Scientific Conferences
In Behind the Scenes, we looked at how a journal can offer a targeted promotional platform for conferences, while conferences, in their turn, can provide material for the journal.
What do you think is the most important impact on journals of publishing conference proceedings?
A) Journals gain access to up-and-coming authors and valuable new research results.
B) Quality is at stake, as papers from conferences are not perceived to be as high quality as submitted papers.
C) Conference proceedings are published in addition to regular issues, and the correct balance of the two strengthens the reputation of the journal.
If you had to choose one of the above statements, which one would it be and why?
Add your comment by clicking the ‘Write Comment’ link below. Please give your name and mail address. First time you contribute please also type your journal name in the comment box.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:51 am
B. It is very difficult to control the quality of the papers and the quality of the editing done by Guest Editors.
Paolo Cherubini
Dendrochronologia
February 12th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Conferences represent what is really new in the field, and often do not make their way into papers for 6 months to 2 years. Publishing conference papers as soon as possible can give a journal a fresh look.
January 26th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
As editor-in-chief, the quality of conference-based special issues was always a concern, for many of the reasons stated by others. Because of that, they took an inordinate amount of my time to ensure quality, and riled more than a few special issue guest editors. However, I have also found that conference special issues allow the journal to expand its author base beyond what it had previously–special issue authors now consider our journal as a potential outlet for their regular manuscripts. But, in the long run, C is probably the most important, as conference special issues expand the breadth and reach of a journal and can strengthen its reputation. That reputation will suffer, however, if quality takes a back seat to an expanded number of issues.
January 24th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I choose C as the most appropriate. But insist that all contributions to the Conference Proceedings are also refereed according to usual standards.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 am
C is the reason Progress in Organic Coatings seeks to publish scientific conferences. We have no direct professional society as a source of papers or reviewers and the way we publish proceedings issues provides both under known “quality control” conditions. We usually attempt to have the conference organizer be a special issue editor and is responsible for reviewing the special issue. The conference is usually a know quantity where someone from the journal editorial board is involved with the organization and choice of speakers at the conference.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
In the case of Atmospheric Environment there is a general perception that conference issues are of lower quality. This is probably true in the case of some conferences and many authors sem to feel that a conference paperwill be easier to get through than the regular issues. The other problem is that the papers tend to be wider ranging and some are closer to the margins of our scope than would be true of stand-alone papers.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:57 am
The answer is complex and depends on the field of Science. My personal opinion is B. Within Chemistry the quality of conference proceedings are generally lower than that of regularly submitted papers. This occurs by selection of the authors, choosing either rather special topics or “recycling” published work. The original function of providing an overview is not fulfilled.
On the pragmatic side (just speaking for Chemistry), it would save all concerned time and efforts, if proceedings were declared non-reviewed papers published in one special series. The overall information content would be the same (information on the developments in the field) and the papers resemble more extended abstracts.
January 20th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Journal of Theoretical Biology
I am against all three but support a report on relevant conferences. Conference papers are too variable and often boring for publishing in JTB and they have not been refereed as our papers have to be.
January 20th, 2007 at 2:31 am
I agree with “C”.
Many conference participants strongly wish to have their papers published in a Special Issue. We ask Guest Editors to maintain the standard of quality as in regular issues, and they understand it very well.
January 15th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Much depends on the conference and quality of the papers. Publishing selected papers after the conference for peer review seems to me to be best way of widening the audience for the authors of these papers. It also advertises the journal to the conference participants. I stress only selected papers should be published, as the conference organisers may accept interim papers that need further research before being really suitable for a peer-reviewed journal. Selected papers can also be introduced without causing a backlog of mainstream papers.
January 15th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
The publication of conference proceedings as special issues of the Elsevier journal, Geomorphology, has increased the visibility of the journal. Some of the proceedings papers have been among widely cited and listed on the “most downloaded” article listing maintained by Elsevier. One reason for this is that our journal; has assigned editors for the special issues 9formerly handled by the editors-in-chief) to be the last hurdle for authors to clear after their manuscripts have been accepted by guest editors (conference organizers). Manuscriptsa from conference proceedings that are not up-to-standard would be rejected by the editor for special issues. A second reason that special issues from conference proceeds have enhanced the journal is because a group of manuscripts are collected on a focused topic. Readers on the journal are more likely to spend time looking through an entire issue when the papers relate to a single theme/topic.
January 15th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I would choose C.
I think it is very stylish and dismissive to say that conference papers are
second rate. I give papers at conferences and they are not second-rate.
So, a good balance provides more interesting material for readers.
January 15th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I agree with “B”
January 15th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
I think conference proceedings should be published as supplements of RPC. This will facilitate the publication of the regular papers.
January 14th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I agree with “B”.
Most authors present at conferences work that has already been published or is in the process of being published.
Special Issues on a certain theme are more useful. But their quality depends on how good a job the special editor is willing to do and how rigorous the peer review process will be.
I would go with “C” only occasionally, when a hot topic is being debated in the literature; definitely not with “A”.
January 14th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Answer C : both strengthen reputation of jurnal
Moreover, regrouping similar papers in one issue is handy for usage of a peculiar issue in paper form
January 14th, 2007 at 9:11 am
I choose (A).If Proceedings of Conferences are carefully selected I strongly believe is going to be a “Journal gain”.
Especially ,Conferences i.e on “new drugs” will provide new research results earlier than regular publications.
EDITOR “CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS”
January 13th, 2007 at 8:46 am
I strongly agree with A. There are several instances that special issues of the journal have brough ‘good’ for the journal. No doubt that in some quarters, a feeling towards B exists, which is partly true in some stances. However, such instances simply reflect the failure of Guest editor(s) of the issue(s) as they compromise on the quality peer review.
Thus, the take home message from me is to support A with a care for the selection of Guest Editor for the special issues and also with a clear message about the quality review process- surely at par with the journal, if not better.
January 12th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Papers from conferences are not perceived to be, and in fact often are not, as high quality as submitted papers. The main problem is the choice of guest editors, who not rarely do very lousy review job.
January 12th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
To publish in a Journal papers presented in a Symposium or Conference will increase the impact of the Journal if:
1) Papers are carefully revised by a “peer review system” to select only those that accomplish the standards.
2) There is some thematic uniformity that atracts the readers in this topic.
By no way the proceedings could be published in a Journal without this treatment.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Conference papers should not be published in the first place. Conferences should stay what they once used to be: places where one could exchange ideas and together learn something. Once one starts with the habit of publication, it stifles the conference and soon there is no free discussion any more. Even more threatening is the requirement to submit the manuscript long time before the conference. By the time you go to the conference you are no longer interested in your own paper, because if you do good research you have already moved on so much that you shouldn’t be interested anymore in the old stuff.
Also, since conference papers usually only allow a limited number of pages, you are still forced to publish the extended results somewhere else. But then you run into an ethics problem, unless you honestly try not to have too much overlap with the conference paper.
Publishing of conference papers is just to satisfy the ego of some scientist editors and to fill the pockets of publishers.
January 12th, 2007 at 5:35 am
Biological Psychology
C) Abstracts in my field are usually too short to make new research fully available - that is done in papers which are reviewed. Moreover, in my field, there is a clear difference in the relative merits of published papers and published conference contributions. On the other hand, publication of some sort may be a prerequisite for travel support given by an institutiuon - and the opportunity to publish an abstract can be of value for students or junior academics. Thus an option to publish them seems desirable. This is best done in supplements that do not take away pages from full length papers.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
B is the most likely statement. It is always possible to use a conference as a basis for a special issue in a journal, and in that case it is subject to the usual requirements of peer review. There is far too much padding that goes in conferences as people write papers to justify conference funding from their sponsors. It is possible that a conference organised with publication in view - for example, this is how some edited books are organised - can work, but then the proposal itself should probably be vetted by the journal as per its normal procedures for dealing wiith special issues and the like. The other potential problem with conferences is if they are closely tied to some commercial sponsor, and then you are up for all sorts of problems. This is also presented in a different guise with journals permitting a special issue to be so sponsored, and it has been shown time and again that these are potential trojan horse for commercial influence.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
While A is important, it is rarely the case that sufficient new material is available for it to be worthwhile publishing the whole of a meeting. For an Editor rather than the journal, it can be useful to pick up new authors and to identify new areas, espcially those where review articles would be beneficial.
For me, B may be true in the eye of the reader, but it is up to editors to ensure that the satndard of the material is as high as the journal’s regular material. All material from a conference must undergo peer review in exacly the same way as ‘normal’ material. There is one danger, from personal experience, that must be watched for and that is duplicate publication which upsets two editors. Often conference material can be early material and therefore could be partly cooked, in which case a better (sometimes) paper with more data and mature though follows later. However sometimes the definitive and the conference version are both in process of review at the same time. It can anger peer reviewers and editors alike and can result in acrimonious exchanges!
C is the most appropriate, provided one is careful in choice of material. A well chosen set of material from a large conference on a particular subject published as a special can be very beneficial to the journal and if it is mostly review material rather than new results then it can become a resource for researchers (and it does the citation index good). However one has to select and use your board to identify good subjects. One conference proceedings a year and preferably on a single subject, either new data or review.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
This really depends on the conference, the selection of the papers, wehther there is a review etc
January 11th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
All are true, to a greater or lesser extent - depending on the specific conference.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Senior Editor of Acta Neuropathologica.
A) might be of interest for the readers of a journal related to the subject of a conference. Selected conference papers should be published in a “thematic volume”.
B) In order to guarantee quality of conference proceeding papers, they should be peer-reviewed like original papers, otherwise they are of little value.
C) Seems acceptable with only selected conference papers published after peer review like other journal submissions.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:51 am
I would choose for A, providing that the same peer review criteria are valid for the conference papers.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:22 am
International Journal of Heat & Fluid Flow
Provided the conferences are well chosen and rigorous (supplementary) reviews are carried out of individual contributions, I see special issues from conferences as being wholly beneficial additions to a journal’s mix of published material. Such issues attract a greater readership (they become mandatory reference points rather than something to drop into when time allows) and they are highly popular with the authors selected. Because the IJHFF undertakes supplementary reviews some papers do not make it through to the special issue journal publication. That risk is explained to the invited authors at the outset. Sometimes a paper that is unable to reach the required level in time for special-issue publication is published later following further revision or the addition of further material.
Provided the indicated precautions are taken I do not see Issue B as a problem. Issue A can be said to be beneficial but the to discover who the up-and-coming authors are is for the editor to go to the meetings earmarked for special issues, talk with the conferees and listen to the oral presentations. Thus, as my first paragraph suggests, matters broadly connected with Issue C are the most important ones for me.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:29 am
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
If I had to choose only one, I would choose Option B. Papers presented and published at a conference do not go through the scrutiny that regular journal articles get. One often finds incomplete information in conference papers which reduces the value of the results.
There is certainly more than a germ of truth in Option A. Many thematic conferences have papers from a number of fringe areas and it broadens our appreciation of the field. The possibility of a one-to-one chat not only identifies new and up-coming authors but also potential reviewers!
As for publishing conference proceedings, a concise and well-written and well-balanced (!?) “conference report” would be a good idea.
January 11th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells
B) Quality is at state.
Papers for conferences need to be thoroughly reviewed. They are not always of high value and original. At SOLMAT, we use a guest editor, and we also check the work through one of our more permanent editors. We also limit the number of articles published, and the length of the publications. In priciple, conferences can add new authors (and reviewers) to the journal, but this can be done by viewing the list of conference participants and titles. Recently, we have begun to test the concept of a “conference/event report”, a summary of the findings of the conference. Authors can always be invited to submit key articles after the conference.
January 10th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
A and C have both proven valuable. We have drawn in new authors previously unfamiliar with our Journal, as well as fresh research approaches. We also have special issues with guest editors presenting carefully selected papers from conferences. Conference Proceedings usually are not selective enough (often subject to only cursory review) whereas the special issues can take the time to assess candidate articles more in depth.
January 10th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
In my field, which is Operational Research and Computing Science, the conferences are so many that producing journal proceedings from each one would lead to inflation of publications. Conference papers are usually reviewed rather lightly and there is no time for important revisions. I think that feature issues of journals publishing carefully selected papers submitted AFTER the conference is the best solution for linking journals and conferences.
Conference proceedings should be a separate series. They are useful for participants of the conference rather than for general readers. Elsevier may consider editing a series like Lecture Notes of Springer.
January 10th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
The appropriateness of a journal special issue depends on the quality of the people who are leading the development of the special issue. If the conference organizers are leading scholars of the field and committed to creating an excellent special issue, the results can be excellent. A special issue can bring excellent authors to the journal, and can enhance the popularity of the journal within the scientific community served by the journal.
Our journal is selective in regard to special issues, offering a total of only three special issues during a period of fourteen years. Those three special issues have had positive effects by attracting excellent papers from respected authors, and by making friends with members of the community served by the journal.
January 10th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
In publishing conference proceedings, speed is of the essence; although some authors use parts of such articles as almost “preliminary findings” - almost akin to an Abstract - it is important that the papers appear as soon as feasible after the meeting.
It is essential that peer review takes place.
In publishing conference proceedings as part of regular issues, this requires careful planning as one does not want to have the cost of delaying regular articles because a few extra pages of a conference.
The selection of particular conferences for publication is difficult and there are no scientific grounds other than idiosyncracy, one imagines.
January 10th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
B,
Conference proceedings are useful for participants and reflect the presentations at a conference, these papers are in general not original research papers and are not reviewed in the same way
January 10th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Journal of Molecular Graphics & Modelling
Many interesting posts so far - clearly a thought-provoking topic.
If I had to choose one, it would be B.
However, ‘A’ is potentially important.
‘C’ is not my understanding - as Marc MONTHIOUX wrote, the page budget is fixed and more conference proceedings would be mean less regular articles as I understand it.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
The editors of Polymer strongly favour B. The best journals in our field do not publish conference proceedings and they have good reasons to do so.
1. Due to the inflation of journals specialized in conference proceeings (which have low impact factors in our field) authors have a tendency to either recycle their already published original papers or to submit lower quality papers. So, even when it is sent to a journal publishing original papers they may keep this habit. I permanently refuse to contribute to conference proceedings.
2. In most cases a guest editor will edit the conference papers and he/she will not always be in a position to reject weak papers which he/she invited before. This may be different when an editor-in-chief takes the last decision, but I doubt that this happens too often.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:13 am
I agree with B
A rather common practice in some disciplines is the publication of the same results on the one hand in an article in the proceedings of a conference and on the other hand in an article in a regular issue of a journal; this practice is clearly a violation of the ethics rule. This forbidden practice is so common in some disciplines that some evaluators simply do not “count” the conference proceedings articles in their evaluations, even though these proceedings are published in regular journals. The “non counting” of the conference proceedings by the evaluators has two types of consequences: i) some scientists following strictly the ethics rules do not provide manuscripts of their conference communications for the proceedings reserving their results for a regular article (eventually in the same journal!), ii) some scientists consider that it legitimates the double publication of the same results both in the conference proceedings and in a regular issue of a journal. This is a vicious circle. All together this leads, in some disciplines, to the publication of not very good and not original proceedings issues. This is extremely regrettable for the scientists, the conference organizers and the publishers.
The goal of the conference organizers should not be to have a large number of participants, but to have a high scientific quality meeting. The 1st and 5th Solvay conferences (1) are still so famous nearly one century after they happened because of the exceptional scientific quality of their participants and of their scientific exchanges and not because of the number of their participants. Consequently the program committees of the conferences should be quite selective when building up the programs of the meetings.
A great attention should be paid to the reviewing of the conference proceedings. In no case, the reviewing of the papers should occur during the conference. A reviewer needs to have access to a library or to on-line literature and to bibliographic bases for reviewing seriously an article; even more important he needs time. These needs cannot be satisfied during a conference in which the scientists want, before all, to have during their free time discussions with colleagues they do not meet so often. The criteria of acceptance of a paper should be high and the same as those of the journal if they are published in a regular journal. It should also be asked to the corresponding authors of the papers to sign the same ethics statements as for regular articles in the journal. To summarize, there must be a very serious selection of the articles appearing in the proceedings; all the communications figuring in the abstract booklets of the conferences do not have their places in published proceedings.
If a strict selection of the papers appearing in the conference proceedings is made, there is no more need to limit the length of the papers appearing in the proceedings. As a matter of fact, the limited length of the proceedings papers is often invoked by the authors for justifying the submission of the same results to a journal, as a regular article, of an extended version of the proceedings paper.
(1) The 1st Solvay conference in 1911 was on “Radiation and the Quanta”; the 5th one in 1927 was on “Electrons and Photons”. 17 of the 29 participants to the 5th Solvay conference were or became Nobel price laureates. The famous exchange about Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: -Albert Einstein: “God does not play dice” -Niels Bohr: “Einstein stop telling God what to do” occurred during the 5th Solvay conference. Both conferences were held in Brussels.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis
C: Conference issue is offered for all participants of the meeting thus the papers in it are read by more people and cited more often increasing the citation index of the journal.
(B can have no impact when the same thorough reviewing procedure is applied for the conference issues as for regular ones.)
January 10th, 2007 at 6:37 am
A: Impact is minimal
B: Quality is not at stake if these issues are clearly identified as Conference Proceedings.
C: This is the best, although in several cases special issues include the best papers from a conference after a thorough review. In my view, the last case is the best!
January 10th, 2007 at 1:55 am
Dear Colleagues
I can address these questions from the perspective of having run symposia at the American Chemical Society national meetings that were sponsored by JOM, and were followed up by a “Symposium in Print”. These events were always heavily attended because the organizing committee selected first rate people to present current research (not reviews). I don’t know if other groups have the same problem that we do in chemistry, but Elsevier is often viewed as the Evil Empire. Our sponsorship of symposia brought people who would not normally publish in our journals and gave us favorable exposure by the participants and attendees. My hypothesis is that the resulting symposia issues have significantly higher hit rates that regular issues, partly because of the “star value” of the participants.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I once attended a computer science conference on genetic algorithms and was interested to see that all full papers had to be submitted before the conference and they were reviewed blind (with authors names removed). So acceptance meant you both got to present your paper and it was immediately available in a reputable publication.
Could this be done in my fiield of chemistry ? I doubt it. There are too many weak conferences (in my opinion) and papers are often submitted as ‘placeholders’ to give an academic an excuse for attending. The work is often published elsewhere, or the conference paper is a review of the past couple of years work. If a dicipline has a culture of rapid, peer reviewed dissemination of results in conferences then option A is fine.
I therefore like the idea of a highly structured special issue with serious refereeing (even if the papers themselves are critical reviews) and final responsibility of a senior editor to make sure the whole issue hangs together. Presumably scientifically valid but inappropriate papers can be flicked to a later issue. (As a book review editor one of my greatest moans is the lack of proper editing in multiauthored works).
So in analytical chemistry A does not happen (although many young scientists go and receive benefit from giving conference posters and papers), B can be a problem but should be solved by a properly implemented C.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Ordered by their importance, C, A and then B. Conference Proceedings are published as “Thematic Volumes” in “Sedimentary Geology” only after a “double jeopardy” type of review.
A Guest Editior, usually a member of the Editorial Board, accepts or rejects manuscripts on the advice of two reviewers in the normal way. Then the whole package of manuscripts accompanied by reviewers’ reports, Guest Editor’s comments, etc., goes to the designated Editor-in-Chief for final decision.
In my experience, commonly at least one ms in the collection is either rejected by the EiC; or it is returned to the author, through the Guest Editor, for further revision, thereby delaying the publication of the “Thematic Volume”.
This procedure is both educative and conservative. It educates authors, reviewers and Editorial Board members, informing them of best practice in scientific publication. It conserves the high standard and reputation of the scientific journal. Taken together, these outcomes enhance the international standing of the journal, as perceived by the scientific community and measured by citation indices.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Postharvest Biology & Technology
Re A. Don’t see this as too important - young up-and-coming authors are looking at high impact journals for publishing their work - they know where to go - conferences are not going to change that.
Re B - agree entirely - we have pretty much agreed not to publish conference issues because of quality issues. We did one a while back and it took a huge amount of work to get the quality we wanted - though has been cited quite well. Even using a guest editor still means rigorous auditing of quality from permanent editors. We would rather concentrate on reviews and papers.
Re C - this was another reason for not wanting to issue conference proceeedings - we were told that the issue would have to be one of the regular number and not an extra issue. I see that some other editors have commented similarly on the same point. This means further delays in getting our regular issues out and thus slowing down our publishing time.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
wrt A: In most disciplines, if not all, up-and-coming authors are well aware of which journals to submit papers to. If a journal has a presence at a conference it does not need ot publish conference papers.
B: It is true that conference papers are perceived, probably correctly if we are generalizing, to be somewhat lower in quality than papers in journals. However it is possible to publish *selected papers* from a conference that are subject to peer group blind review normal to journal submissions. (This is has become the practice of the Australian Linguistic Society, but the slected papers from conferences are in fact published separately from the Australian Journal of Linguistics.)
C: Seems feasible to me — but with only selected conference papers published after peer review.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Perhaps, a study of previous issues of a given journal that compares an average citation index per article between regular and additional issues is warranted.
Certainly, such comparison may differ from one issue to another issue and from a journal to a journal
This quantitative comparison based on objective data for a journal will not be prone to subjective experiences of the survey contributors.
Journal of Hydrology
January 9th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
The Journal of Emergency Nursing is the Voice of Emergency Nursing. The Annual Conference provides education and a forum for the vision and mission of the Emergency Nurses Association. It is an important role of the JEN to publish this.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I am a section editor of Aquaculture.
My choice is for option C.
A good, well edited conference proceeding can definitely strengthen the image of a journal.
Also, proceedings can include highly cited reviews.
Ed
January 9th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I support C, provided that refereeing standards are maintained. I know of excellent and useful volumes of conference proceedings, and cases where the journal issue has been subsequently published as a successful book. It is important, though, to maintain quality control.
January 9th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
The answer would be different depending on the state of a journal. That is, if any journal is newly started or at its infancy stage, then category A would be necessary, because, by this way, the journal would be promoted more and gather more new possible paper contributers and/or possibly reviewer candidates. But, for most journals at the stage of steady and gradual growing in their fame and quality control of the papers, Category B would be the best answer. But, if a strict peer review process is incorporated, then conference proceedings would be O.K like papers as shown in normal journal. Category C would be optional. If there is any really publically concerned theme and a specified conference to it, then the publication of a special issue would be welcome.
January 9th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Quality is often poorer for conference proceedings. There is a perception among authors that these are an easy outlet for smaller or less important data sets. However, they do represent value to readers, as the information may be published sooner or this may be the only outlet. Therefore a balance is needed, with clear emphasis on regular volunteered and invited papers.
January 9th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I think that scientific conferences are a splendid place for “fishing” a set of interesting papers to build a “special issue” on the topic (or any subtopic) of the Conference, but I hesitate to publish proceedings as such.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
I am not in favor of conference proceedings as quality is often compromised and as a result people do not generally read them. I much more prefer thematic issues of a journal with a mix of well-established and young researchers.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
If B is the choice then a rigorous review of selected papers must be enforced-the danger lies in the guest edior ’selecting’ papers for political or self-promotion purposes. I prefer A as it often introduces your journal to new and developing authors-I try to spot potenial new editorial board members.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I am Editor for CARBON journal.
I do not support A. Really valuable new research results are nowadays rarely kept for being first disclosed at a Conference. The current case is that outstanding results are first sent to some journal, then reported in conferences.
B is true. The consequence of my comment above is that proceeding articles are now either of low quality, or a duplicate of a previously published (and more extended) paper. If we are seeking for high impact , publishing proceedings is not to encourage. High impact journals such as NATURE or SCIENCE do not publish Conference proceedings.
I do not understand C. CARBON editors were told that the page budget per year for our journal was fixed, so any Special Issue dedicated to some Conference Proceeding lowers the amount of pages available for regular, submitted papers. Is it not the same policy for all Elsevier journals? I am discovering something here.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
ALL THREE ARE APPROPRIATE. HOWEVER, UNLESS ALL (OR MOST) OF THE PAPERS ARE BUILT AROUND A SPECIFIC THEME, I DO NOT FEEL THAT PUBLISHING CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS ADDS TO THE VALUE OF LITERATURE, SINCE THE MANUSCRIPTS WOULD PROBABLY EVENTUALLY BE PUBLISHED. iT IS MY OPINION THAT TOO MANY CONFERECNCES ARE HELD, OFTEN WITH A GIVEN THEME, THAT INVOLVE TEH SAME PLAYERS.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
A good deal of this depends on the conference. There are some conference proceedings that are heavily peer reviewed and represent high-impact publications. Others are almost after-thoughts and rarely contain the best of what the authors are doing since they are saving those results for “real” publications.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
All three positions are well-known and long-standing. They all have their place, although B is surely the most risky. Option C would be my choice, with conference papers being published on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes, you can get scholarly quality and an edge in an area by giving younger researchers an opportunity to “break the ice.” I wouldn’t pursue option C on a regular basis, but simply have it as an ongoing possibility. For example, I am in the midst of securing papers for just such a project at this time, but the Issue Editor is a founder of the field.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I support both A and C.
The quality issue of conference proceedings can be resolved if additional review from the journal is required (at least one outside reviewer).
January 9th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I believe options A and C are appropriate. The journal has rules for refereeing and the guest editors are obliged to follow them. Some papers might slip through, but in general the Journal benefits. I have been told that the impact factors may be affected in a negative manner, but I think if all journals had a similar policy the special issue would appear in the journal that best matches the topic of the meeting.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Fluid Phase Equilibria
I’m completely with Moschovakis.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
A. I strongly agree. Conference proceedings are extremely useful (if published in a timely manner) as the newest information are contained.
B. No. We all understand the pitfalls of conference proceedings. As long as the papers are identified as “Conference Proceedings”, it should be okay.
C. Definitely.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I support option C. I agree that Manuel Yanez that the quality of proceedings is perceived as lower than that of regularly reviewed papers. However, the advantage to the journal is that it becomes the identified focus for papers in a particular area. If readers and authors know that the particular journal can be a source of information in their field, they will check every issue and also publish there. In fact, publishing proceedings which are reviewed in the usual way is an excellent method for attracting a field to a journal. If submissions are not prop0erly reviewed, it is a mixed blessing. Reviewing is the key!
January 9th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I support Option B). My personal opinion is that, in general papers from conferences are not perceived to be as high quality as submitted papers. Firstly, in most cases the participants in International symposia or conferences even when they present “new” results, in most cases correspond to papers already published or at least accepted. Is quite unusual to have speakers presenting new and interesting results, which are still unpublished. The consequence is that when they are asked to contribute a paper to the Conference Proceedings, very often they present side-results of their main research work (some times with a quite weak relation with the topic of their lectures). I have also the impression that the referees used to be a little bit laxer when reviewing articles for Proceedings than when reviewing regular articles. My third concerned, is that the level of the special issue reflects somehow the level of the Conference and this result in quite unequal quality levels of the Issues containing Conference Proceedings.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Journal: Personality and Individual Differences.
I would have to go with option B because, in Psychology at least, conference papers are perceived to be have gone through a much less rigorous review process.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
In my experience the quality of conference proceedings papers is almost always lower than the typical quality of papers in the journal due to a less rigorous peer review process conducted by a guest editor who has a vested interest in producing a complete proceedings package, vs. the regular journal editors who view papers individually and consider them for publication only on the basis of their technical merit, not as part of completing a package.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Option B is the key issue–many conferences do not maintain sufficient quality control thus the papers are varied in quality and the “editor” often has too many friends involved to be totally objective.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I beleive B) Quality is at stake, as papers from conferences are not perceived to be as high quality as submitted papers. Too often the review process for a conference is short due to the conference’s self imposed deadlines. Thus, reviewers are aften in a hurry to review 3-4 or as many as 10 (I reviewed this many, once) papers before a very short deadline.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Although there is truth in all three options I prefer C if for no other reason than the fact that it allows for flexibility when trying to balance between A and B.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Option A should be the norm, and I would add to this that publishing proceedings can provide a way for pulling together related topics in a single, easily consulted format.
Option B, however, has become the norm in agricultural sciences. The problem is not with the basic idea of publishing proceedings but in the quality of the papers presented at conferences and the rigor of subsequent editing.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
I support (B).
I am convinced that quality is indeed at stake. Conference papers rarely undergo the rigorous peer reviews that journal papers do. Option C does not avoid this problem. Good conference papers can always be submitted for review for ultimate publication in the refereed journal .if they pass a rigorous review . I agree with the comments of Rob Marrs on this issue .
January 9th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
(B)
let us look at these statements
A) Journals gain access to up-and-coming authors and valuable new research results.
I doubt whether this is true these dyas, most authors would hold their best material for publication in refereed journals, only rehash previously published material or secodn rate material in conference proceedings.
B) Quality is at stake, as papers from conferences are not perceived to be as high quality as submitted papers.
Given above this has to be true for the most part, the only exception is where a collection of material might have an end-user requirement, perhaps to develop a focused group of papers in a conference proceedings that transfers knwoledge to practitioners.
C) Conference proceedings are published in addition to regular issues, and the correct balance of the two strengthens the reputation of the journal.
In my journal we often publish selected paperd from a confernece or session as a Special Issue focussed on a particulas and timely topic. The papers would have to be cast in the usual journal format and would be refereed as per usual. The Jury is out on whether they add value to journal citations although the publishers suggest that they do. Thye do take up space fro regular paper though.
rob marrs
January 9th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
C
Given the right balance good conference procedings, including a mixture of reviews and scientific articles, provide a timely and highly cited state of the art. Rigorous peer reviewing and quick publication are key to achieve the high quality that is key to the impact for the Journal and the field(scientific community)
January 9th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
As with most of the questions posed in these fora, there is an element of truth and usefulness in all answers. Conference proceedings give a journal access to a large, focused group of authors and a lot of citations — neither are, in my estimation, strong reasons for publishing proceedings. If conference proceedings are handled well, peer-reviewed and printed in a timely fashion, they can provide a significant reference source to the research community. In some fields, the material as presented at a conference will never appear in a future publication, yet it is useful data for larger reviews and analyses. I have handled several such efforts and encourage them. All presentations do not need to be included. It is also useful to invite one or two individuals to write an overview or synthesis of the proceedings. Readers know what they are getting when they pick up a copy of conference proceedings - give them the best product possible and let them decide for themselves the importance of the data.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I would choose B.
It is correct that quality of conferences is not as high as quality of a scientific paper (I cannot imagine a journal publishing conferences only!).
However, I would also favor that some conferences could be selected for publishing in addition to regular issues of a journal. This will present that journal as one that is on the forefront of the discipline, having hot topics published if they are of enough quality.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
All three answers apply but for me the overriding one is B - unless it is a very prestigious conference the perception is that papers are not as good as those submitted for normal publication.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
(C)
The speeches in conference are in a wide range of quality about their contents. Therefore it is difficult to accept (A) and (B) as two extreme opinions. But, of course, there are many speakeres who make efforts to present as new data as possible. The proceedings of conference are important but the papers should be limited by their quality. That is to say, we do not need to publish all the papers presented in the conference but we can choose the excellent papers by reviewing them carefully. This might be useful also for limiting the increment of total pages of journal.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
If I had to choose, I would choose answer B that the quality of the journal is at stake.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I agree with C. The journal editors and guest editors should select some good quality contributions and invited authors to prepare manuscripts that had to be conform with all requirements of journal and processed by the standard methods. In that case there is no compromise of quality. This way can lead to production of special issues devoted to some conferences.
Quality is compromised only in case that all contributions are taken as they are uploaded into conference proceedings shelf.
Journal have to be in contact with conferences. There are newest results of research, new authors.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
(Journals: Supportive Care in Cancer; The BREAST)
I would opt for C, which in some way also includes option A!) as it offers to the readership addtional and extended aspects of a respective topic. While very vital and well written parts (articles) or conclusions of an important scientific meeting could well be integrated in regular issues of a peer-reviewed journal, full proceedings are usually not acceptable: 1) due to their seize (retards the publication of other accepted work) and 2) due to their content, which is oftentimes not matching the scientific standard of regular peer-reviewed submissions.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
A) Journals gain access to up-and-coming authors and valuable new research results.
I agree with this concept, but quality of papers should be pusued trhough serius peer review
January 9th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
A) is largest impact, if done well as several commentators have noted below. A timely high quality conference proceeding has a wide readership, from those entering a field to those practicing and wondering about the latest set of advancements. It is a ‘one stop shop’ for all. Journals can help their readership by playing an active role in trying to attract the best conferences, and therefore, best authors. Filter out lower-end conferences, as indeed this will not be very helpful to your readership.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
A. People presnet in conferences results that they know they are to publish, because they are already published or in press, before anyone in the audience. Oral presentation, which includes abstracts, and written publication, which includes data and in depth discussion/conclusion, have different virtues.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
C) Most conference proceedings would be inappropriate for publication but where publication would be valuable, contributions should be carefully refereed, which would put a burden on the Editor(s). Individual research output should be put in a more general context.
I agree with A and B.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Journal of Endocrinology
My choice is C (C includes in my view A). Making this choice will really depend on the field of the researcher answering. Personally I always, at least, browse through conference abstracts to see the new developments. Quality of the abstracts must be guaranteed, and this depends really on the character of the meeting that is published. Abstracts do reach in my experience/view a broader and potentially interesting (young) readership that is not always/completely covered by the journal proper.So it has a pr function for sure.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I would opt for C. As an example, Physica Status Solidi, which used to consist of parts A and B, has recently launched part C, which is specifically for conference proceedings and critical reviews. As an Associate Editor of Ultrasonics, I would recommend a similar splitting of that journal. I think lumping conference proceedings together with regular papers (even though in separate volumes) devalues the regular papers. We should, however, definitely continue to publish the proceedings of what is now the ICU conference series (formerlu UI and WCU).
January 9th, 2007 at 11:43 am
I believe statement B captures the essence of the issue. Conferences are an important opportunity to see and hear the latest findings, but on average the conference papers are of significantly lower quality than the journal aspires to in its regular issues. More focussed meetings with solely invited presenters may be more relevant to special issues, but there may still be significant risks associated with timeliness and quality if all authors are not committed.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Vet Immunol Immunopathol
I think that B is correct if one just publishes the full conference proceedings. Therefore we do the following:
We publish a set of papers written by speakers from the conference. A guest editor is asked to take responsability. Invited speakers are asked to write a paper or review for a special edition, in the normal jounral format. About three quarters of the speakers accept and about half finally write an acceptable paper. These papers are peer-reviewed, the guest editor takes responsability and the chief-editor makes sure the process goes to standard. The frequency of rejection is low, but that is to be expected because invited speakers usually are scientists with a good reputation.
I did a small analysis on our journal using scopus and found that on average articles from such ‘proceedings’ and special volumes were more frequently cited (about twice as much) than articles from normal issues. Of course, the fact that many of them are review style papers helps. Thus it is not so that these articles are just extra space and words with nothing new in it.
I am not sure that C is correct (improved reputation), but those special publications do strengthen the bond between the journal and scientists in the field. I hope that it makes the journal more popular, more widely known and that it increases the amount of material submitted to the journal.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:35 am
I support statement A.
Journals get access to a wider community of authors.
If approproately submitted and reviewed, the contrubutions of a conference are at least of the same quality as regular papers. They furthermore represent an overview on the state of the art. Therefore, papers from a conference should be published in a reasonable sequence - at least several years should be in between - , and submitted and reviewed in a normal process.
No “Conference Proceedings” should be published in a Journal.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:35 am
All arguments (A, B or C ) have their valid points.
It is not world of either/or or niether/nor. I propose the following:
(i) Only for exceptionally good quality conferences closely related to the theme of the Journal ( to be decided by the Editorial Team and nos. of such issues must be restricted), we publish the proccedings as supplment to regular issues.
(ii) We should encouarge more special issues on selected papers form conference on focused areas (e.g., not more than 10 papers in each issue). Such collection of articles can be screened from proceedings or can be a stand alone issue. The collected articles will be useful to refect the state of art in certain key areas.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:28 am
(B) From my experience in freshwater ecology, water and environmental chemistry, I see that journals which frequently publish conference papers usually have a low impact factor (
January 9th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Considering the arguments brought up by the other colleagues, I wish to add to my posting of November 28th, 2006, that (1) of course ALL manuscripts in conference proceedings I ever published as an Editor have been peer reviewed, and I would never accept as an Editor the idea that they should not, and (2) in Zoologischer Anzeiger we pubished twice the proceedings of a regular conference on tardigrades (a group of animals not treated frequently elsewhere), and these issues contributed significantly to the raise of our impact factor at that time.
Michael Schmitt
Editor of Zoologischer Anzeiger
January 9th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I prefer B because many Conferences have low scientific level presentations and these should not be published as papers in scientific journals. High quality papers and scientific work at conferences are published anyway.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I agree with statement B:
My judgement after long experience is not to publish proceedings of congresses in regular journals, unless special journals such as Catal Today in the domain of Catalysis with only some contributions (plenary, key note lectures and real new findings) are considered. The main reasons is that it generally corresponds to second class papers, more or less already published elsewhere and little science in the papers. Moreover the refereing procedure is usually quite weak.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I prefer A) because it concerns the actuality that is one of the most important publication factor in science. Of course, the quality (B) mist be abided in any cases.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I prefer A) because it concerns the actuality which is one of the most important impact factor. Of course, quality (B) must be abided in any cases.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Journal “Fisheries Research”
I agree with A and C. Regarding B, the approach we adopt is that we never agree to publish all papers from a conference. In consultation with an appointed guest editor, a group of contributions is selected that present a coherent theme. They are then subjected to our usual stringent review process, so high quality is assured.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:02 am
I choose C.
Even if I accept that paper from conference are not perceived to have a good quality,I think that only the proceedings of the major event would be published in addition to regular issue under the responsability of the chairman of the conference who act as a guest editor.
My personal view is that this does not impact in any way the reputation of the journal because the readership are well aware that in this case the journal make a particular “service” with the aim to contribute to the diffusion of new preliminary research results.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:58 am
A) may be ok.
B) and C):
Journals should not publish Conference Proceedings as such. Usually, conference papers are limited in size and may be regarded rather as extended abstracts. In addition, usually peer review is lacking. I prefer proceedings as something that is available at the conference.
I see a journal’s role in publishing papers carefully selected from particular sessions of the conference. These papers are then subject to the usual review process. In Engineering Fracture Mechanics, the conference session organisers usually act as Guest Editors of their Special Issues.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:51 am
(C) provides an optimal balance - conference proceedings often allow for more timely publication of results, they also collect together related results and so attract wider interest. There is some truth in (A), I do not subscribe to (B), conference proceedings I have been involved with are as carefully and fully peer refereed and are at a standard comparable to that of the journal, the only diference is that slightly more specialized papers are likely to be accepted for a proccedings collection.
JMAA and JNA-TM&A
January 9th, 2007 at 10:51 am
I agree with a and b. The option of c can be considered, by relaxing review requirements (editor or one reviewer only, with option of rejecting), but publication “as is” would be useless as no reviewing is practically done with so many conferences.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:42 am
I am decidedly for C) since I agree with A) and B).
In other words conference proceedings can, and in may cases do, contain valuable new research results. However quality is not guaranteed, as it should, in the case of a top level Journal. This is the reason why the supervisory editors are deeply involved into the editorial process.
Thus the present choice of Nuclear Physics B and its proceedings supplement is, in my opinion the best one.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:39 am
In the BioScience / BioMedical field then it is most definitely ‘B’.
Conference proceedings would destroy both the impact factor and perception of a ‘regular’ primary research article journal .
Conference participants generally do not like writing such articles and feel it is an onus for little reward. Invariably submission of such articles is related to obtaining travel refunds.
A book related to a conference or a journal dealing uniquely in such articles is an entirely different matter.
I never cite conference proceedings.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:37 am
I would have to go with option B. In this electronic age of publication most papers are seen in isolation rather than as part of a larger body of work. Atmospheric Environment publishes peer reviewed Special Issues, based on conferences or field campaigns. However, this does allow publication of marginal and/or pedestrian papers which would otherwise not get through our review process. Within the context of the whole Special Issue this can usually be justified, but such papers seen in isolation, electronically, does cause problems with other authors submitting similar papers and not understanding our reasons for rejection.
Additionally most Special Issues are based on annual or bi-annual conferences. There is very little new science coming from these sorts of meetings. Just small but arguable, important nonetheless steps.
My overall feeling is that conference issues are obsolete in an electronic age.
I’d prefer to receive any important new developments as stand alone manuscripts.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Conference publications are of value only if they are frequently cited. This usually happens if the manuscript is an up-to-date review of a topic. I have heard anecdotal evidence that these type of papers boost the impact factor of a journal. But as is often the case, conference proceedings are simply a description of how someone spent their time recently in the lab. If the results are interesting enough, the information will be published as a full manuscript.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Certainly B. Authors reserve there best work for conventional peer review, and include the leftovers and repeated material for conference proceedings. Also, they view a conference proceeding paper as not being fully peer reviewed as there is usually pressure to accept as much as possible, and hence they often take much less care with the rigour and quality of presentation. In some circles, publication of conference proceedings is seen as a sign of weakness of a journal.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Based on painful experperience, it is definitely B. Reputable journals have no business publishing proceedings. (1) The quality of proc. papers is rarely archival or original; with few exceptions they are not peer reviewed. (2) They are hardly ever cited later on and therefore kill a jounal’s impact factor. (3) The time to production is too long in a typical journal; the internet is much more effective and appropriate, today. This is a lesser argument, however as journals get published electronically. (4) The volume of material is generally huge compared to regular papers. Does a publisher want to clogg his pages with stuff which is outdated the moment it is published?
This does not prevent editors from soliciting carefully chosen contributions for a regular paper, or even special issues. However, these will be something much more elaborate; not “conference papers”.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Definitely B.
If there is anything of worth presented at a conference, it will either be included in a special issue, say from a particular session, or will reach journals via the normal channels.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:13 am
At the moment B - I do remember a time when one went to conferences to listen to talks with exciting new ideas backed up by unpublished data. However, now it appears that if anything worthwhile is presented, it is/will be published via normal submission channels, leaving mostly material that is not particularly good in any conference proceedings.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:09 am
I am against conference proceedings. I do not write publications on demand. If I have to submit something to a conference it has usually appeared elsewhere, because I do not beleive proceedings are the best forum. Overall the quality of proceeding is less than a regular issue, and so it diminishes the impact of a journal.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:08 am
C is my choice. Reading the previous comments my own views match 1:1 to those expressed by Jim Cooling, so I just refer to those.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:02 am
B
Conference proceeding have become practically obsolete in my field of research (physics). Nobody publishes original or important results in proceedings and nobody reads them anymore.
November 28th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
From my view as a previous editor of MicPros, C is the most important. I accept the general point that conference papers are not usually of the same calibre as peer-reviewed journal papers. However, the method I used was to:
1. Carefully select an appropriate set of papers from the full conference set.
2. Use these as the basis for a special issue.
3. Find a willing volunteer to act as guest editor for the issue.
4. Request authors to rewrite/extend their papers to meet the standard of the journal.
5. Have full peer reviewing of the new material.
Over a 10 year period this approach was very effective and resulted in some extremely interesting material appearing in the journal.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
I think B most accurately reflects the position of conference papers, and there is no substitute for peer reviewed submitted manuscripts.
If conference proceedings are published, there can be a tendency by authors to consider their research published.
We should not therefore ignore conference papers or proceedings as many young authors take the opportunity to present their research, often before there is sufficient data for publication in a peer reviewed journal. It could be to our advantage to approach them with the suggestion that they consider submitting their research once they can conform with the requirements of our journal.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
To me, A applies more than the other to options. Of course, also B and C are important, and I take them for granted. However, as an Editor, gaining new authors and access to new results outweighs by far the risk of loosing scientific reputation. In the end, it is our - the editors’ - duty to guarantee high quality by getting all manuscripts carefully peer reviewed. As soon (and as long) as our readers trust in our editorial competences, they will not change their opinion on the quality of our journal(s) just because we publish conference proceedings.
In general, papers from conference contributions are sort of review papers, i.e. they do not present original data found by the author(s) but give an up-to-date overview on the topic treated. These overviews are, ccorind to my experience, much more read than cited since the readers use the references section as a guide to the original publications. Therefore, in these cases downloads are or would be a better measurement of impact than citations.
Michael Schmitt
Editor of Zoologischer Anzeiger
November 28th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
B is my choice. Papers in conference proceedings are usually not peer-reviewed. I’ve contributed to conference proceedings of various organizations that deal with irrigated agriculture, and published similar papers in journals. The review process for the conference proceedings varied from no review to minor comments from one reviewer, as compared to more extensive comments from two to three reviewers for the peer-reviewed journals.
The Editors-in-Chief of Agricultural Water Management likely would support the publication of selected papers presented at conferences. The following is a sketch of a process we have proposed during 2006 to someone who has approached us about publishing the conference proceedings. The process began with one of the conference organizers contacting us before the conference occurred. This person then provided a list of papers/authors; several were interesting. We then proposed that the organizer would take the lead in finalizing the selection after the conference, and working with the authors to have the papers submitted to the journal. Once this occurs, the papers will go through the peer-review process and will likely be published within the same issue. The organizer may be asked to provide a short note that would be published as a preface.
There remains a copyright issue if the organization that sponsored the conference publishes a conference proceedings.
As this is a “work in progress”, we don’t know the “end of the story.”
J.D. (jim) Oster
Joint Editor in Chief
Agricultural Water Management
November 28th, 2006 at 9:54 am
I choose B.
I am strictly against publishing Conference Proceedings in Journals. The reason is simply that people usually submit manuscripts, knowing that they will not be reviewed. In ENGINEERING FRACTURE MECHANICS we do publish papers presented on conferences, however, these papers are selected by the session organisers and undergo the usual review process. With these papers we produce SPECIAL ISSUES of the journal. To my knowledge, they are well received by the readership.
November 27th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
The best quality works are submitted papers. Journals gain access to up-and-coming authors and valuable new research results. With not doubt,
papers from conferences are not perceived to have good quality (with a few exceptions!).