各种"炒"杂志的办法！
In their Report "Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns" (this issue, p. 1065; published online 11 October), V. Calcagno et al. discuss an enlightening and unexpected finding about the path that manuscripts often follow in the publication process. Among other insights, they show that previously rejected manuscripts that are submitted to other journals ultimately receive more citations, once published, than papers in the same journal that were not previously rejected. In light of this result, a feature on this Report in Nature (1) quotes physicist Michael Schreiber from the Technical University of Chemnitz in Germany, who suggests that journal editors should reject more manuscripts because that improves their citation count. I argue that editors should do the opposite to improve their own journal's citation impact.
According to Calcagno et al.'s findings, rejecting to improve the quality of papers, as suggested by the Nature article (1), will not directly benefit the journal that rejects the paper. Journal editors could increase the quality of papers published in their own journals by exacting more rigorous standards for revision without rejecting them. Providing authors more opportunities to revise and resubmit manuscripts following peer review, while being clear to authors that substantial improvement must be made before a final decision is reached, would increase the citation impact of an editor's own journal.
E. Keith Bowers
Behavior, Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics Section, School of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, Il 61761, USA.
Feed: Science: Current Issue
Posted on: Thursday, 22 November 2012 4:34 AM
Author: E. Keith Bowers
Subject: [Letter] Journals: Increase Revisions, Not Rejections
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment