The value of your journal
Having the right information and tools at your fingertips is vital to any researcher. The challenge is measuring the value of information resources. Your journal is one of those key resources.
How do you convey the value of your journal to prospective authors, co-editors or new editorial board members?
Please select A, B or C and explain your rationale.
A) The market values Impact Factor most highly, so this is what I focus on conveying.
B) Impact Factor is important, but I also work with the publisher to raise the profile of my journal by communicating about e.g. usage, volume and speed of publication.
C) As a member of the editorial board, I play a key role in determining the quality of my journal, and that’s what I consider its most important defining feature.
¼br />
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 am
Dear editors,
Due to the many spam messages we had to close the discussion. We hope to resolve this before you will asked to participate in the next Editors’ Forum.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:45 am
my specific journal is a so-called niche journal. It has a rather specific scope. That ‘is why I would opt for B. Also I am a bit worried about the stress we as a market of scientists give to ISI’s impact factor rating. After all, ISI is a company, and citation is just one of the imperfect measures of relevance of someone’s scientific papers.
Finally, Considering the replies below, I think your site is used for something else
jan V
November 20th, 2007 at 2:39 am
B and C, both important. When the quality of the journal is high, the Impact Factor would rise, when more scientists will submit their papers here.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
“C.” Impact factor, as currently defined, is too heavily weighted toward the short-lead-time publications in the Life Sciences.
In Operations Research journals and in many publications in Transportation, a paper published in 2005, say, will not be known to the authors of a paper published in 2006. Even a 2007 article may be able to cite the 2005 manuscript only in its “Working Paper” version - There may be an interval of 18-24 months between Acceptance and Publication.
Impact factor should instead cover a window of 5 years, not 2.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
I think it’s important to bear in mind which of these variables are causal. If editors make unwise decisions as to content, the impact factor will suffer and so will usage etc. so it looks like (c) is in reality the main determinant of success. Though from the author’s perspective, speed of publication (etc.) is likely to be just as important:
November 19th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
B
I don’t know if it possible to lead a journal having IF as only target. I believe that it is not possible to link specific changes in the journal with fluctuations of IF.
In contrast, the points listed under option B can be used as target and quickly reflect editorial improvements or problems.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Providing the Impact Factor is reasonable, speed of publication is of paramount importance.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
All of A,B and C are important butproviding the journal has an acceptable Impact factor speed od publication is of most importance.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Coming to the forum after 90 comments means previous contributors have covered most points. However, I find myself most in agreement with Phil Bushnell (15 November).
Perhaps the correct answer is really “all of the above” (A, B or C)! If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then value of a journal is its worth to the individual or the organization, whether prospective authors, co-editors,
new editorial board members, readers or librarians. Each of these may have different criteria for judging the value of a journal(which may be A, B or C). Determining and then satisfying their criteria are what creates the value of a journal for them.
The value of a journal surely increases as the standard of the peer-reviewed papers it publishes in a timely fashion rises compared with the standard of papers in other journals in the same field. That success, in turn, attracts prospective authors, who wish to see their papers published in an increasingly valued journal, and involves editorial board members, who wish to make a significant contribution to their field by further raising the standard of papers that they accept.
For this virtuous spiral to increase the value of a journal progressively, the Elsevier Editorial System (EES) needs to be designed and operated to reinforce this objective. There therefore needs to be effective promotion with prospective authors to attract interest, and good communication with them once they are involved in the EES. In this way, participants are well motivated to achieve the goal of increasing value, which is in the best interests of all, whether authors, reviewers, editorial board members, readers or librarians.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:07 am
B
I think the Impact Factor (IF) is a wrong measure of quality; this view is certainly widely accepted among those who are really interested in quality.
Nonetheless, the IF is important since not only libraries but also granting agencies and even search committees, unfortunately, utilize it. So, we cannot neglect it.
But I do my utmost best as Editor-in-Chief to raise the quality of our journal, not by tricks to increase the IF, but by attracting excellent work and excellent authors to publish in it.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:47 am
As a (co-) editor, I go for C for sure. I have quality, which, of course, also includes considerations like novelty, at the top of my mind during the editing process. I co-edit a scientific journal, not a popular magazine. Impact factor is a fickle measure. It indicates the present popularity of a field, among other considerations. Science is for the future, not just the present, so that a paper in a low-impact field can have unknown value in the future (even as a building block towards further advances), but only if it is of high quality. Impact factor probably only has value for comparing journals in a very similar field, but it is not a useful primary goal for an editor.
November 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
C
Impact Factor is essentially a measure of popularity, much like the weekly rating of a movie. It is both artificial and dangerous. For one thing, very few scientists even know how Impact Factor is calculated, and f they did, I doubt that most scientists would care a hoot about it if it were not IMPOSED upon the community by thoughtless bureaucrats who’s goal is to justify their own existence by taking evaluation out of the hands of people who can actually make thoughtful evaluations. My view of science is longer than 2 years and hence I view Impact factor as it is presently calculate as essentially worthless.
As go the overall quality of articles published by a journal, so goes the quality of submissions, and thereby the scientific reputation of the journal and the scientists who publish in it. The actual impact of a scientific contribution is rarely measured by one paper and even more rarely measured 2 years hence.
November 18th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
JPNMRS, which I co-edit with Dr. J. feeney is a review journal. The most important factor in the standing of our journal is the quality of the articles which we have published.
Almost all articles are personnally commissioned by myself and Dr. Feeney, and so the success of the journal depends on how well we choose the authors.
November 18th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
C:
I regard it as the primary task of the editorial board to ensure quality of the journal. Quality means: (1) the journal attracts renowned scientists for submitting their main results to this journal, (2) decisions are fair and understandable, (3) correspondence is personal, sensitive and sympathetic, and (4) decisions and publishing are done at the fastest manner possible, but not faster. Impact factor is an important measure of the result of such activities, but not the only one. Other important output criteria are reputation, level of satisfaction of readers and authors, as well as accessibility and retrieval of information. If all of these factors are positive, the consequent result is that impact factor will rise. But concentrating too much on impact factor from the outset is like putting the cart before the horse: short-term impact factor raising mechanisms might introduce processes that on the long run might reduce it again. My rule of thumb is: impact factor is the result of quality, not its cause.
November 18th, 2007 at 8:01 am
In interacting with authors of review articles for and readers of “Progress in Aerospace Sciences” I have found that both groups regard the journal as quite unque. No other journal in the field of aerospace sciences and engineering offers the type of lengthy in-depth surveys of specific problem areas covered by “Progress in Aerospace Sciences”. It has been my experience that potential authors regard it as a great honor and opportunity to publish in JPAS. I also found that JPAS articles are often quoted for a number of years to provide the reader of the typical length-restricted paper with an introduction to the subject at hand. I therefore regard maintenance of the quality of the contributions as the most important defining feature.
November 18th, 2007 at 6:03 am
1. The most central role of the scientific journal is to mediate arguments and findings among researchers. Although recently impact factor is thought to be important for any journal, I do not think so. Impact factor is only one measure to evaluate the paper’s (or research’s) value.
2. International researches are important, but researches dealing with domestic, local problems are similarly important, especially in agriculture). Today’s trend in researches/papers submitted to our journal may be affected by a biased thought that international researches are the most important and valuable. This is a difficult problem to be solved.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
C: One of the most important elements of the job of edior is to raise the stature of the journal, by making wise decisions about reviewers, by making wise decisions based on their feedback, and by making intelligent suggestions for improving the quality of manuscripts that are destined to be published.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I favor B. Of course many authors look for impact factor to publish their stuff, on the other hand, my journals JMR and FEBS letters cannot compete with many journals by the impact factor.
JMR has a constant readership of all scientists doing magnetic resonance and that are interested in technical developments. This is a niche such that there are papers published in this journal that are cited more than 1000 times and there are many others that are never cited. It is the niche that makes this journal unique and not its impact averaged over all papers.
FEBS Letters is renowned for its fast publication turnover and that is the key issue here to conserved
November 17th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I use all three arguments - depends on who I am speaking with and the way the conversation has emerged.
What I seek to make clear is that the journal is an element in catalizing progress in this field (read in the broadest sense) and that any submitted ms will be judged in this respect.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:09 am
I choose A, and for this I put as much as possible effort to keep high the quality of accepted papers
November 17th, 2007 at 9:12 am
My choice is (C), but of course we have to pay attention to all three factors.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:46 am
C) As a member of the editorial board, I play a key role in determining the quality of my journal, and that’s what I consider its most important defining feature.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:57 am
I favour C. However, unfortunately, many authors are concerned with impact factors above all else. This is unfortunate for our journal as our impact factor can vary significantly from year to year and potential contributors do not fully realise the reasons: that because we publsh largely issues based on papers given at specialised symposia, the impact factor will be dependent on whether the symposia are mainstream or peripheral, the latter type often giving a lower impact factor. There is therefore pressure to publish fewer of the peripheral issues. Is that fair to those working in the newer fields and is it conducive to encouraging authors to do original work?
November 16th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
None of A, B, or C.
Impact factor is not a useful statistic for measuring “quality'’. [However, it is a useful indicator whether the papers being published by the journal has changed as a group.] A citation count, over, say, 25 years might be more relevant. Incidentally, Journal citation reports do not cover all journals and there are good journals (newer journals) not covered by JCR.
Speed of publication is no longer relevant. There are preprint archives, personal websites, etc. Journals no longer “communicate'’ results, the preprint archives do that. Journals “certify'’ results, so careful refereeing is my primary concern. If anything, journals should SLOW DOWN publication since the result or data is already out there and concentrate on the “permanent scientific value'’ (whatever that is).
November 16th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
In editing a multidisciplinary journal, one has the opportunity of viewing many publications. Impact/citation indexes may be telling and genuine for certain articles, but one has the impression that for many more it is simply a way of gaining a fashionable celebrity, useful perhaps for career advancements, but with little scientific impact. Although difficult to prove, there is also a whiff of intentional self/referencing and mutual referencing strategies.
Working with the Publisher in promoting a journal is productive, but much more rests on a steady offering of interesting and provocative papers.
November 16th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
B - Impact factors are of local importance (RAE) The Transactions has the longest citation half live of any in the field. It acts as a ‘journal of record for reseach in the tropics and recieves more submissions form investigatiors in the tropics as distinct from expats when compared to competitors.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
B
Speed of publication is of outmost importance.
Francesco Visioli
Pharmacol Res
November 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Impact factors are a disaster for the diversity in research, it only favors publishers and fields with large number of people doing the same thing (how efficient?), moreover impact factors can be influenced (manipulated). The use of papers is much more important, i.e. number of full text downloads, as that means that for example all those educators at universities worldwide are using the information, people that many times have no possibility to do research due to poor conditions for experimental work.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Of the 3 choices, I think C is the most important - followed by B.
However other factors which are not mentioned, such as long-standing reputation and reaching an appropriate readership, are also important - arguably more so for a multi-disciplinary journal such as the one we edit.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
As an editor, I consider C as the most important factor.
I am dismayed by how much store authors put on the impact factor which can be so easily manipulated biased as it is in the direction of review articles or very short topical articles in journals such as Nature.
Perhaps Elsevier should have an author education campaign to explain exactly what the impact factor is and why it is only part of the value of the journal.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
C - I think that this is most important, but B is also starting to play a role (the journal si new).
November 16th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
C without doubt. Numerical indices are important, but can never capture the perceived journal quality. Editors should focus on quality, and the various factors will eventually improve.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I think (B), because the IMPACT FACTOR is transitory. In the journal I edit, citations that accrue to a paper in its first two years are a very poor indicator of their long term IMPACT. This arises, because citation rates continue to rise long after the 2-year window closes.
Sadly there is a huge danger of univerity administrators relying on IMPACT FACTORS for promotion of individuals without accounting for the fact that this relates to the journal not to the work of the individual author. This has driven author concern about IMPACT FACTORS and I know some academics who won’t publish in some very good journals because of the IMPACT FACTOR.
Another problem is that many policy papers in the journal are widely read (and DOWNLOADED) by government agencies and consultants, but they do not reference such usage in the academic literature.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:58 am
B . Impact factor does matter allthough I find it highly overestimated by the administration of the Universitites. I do not see it as the most important measure of the value of a journal. Appropriate reviewers that can improve the manuscripts are very important and citation frequency not just during the first years but in a longer period counts a lot. Speed of publication and how fast an article appear in PUB Med and in Science citation is also very important
November 16th, 2007 at 11:45 am
The journal I am responsible for is one of nine sections devoted to publishing in the fields of bioscience. It is quite natural that we have to rely heavily on the support of the publishing house through constant communication on how to improve the journal from both ends. That is the quality of science published in the jounal on the one side and the management for processing and advertising the jounal in the scientific community on the other side. Regrettably, impact factor is still important, but we try to shift to more fair indicators, e.g. the h-value as one of the criteria for success. Clearly, I consider “B” as a guideline.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:42 am
I go for C, but B is also very important and I am promoting the inclusion of reviews
November 16th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Most of the FUPROC Authors are/have been involved on coal processing and on biomass valorization. For them, the fuel type is usually more important than the development of new technologies.
I try to improve the quality/impact value of the journal but, according to the above commented, not always is possible. However, to include environmental aspects concerning to emissions from fuel processing gives/could give novelty to the published papers.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:17 am
If any, then B applies. C also sounds reasonable, however, it does not mention IF at all. Impact factor does matter, but it is by no means the most important measure of the value of our journal. Printing quality, degree of improvement of manuscripts through appropriate reviewers, motivation and competence of reviewers and editors, and finally frequency of citation are - according to my experience - more attractive to prospective authors than impact factor alone. This is mainly due to the fact that in our field of science (comparative morphology, systematics, taxonomy) publications older than two years are as relevant as are more recent ones, but the latter are not covered by IF.
Greetings
Michael
November 16th, 2007 at 10:15 am
B-
Although the impact factor is important in increasing submissions, the readership , which includes authors, get regular updates on turn round times, rejection rates, etc. This gives them other important measures of the quality of the journal.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:09 am
B - Progress in Planning
The point of course is that you won’t achieve A without B and B includes not just the publisher but the team at production and the journal’s own editorial team, and while we’re at it, the authors themselves who are often surprisingly bashful at point of publication and need active encouragement and support to get news of their research out to peers as a matter of urgency.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:00 am
I choose c as, I can see the influence of acting in line with this criterium in an increase in the trend in submission of articles to the subject section under my responsibility in the journal.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:16 am
I vote B because, we need to attract the best papers in the field and in order to convince the best authors to do it, we need to have the best IF possible.
However, other factors are also of high importance. Among them:
-quality of the review reports
-quality of the reviewers
-speed of handling the manuscript
-speed of publication.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:11 am
I vote C. The impact factor of a journal does not necessarily determine quality. Several non-peer reviewed publications have extremely high impact factors just because they reach a wide audience. Of course, when it comes to people getting hired or promoted, impact factors count. My point is that they shouldn’t be considered as an absolute measure of quality. High quality journal should focus on publishing high quality papers. Hence, editors and members of the editorial board should primarily focus on this.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:58 am
I vote B : impact factor is important, but the way the journal is presented, organized and working is very important. This is also an attractive point for journals.
Taking into account the possibility of finding reviewers easely out of the EB, I think EBM should act more in Advisory board than reviewers.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Advances in Space Research. B
It is necessary to overcome recent problem with moving the journal to proceedings category by ISI. Close contact with publishers is importent and helps to improve the journal - ne wEES ASR Website under way, regular and more timely publishong, electronic publishing in advances and rapidly rising numbe rof electronic approaches.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:18 am
A+C. I would like to think that we are trying to improve thge qulaity (C) and that one benefit of this will be to increase Impact Factor (A). In some ways the question is not really valid. Increasing the quality of the journal requires attracting better papers. In my field these papers will be attracted by increasing the impact factor.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:12 am
All three answers are valid. I have some preference to B for our journal.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:09 am
My answer is B.
Scientific results from Polar Science have a long turn-around time of, say, 20 years.
Polar Science covers also many disciplines of different time scale.
Therefore, long-standing as well as timely presence based on a clear profile of the journal becomes essential.
November 16th, 2007 at 7:36 am
I think B is the answer, as the intermediate to different people’s opinions. Impact is extremely important to some; quality in other senses to others.
November 16th, 2007 at 7:26 am
A+C+B
Let us face it, A is what matters. But there are different strategies to achieve that goal. C, i.e. striving for quality, is in my opinion essential. B is also important in luring authors to submit important contributions to your journal.
November 16th, 2007 at 5:23 am
C
November 16th, 2007 at 4:51 am
B–journal exposure is not only impact factor. Finances are related to reprint sales, advertising and supplements. Interest in clinical studies may have more relevance to the clinician, rather than additional publications.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:44 am
I vote for C, i.e. working for the quality of the papers. However, the speed of publication should be also improved to get good perspective of the high IF of the journal.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:24 am
My choice is C
The quality of publication should be the most important issue of a journal. It determines to some extent the impact factor although other factors also contribute to the citation for example contents of the papers and population of readers. As a member I am actively promoting C&G around me among students in Canada and in China. It has been becoming a popular journal in China and it receives lot manuscripts from Chinese authors.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:53 am
I vote for B. I think the impact factor more or less represent the quality and the importance of the work.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:02 am
As an editor, I would like to think that the quality of the articles is the most important thing and select C. Unfortunately (perhaps), as an author, the impact factor will play a role - among other things - in the selection of the journal to which I submit. So, even if flawed, IF is important and my last answer would be B. What is also relevant is the reputation of the journal in the field: some journal have a high IF thanks mostly to reviews, with dull original articles.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:43 am
The response is not that simple, I agree with Paul Mills that it depends very much on the audience you are addressing and the time point in the evolution of the journal you are considering. For me, B and C are more important than A even if A is what is seen and looked for by most of the potential authors.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:30 am
I vote for C. Quality of papers published in our journals is the most important and will determine the journal Impact Factor in the future.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:25 am
I agree with statement C, that the value of a journal is related to the quality of the articles and the screening process of the editors is crucial.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Each of the answers has relevance at different times. The market is the subscribers, but also the authors - impact factor (albeit a somewhat arbitrary concept) is a recognised grading tool, so will guide the decision to submit a manuscript plus give credence to papers in higher impact journals. As an editor, you have to ensure that high quality is attained at all times – this includes a high rejection rate, an internationally-recognised editorial/advisory board and a transparent process to publish the highest quality papers. Impact factor almost becomes the ‘reward’ for a high achieving editorial board since the prestige of the journal rises and this reflects back on decisions and directions taken by the board.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Any choice would be too schematic. In fact I would prefer to have a bit of all three. The impact factor is important by contributors and readers alike as is the time that I and my fellow editors spend with the publisher to raise the profile of my journal. Even more important is the standard of excellence I can help impose as a member of the editorial board. Here, I would like to think that the role I play in determining the quality of my journal largely depends on the quality of the feedback I give authors while they strive to revise their manuscript, whether I help them prepare the best manuscript that they could possibly do or not.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I choose C. And will probably paraphrase many others simply because I share the same views. For me, the value of factors A and B are in fact derived from C. It flows from the composite value of the individual papers being submitted and published. The profile of the Journal will be raised when future authors begin to value the solid science, quality of writing and overall breadth of this journal. It is already in evidence when we received comments back from our annual ’surveys. When I comment back to authors about revisions, it is almost always with the double intent of helping authors to construct a better, more thoughtful paper while letting the author(s) know that readers will better understand and value the quality of their work when revised.
The decision on rejecting or accepting a paper is not as easy as it might seem. On occasion, a paper comes through that represents clear and original thinking and a completely new approach, yet it may not have received good reviews simply due to cognitive dissonance with the researchers in a field. These papers are by far the more interesting and cause for thought before any ‘final decision’ is reached.
All that said, I fully appreciate that the publisher will probably emphasize the level of the impact factor… a measuring stick of value at their level. For me, as a researcher and editor, I prefer opening an issue and seeing very good papers from front to back, issue after issue, year after year.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
The impact factor is severely flawed. Its use is causing more harm to science than benefit.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I would definitely say ‘B’. Impact factor is important in some contexts (particularly in the increasingly metrics-driven world of academic assessment in some countries) but for authors, readers and possible editorial board members, it is the quality and range of the papers which are most important. Authors are also very aware of the way in which the paper submission and refereeing process works; not speed alone, but the quality of the refereeing feedback and support from editors. For my journal, Geoforum, international profile and usage is also important.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
C) is the answer I prefere. The use of the IF sic et sempliciter is of commercial use and not ever adequate to compare journals since it depends on citations. Very specialized journals can not have, as a consequence, a high score!
November 15th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I chose C because the majority of my effort addresses the quality of the manuscript that will be published. As the last check before publication, I want to insure that the authors express their ideas properly such that readers can easily grasp the material being presented. In this manner, colleagues reading the article will be able to use the material to further their research. Because Geomorphology is a visual science, the number and quality of illustrations is extremely important and needs to be carefully evaluated to insure the article makes a lasting impact.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
In my discipline the 2 year span of the IF makes it of little value. I think an alternative based on 1/2 life would be much more worthwhile.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Although others will measure our success by the impact factor, this is clearly determined by the quality of the papers and speed of publication. If we get those right, the impact factor will follow. As editor of Special Issues I don’t focus on any of the three - I try to select quality material that should riase the impact factor, but that is not my primary focus.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
There are many problems and drawbacks of impact factor as a measure of the jounral’s performance. But authors will choose the journal based on the impact factor and publishers also want it to be higher.
So I must support A.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I chose B. Impact factor is one of a number of fairly objective variables.(I wish they would use 5 or better yet 10 years versus 2 for citation counts, however. In my field it usually takes a number of years for an article to build momentum .)I think downloads is a very important variable as well. Also how fast articles can be turned around. This is by far the most commented upon factor by our authors. We often get complements when we reject papers since we do it fast and they can resubmit to another journal quickly.I also think the number of countries and institutions represented by the authors is very important. The more the better. Finally, getting in press papers on line is very very helpful We get submissions just for that reason when some competing journals do not do this. Also, there is less concern by authors about in press time lag.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
I feel that as an editor, I can influence the quality of my journal. (Int. J. Adhesion & Adhesives). I can do this by making sure that the scholarly work is presented in a clear and straightforward manner and that the conclusions are supported by the data. In addition, I can assist authors to present their reasoning clearly and to explain the purpose of their work in the broader scheme of things.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Section Editors are the representatives of the journal with whom authors have the most direct and important contact. It is they who ultimately decide the fate of the work submitted by the authors and simultaneously the scientific content of the journal. These aspects are competitive: editors can please all authors by accepting everything, at the cost of journal quality; or accept only the best papers to elevate the quality of the journal’s contents, at the cost of chasing away future submissions.
The art of editing thus involves accepting the best papers, encouraging optimization of those papers that have a germ of valuable news, and rejecting the hopeless causes. All of this has to be done in a manner that encourages resubmissions and new submissions from authors, because new submissions permit selection of good papers, and because authors recognize quality and will send their work where it will appear in high-quality company and will be read (or at least seen) by the community.
The editor’s decision is rarely easy. However, one thing that is easy is to personalize the letter that goes back to the authors with a decision about their manuscript. The standard form provided by Elsevier for this purpose should be taken as just that: a form. It should be modified to show the authors that the journal appreciates their work and has carefully considered it. Clear recommendations for improvement are most often received with gratitude, especially if they are conveyed in a constructive manner.
All of this implicates me as a believer in choice C: Impact factors will follow if the quality of the papers in a journal rises through judicious editing.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I think all three are important issues and I try to perform keeping all of them in mind.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Whilst impact factor is important I feel that the quality of the papers and “reach” of the journal (particularly availability electronically, good alert procedures etc.) is far more important. So I am some weighted combination of B and C. Impact Factor is in fact starting to become a little tyrannical, it is driven by research funding agencies who want a quick number for use in dispensing research funding, it saves them the trouble of weighing more carefully the factors that indicate what is “good” research.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
C. As a member of the editorial board, I play a key role in determining the quality of my journal, and that’s what I consider its most important defining feature.
If most of the published articles in this JAES are excellent in quality, the journal will be attractive and will have high impact factor (B) and have better market value (A). I therefore urge the Elsevier helps the editors to (1) speed up the review process and publication of good papers, (2) the JAES should include a LETTER section to publish 2-page short but concise findins or discoveries of global interest (to assign another editor for this process and many of such Letters do not necessary send out for external review, instead it circulate to the boad of editors to review, (3) help improve presentation of papers for those authors from the 3rd world contries; many of them have very good findings and data of global interest, but they do not know how to present their data and findings in their writings, hence some of these important findings are not published, (4) help to promote more special issues for sientifically significant topics, and (5) provide better support for Editors to work on their responsibilities.
I truely believe that quality and speed of a journal are essential for A and B; to reach the goal, C is the most critical.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I will chose C), although by a small margin only. My journal NPB is by and large a “niche'’ journal, and the quality and type of papers published there matter more to the authors and readers than quantitative measurements such as impact factor, whose meaning in my community is a matter of debate anyway. Citations do play a role however, and I am striving to increase people’s awareness of the need of citing and being cited.
November 15th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
all three are relevant and important to consider. Obviously the impact factor has a big “impact” on the authors and readership and it signifies to some extent the size of the intellectual market for the journal. However, (B) is also critical to improving and maintaining impact as well as value. Finally, (C) is my responsibility of the editor and it also affects impact factor and other quality indicators of the journal.
so I would opt for all three!
November 15th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Choice B is more my strategy in the context of the journal Tuberculosis. Impact factor is less of a force in the US than in Europe, which is a consideration, although we are very much an international journal. Essentially we emphasize the fact that we are the only journal devoted to the fundamental aspects of tuberculosis research, namely immunology, mechanisms of pathogenesis, virulence, drug resistance and development, and molecular aspects of the organism. This seems to be successful since we have seen a steady rise in IF, circulation, and respect.
I believe that one should empasize these more basic aspects and the IF will take care of itself. I am like the politician: I ignore polls (but do keep an eye on them)
Patrick Brennan
November 15th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
High quality of papers is first. Chase for impact factor is artificial, driven by govermental and other funding agencies that cannot “measure” the results by other meter than summing the impacts.
November 15th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I stick to C) which I think is the most challenging and gratifying objective for an editor. We play an active role in determinig the quality of our journal, favoring some common and some innovative approaches, looking towards in which direction our scientific field is moving and changing to stay ahead of those trends. Certainly high impact factor and speed of publication are valuable objectives but they are measures; they don’t provide vision for the journal.
November 15th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
My choice would be c. I consider impact factor important, but it alone cannot adequately convey the value of many scientific manuscripts in my field. As soneone who works in the Geologica Survey, I know that many of our publications have been used extensively by oil/resource industry and general public. However, few of these have been reflected by impact factor, simply because most of our users tend not to publish in scientific journals.
November 15th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
C is the best answer of the three, but there are other possible answers. The ISI Impact Factor is a poor measure of quality in the humanities (ask any of your colleagues who are historians). A humanities journal can be very highly rated in the community - or the market, if you like, though iwe are dealing here with very particular kinds of market - but can at the same time have a very low impact factor as measured in this way. Editors must monitor impact factors carefully because they may influence the decisions of authors, librarians etc - but they have little directly to do with quality, at least in the humanities.
Felix Driver
Editor, Journal of Historical Geography
November 15th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
I absolutely concur with the comment by G. Kasper
November 15th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
I am less concerned about impact factor than I used to be having witnessed manipulation of the impact factor by other journals and by some of my colleagues who bargain with each other in citing their respective works. I am more interested in the feedback that I get from PERC analyses and focus groups. I want to know that my audience finds the American Journal of Medicine as a useful companion to their daily professional lives. To me this is more important than a manipulable citation factor. So, I favor response C. Sincerely, Joseph S. Alpert, MD
November 15th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
B. Impact factor is clearly important but speed of publication is equally important if we are to capture “hot” papers.
November 15th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
B. While impact factor is clearly important, speed of publication is equally important if we are to capture “hot” papers.
November 15th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
C ist the correct answer in the LONG TERM - it takes years to bring such a strategy to fruition. Once you have this quality, you will also need B (publication speed, services etc.) to keep competing.
If you have worked on A and B, then C is going to be a bonus in your field.
October 6th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
My choice would be C) first and then B) second. What makes a journal a good one is the quality of the work of the Editorial Board members, and the good reputation of the EB members. Everything else follows this in my opinion.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:33 am
My response is B. The journal of which I am a regional co-editor is very much a ‘community journal’ with all the strengths and weaknesses of that situation. Prospective authors are interested in the impact factor but also in information regarding frequencies of downloads and citations of their work. These latter pieces of information are increasingly important for authors, particularly those in the early stages of their careers. Thr treatment which authors receive during the submission and review processes can also determine whether they will submit other ‘quality’ publications.
September 17th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
C is a good summary of my role between 2004 and 2007. Now it is also possible to add impact factor(1.12) to what will be included when communicating with perspective authors and board members. Previously the impact factor for Agric. Water Manage. was less than 1.0 and mentioning it had to be in context with a history of increasing impact factor — 0.3 to 0.8.
Jim Oster
Co-Editor in Chief
Agricultural Water Management.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
The answer has a bit of A and B, but most of B. The impact factor of the papers of an individual is certainly one essential criterion for the academic carreer, beside the passive citations. Yet, impact factors are at maximum semi-objective and should not be overestimated.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I select option B. My own experience is that publications in specialty journals with relatively low impact factor such as the one I edit quite often result in higher citation numbers than those published in more general and high-impact journals. Therefore promoting the value of a specialty journal is important. In my case speed of publication is not really different for the relevant journals.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:47 am
B)
Impact factor is important, especially in the UK for academics.
It is less so in, for example, the Far East. In this case speed of publication, quality of the articles and international coverage are of greater importance.
All of these parameters as well as the long established history of FUEL ( now 86 years old) and the increasing realisation of the importance of fuels and energy as a necessity for modern living, are emphatic indications of the value of publishing in FUEL and of the high esteem in which the joutrnal is held by researchers in this field.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:40 am
I vote for B, speed of publication and visibility os also very important. In our case (Pharmacol Res), while the IF increased 525% in ten years, the other two parameters lagged behind a bit.
Francesco Visioli
Pharmacological Research