. IF change from one specialty to another. Annals of Surgery is the #1 surgery journal and only has IF of 7 and some change, still it has a high IF than the rest of the surgery journals. So the question is, how high is the IF of your journal compared to the other journals that publish in that specialty.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

I can understand that impact factor 3 vs 4 may not matter so much as reputation of the journal, but the OP is talking about journals with impact factors of below .5. I can't imagine that it would be all too difficult to publish in these journals. After all if they had stringent standards they'd have nothing to publish at all. The journal I usually submit to has impact factor of 4 and an acceptance rate of about 40%. With impact factors below .5, I'd imagine acceptance rates would go up to about 70% or 80%.

 

[qwopty99]

The reality is, the IF is used as a tool for ranking journals. But as Pinker mentioned, the OP seems to be asking about generic low-ranked journals, and is citing journals ranked lowest in IF in given disciplines to identify them. The original post doesn't seem to be about trying to argue nor necessarily imply IF validity.

 

[Doodledog]

Hi all

Just wondering what the collective opinion is on the difficulty in publishing in lower-rank peer-reviewed journals.

Typically, when people aim to and speak of being "published", it is usually in journals that are of at least "average" prestige for their field. For instance, suppose there are 50 journals with impact factor in a particular discipline, the "notable" journals will typically rank ~30 and higher, and have an impact of at least 1.

What are the standards for publishing in the bottom 20% of peer-reviewed journals, i.e. those ranked 40-50. These journals will typically have an impact factor no higher than 0.5. Is their rejection rate that much lower than "average-ranked" journals? Are they much more likely to publish "anything"?

Any anecdotes or thoughts? Thanks.

A couple of comments on your original question and some of the thread. I think that in general, the impact factor's day is beginning to fade. It is too easy for a journal editor to manipulate these based on publishing more reviews, editorials or even data tables and the like that folks will download and quote often. That doesn't mean it's useless, and can certainly be a rough guide to evaluating two very similar journals in the same field. It is useless across fields however. Using it for promotion decisions is still done, but hopefully will decrease with time.

What I think a person starting out should think about is "Who is my audience for this information?" and then how can I get them to see this. After all, although the publication is nice in a higher ranked journal, what matters is that people become aware of the work, and ultimately your connection with it. As such, a quick simple thing to look at is whether the "lower ranked" journal is found in pubmed. If it is, and someone is looking up this area - they'll find your article even if it is in a journal with a low impact factor.

In general, journals with very low impact factors are not necessarily publishing "mediocre science" but are publishing in highly subspecialized areas that aren't being quoted often. Again, this isn't always a bad thing. They would tend to reject fewer papers than higher ranked journals, but hopefully can still provide a thorough peer review. If they publish "anything", then people in the field would know that, and it wouldn't be respected. So, look for a journal that you are told by your mentor has a good peer-review process, even if it's IF is low.

Again, to summarize, what you are trying to get out of this publication is not just a number on your CV, but a paper that will start to get your name out there. As such, IF isn't as important as targeting the audience in your field and getting good feedback on your research.

 

[qwopty99]

Bump. Any other thoughts?