Visibility of scientific journals
Visibility is key for the success of any scientific journal. How should this visibility be achieved?
Please select A, B or C and explain your rationale.
A) It’s most important to promote the journal in order to build the community around that journal.
B) It’s most important to promote the scientific results published in the journal as ultimately we need the support of universities, funding bodies and the general public.
C) The focus should be on attracting the best authors. The quality content they publish promotes itself and visibility will follow.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
This discussion on Editors’ Forum focused on how to achieve visibility for your journal. Over 100 of you participated, giving views on the above question. With the summary below (and in the next Editors’ Update) this topic is closed for discussion.
While the majority (64%) of editors supported option C, attracting the best authors, this option was not without its controversy and challenges when put into practice. Many editors raised the issue of how to identify the best authors as problematic; one pointed out that the “best authors” often don’t stay the best and are only highly read and cited for a short period, while others were concerned about excluding good science from young scientists who have not yet made a name for themselves, arguing that “celebrity” authors are not necessarily a reliable indicator of good work. Finally, even if the good authors have been correctly identified, it remains a question of how to attract their papers in practice. One editor felt this could be achieved through increasing access to the content (to an open access model), others felt options A and B needed to play a role in this.
Option B, promoting the scientific results in the journal, was considered the most important aspect by 12% of editors. “Promotion of results is [of] vital importance for visibility of science and…for the journal…without advertisement there is no sale” one respondent noted, “we should be seeking to emphasise the value of the science that we publish as that is the real definition of quality. The more authors and other audiences appreciate the high status and quality of the research…, the more they are likely to identify with the journal and seek to place their best papers there.” This option also has its challenges, one editor remarks, “it is the most difficult approach as it requires both effort to identify and promote the best science, and receptive outlets which will further disseminate the scientific messages.”
Option A, promotion of the journal to build the journal community, received 7% of votes. Editors who supported this aspect felt the journal name was of key importance to visibility and that if journals are not promoted even the best scientific work can get “lost”. Some respondents felt that this aspect was of decreasing importance as journals move away from print towards electronic formats. Concerns raised by this option were the difficulty for multi-disciplinary journals to achieve this type of community and that such a focus might lead to the journal becoming a self-promoting club.
Referring to Professor Hartemink’s contribution of January 24th, please find herewith some related information:
Elsevier’s Andrew Plume: “This seems like the ‘hidden gems’ idea, that some very good papers are published without fanfare in ‘lesser’ journals. I know of no study that systematically looks at this, because the variables are very hard to quantify and control for (’visibility’, ‘good papers’, degree of being ’snowed under’). A good point well made, but very hard to put a finger on. Some have tried to provide tools for bringing such paper to light though, in Biology: http://www.f1000biology.com/top10/jewels. “
February 8th, 2008 at 7:03 am
C I agree with this but there will aalways need to be an element of A in that there is a need to be alert and provide oportunities to young athors of merit in order to maintain the community in the long term
February 7th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
C. I agree with many comments below that if we can get the best authors, the rest will take care of itself.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
My opinion is that the focus on the best authors will bring a visibility of the journal. The scientific people are looking for the papers with help of key words. Obviously they obtained hundreds of answers. Then they make a selection by help of the name of the authors about which they know that their papers are the “key” one. Having the article from this people in the journal helps for visibility of it.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I think that the best “key to visibility” depends on the journal, its measures of success (aims), size, its potential audience, whether it is new or well-recognized, etc.
For journals that seek an academic audience and count subscriptions and number of articles as success, then attracting academic authors would be the best strategy. Make the journal have stature by appointing ranking academics as editors, make the review process appear to be strict, but accept all revisions.
Alternately, if success is measured by citation index, then seek authors from subsets of the discipline where it is likely that they will reference each other’s prior publications.
Alternately, if success is measured by industrial (or practice) implementation of information or techniques published in articles, then promote the applicability of contents of the journal.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:46 am
Answer B
People have curiosities, and want to satisfy them as much as possible. This is an effective way of living a satisfying life. Increasing their curiosity is an important contribution to this objective. Scientists can share this role from the view point of an expert in some areas. This will also contribute to the understanding what scientist are doing and how they can contribute to the real worlds. Sciences or technologies not understandable to a broad range of people need much effort, possibly first in the classroom for students. They are supposed to be most sensitive to something new. There always is a coverage by media for subjects published in “Nature” or “Science”.
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
The answer depends upon the subject of the journal. If the subject is linked in a way to economy, management, policy, then A is the most important. The more the journal covers sciences, the more important item C appears.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:44 pm
C: The best papers will be cited and obtain high visibility. Everything starts from here, with the quality of science, authors and papers.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:51 am
Answer: C
Ultimately it is the quality of the papers published that will promote the journal in the long term.
In parallel some of the other strategies may increase short term visibility.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
C is the most important issue, provided that they would provide the best possible science. This, in turn, will affect the other points.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:48 am
the important thing is publishing the best science taking into account also fashionable subjects, then citations to the papers will come and the journal will increase the visibility
January 30th, 2008 at 12:27 am
C) The focus should be on attracting the best authors. The quality content they publish promotes itself and visibility will follow.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I consider C as the major reason
I have to admit to being an elitist and se our role as getting the best papers from the best people — However, reputation does not necessarily equate to quality!
However, the journal should encourage good work from young researchers and thinkers and thus become a journal that has a good reputation and is valuable in University Promotion criteria etc.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
B: If you promote the scientific results, you will also attract the best authors, build the skills of budding authors (as they receive feedback through a stringent editorial review process and strive to achieve a high standard of performance) and build a strong scientific community around the journal that values the work with the highest methodological rigor.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
How can you say no to any of them? Of course all three are important as there are many other important factors in promoting the visibility of journals. My order of preference is C, A and a distance B.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I believe that high quality of published papers is crucial for the visibility of scientific journals, and believe that the best way to accomplish this is to attract good authors.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Al three are important (maybe even critical!). For our society-driven journal, A gets my vote, but the winning margin is very narrow.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:17 am
You actually need all 3! But most important for an established journal is C: to publish the best authors. When people are at conferences where they see that the seminal papers are published in your journal (happens sometimes!), that boosts the journal’s reputation more than any amount of publicity. Option A is obviously vital for a new journal. It also helps to remind the community occasionally of the advantages of publishing in your journal by publicising the impact factor (if it looks good), free page charges and colour, of whatever helps to compete with the alternative journals in the field.
January 27th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
The most important task for the editor, with the help of the publisher and Editorial Advisory Board, is to promote the journal (A). While the author and others may promote the results of the published research only the editors directly promote the journal. Attracting the best authors should follow from the promotion of the journal.
January 27th, 2008 at 6:42 am
C. This is my choice due to the experience that top authors are getting cited more often than others, and that is where a journal really makes an impact and gets visibility within a community.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:21 am
B. I am amazed so many responded “C.” This is like saying if you build a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door. No, no idea was ever disseminated without aggressive marketing. The scientific idea (not the journal at first) must be communicated to opinion leaders and others. The researcher must be groomed to the point where s/he can be “marketed” also. The journal is always mentioned at the middle or bottom of the press release.
If you answered C, how will you identify the “best authors”? I am interested in the best ideas. Authors with a track record may or may not be the source of the next great idea.
January 26th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
C) The focus should be on attracting the best authors. The quality content they publish promotes itself and visibility will follow.
Rationale: without C, objectives A and B are doomed to frustrating failure! Of course, A and B are also important, but the foundation of the scientific literature is intellectual quality.
January 26th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
C) The main objective of the journal is to publish high quality science. It is important to have contributions from some of the best authors in the filed to define a high level. Unfortunately a high level cannot necessarily be identified from the citation index - many other factors are involved.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:24 am
C) Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) can be somewhat considered a mathematical journal and in mathematics what matter is quality of authors from which the quality of results derives. Good results attract more good authors. But this is not the end of the story. In our field there is a growing unsatisfaction for the high cost of some Elsevier journals (TCS is among them). As a consequence important groups of good researchers (especially from US) are moving away from TCS and increasingly addressing their work toward journals published by societies (ACM, SIAM).
January 26th, 2008 at 9:18 am
C is in my opinion the most important factor to achieve visibility with A to integrate and B as an obvious consequence. Best authors will lead (or should lead) to the best science so attracting readers with the final result of building a community . Overall the result is a way to promote the scientific results so attracting universities, funding bodies and the general public.
January 26th, 2008 at 6:28 am
A) High quality journal provided by individuals and institutes will get many subscriptions because of its availability, significancy and suitability. The best strategy is to be supported by university with funds. The second best is personal support with much volunteer works though is not not easy. I would like to support the necessary journal editing to keep high quality (peer index).
January 26th, 2008 at 4:08 am
The choice is constructed with “loaded” words/phrases. “C” is the natural answer for all true academics, with A and B more directed at the business/marketing of the medium. So, my response is that the question is not “fair” in the above sense. All three have valid elements that should be pursued by the Editor and publisher in tandem.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
The responses offered are not mutually exclusive, it would seem. Building a community of readers and authors (some of whom will be the same) is perhaps best done by attracting the best papers from outstanding authors. Increasing the Journal readership through an interactive community of authors and readers should in fact be a good way to promote scientific results. I would see the three choices as different facets of the same pursuit—Journal excellence.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I have been trying to implement version C in the 3 years that I have been an editor. Since the journal had already a high visibility in the auditory community, that can only be enhanced by focusing on getting the best authors.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
It’s most important to promote the scientific results published in the journal as ultimately we need the support of universities, funding bodies and the general public. This may help in giving to non scientist some idea of how science is progressing and how relevant it is. Particular attention should be paid to disseminate ongoing major debates.
January 25th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
C is the key. Everyone follows the best authors, as they provide the best science.
January 25th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
A has little impact. B and C are importamt, in particular C
January 25th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
To me the answer is (C). It is to me by far the most inportant thing to get the best authors and to raise the level of the journal as much as possible. This will attract others to submit papers. Bothing is more important than quality!!
January 25th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
once again, I think these questions are not useful in that all the options are valid and valuable. Scientific visibility is not the same as public visibility, and both have their importance.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:29 am
C is the most important.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I would go for C), when these authors imply the best schools providing the best work/ papers: visibility of the journal will follow through increase of impact factor, alike FOOD CHEMISTRY last year.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:08 am
I would definely go for C as it indeed makes a lot more sense that who publishes in your journal. Obviously, from best authors we can generaly expect high quality work and that would bring the natual readership and value for the journal. To some extent, I can also support A as sometimes some (good/best) authors do send their manuscript to speciific journals when someone tells them about the gooness of the journal, such as IF.
January 25th, 2008 at 3:08 am
It has got to be C. No point in marketing something which lacks substance.
January 25th, 2008 at 3:02 am
A and B, as written, imply spin and we need no more of that. C is the best of the options, but I am not so sure about the emphasis on the “authors”. This almost implies a promotion of celebrity, which can be as hollow as spin. What we need is the “best” work. How is that judged? It should be novel, while being sound, and it should be relevant to many in the field. It may even be controversial - that is not a bad thing for increasing visibility of a journal. However, this is not a necessary requirement, and should not be pursued as a primary factor in choosing papers. Of course, if the best papers are published, their authors will become known as “the best authors “(always bearing in mind that ‘you are only as good as your last paper’) and the journal will obtain high visbility as a result. These are good aims, even if we often fall short.
January 25th, 2008 at 2:47 am
(C). It is athors who make the journal. Quality authors who publish quality papers enhance the status of the journal.
January 25th, 2008 at 2:38 am
(A) and (B) are aimed at marketing. That is secondary. If you don’t have anything to market, marketing rarely helps. (Well, that’s not always correct. George Bush was certainly marketed, and there was nothing at all behind it –in fact only negativisms behind it. Still too many Americans fell for it, and the USA and Iraq and the whole world has suffered for it. Sorry, everyone.)
So (C) is the right answer.
David Gries
January 25th, 2008 at 2:07 am
C. To me the first priority is to entice the best authors to publish in our journal. A and B will then follow automatically.
January 25th, 2008 at 2:00 am
C. No doubt the best authors have a reputation and following which attracts others to read their work and enhances the status of the Journal.
January 25th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Starting from C, then moving to A, and finally achieving B
January 24th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
C. While A is important, the journal must have high-quality articles that have a large and far-reaching impact on the journal’s community. Focusing on C alone should eventually make the journal more popular in the community, but it will take time to get the word around.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
C. Publicizing the journal (A) will probably have little impact and in many cases, it is difficult to find contributions in papers (B) that are sufficiently revolutionary and sufficiently simple to help promote a journal. Attracting some of the best-known authors seems to be to the best strategy.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
C. I serve as an editor for the journal Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, which was founded in 1991, serving since its inception. In the first decade of the journal, it was important both to publicize the journal (A) and attract leading scientists in the field (C) and soliciting their contributions (A). The first article in the first issue of the journal was one I solicited and has become one of the five most cited articles in plant molecular systematics. As the journal has matured, we have found it important to increase the rigor of the review process and that it is considered to be one of the leading journals in this field. In particular, authors doing molecular phylogenetics studies prefer to submit their manuscripts to MPE over taxonomic specialty journals.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
I would say C is the most important one.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
C) The tendency is to focus on the scientific stars more than the details in their research. Scientist want to work with these people and to publish in the same journal as the stars.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
C)
It has always worked that way.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
C) The focus should be on attracting the best authors. The quality content they publish promotes itself and visibility will follow.
Quality is what counts! Today, in the area of “bioenergy”, I see too many mediocre reports re-inventing work done in the 70’s-80’s. Scholarship is lacking (as are trips to the library)!
January 24th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
The science should be the highlight of the promotion. Senior scientist will choose to submitt to Journals that publish good articles.
Claudio
January 24th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I think that the success of a Journal is in the equilibrium of the three possibilities. It is good to attract the best authors (C), but is also very important to promote the journal in different ways such as to promote specific topics. No authors born as the best ones. They become the best ones.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
My opinion is clear: C
January 24th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
C reflects my view. Authors now choose a journal for submission based on impact factor. Keeping that up, and trying to raise it, are the goals. Strategies for achieving that involve being selective, quick, fair, and many other proactive approaches.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
In my view point A is the most important since the Journals are becoming more and more multidisciplinary and are directed to a large audience,
For this reason I think the Authors,especially of the C type, will write their papers in a simple and clear way . The reader should be able to understand the Theories or the Experiments presented in a paper. without being forced ,to understand what is going , to be forced to read the all the articles referenced as it is happening now. In this way it will be possible to attract more people to read scientific Journals
January 24th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I believe in C is the best way to achieve visibility
January 24th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I vote for C. This might be a medium term process, but good authors means:
- citation index increase
- more paper coming -> larger basis for selection
Process can be accelerated by hosting reviews from good/outstanding authors, as they will be widely cited.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
As a current associate editor for ‘Neurobiology of Disease’ I can say that the present need for that journal is for promotion of the publication to build the community around the journal (A, intimately linked with B).
There has been a major overhaul of the editorial process at NBD with the installation of Tim Greenamyre as the senior editor, with Sid Gillman as editor in chief, and the quality of the content has risen dramatically over the past several years (C). That will eventually raise visibility of the journal, but this process could be significantly accelerated by enhanced efforts from the publisher to ‘get the word out’.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
While C has a direct impact on the standing of the journal, it is not straightforward to influence the publication choice of eminenet authors.
Realistically, I think that all three courses are laudable and that the editors should seize the moment when opportuities arise.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
In the days of printed journals, A would have been extremely important especially to attract young scientists.
I think B is the most important aim because that is what people will read and be inspired by.
I do not know how you focus on attracting the “best authors”. What makes a good author? The fact that his or her name appears at the end of a long list of aspiring scientists because his or her work is well known?
If a young aspiring scientist does not have such a mentor, should their work be considered of less value? The science should be judged on its merit NOT on the authors names.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
They are all good ways of promoting a journal, but:
Building a community has become more difficult with the modern electronic access to article vs the paper copy of the whole issue. My feeling is that scientists identify themselves less with a journal than with a scientific domain.
Promoting the scientific results published is our current approach. It gives visibility to the journal’s content and attracts electronic gatherers.
Attracting the best authors is a tricky objective. We certainly want to publish the best science. I’d be interested to know how, in practice, do you attract the best authors.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
The quality of the journal depends on the work published and it is most important to attract best papers from the authors
January 24th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I strongly favor C; the rationale is obvious. A journal’s reputation l depends on who publishes in the journal.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Definitely C- no question- everything else will follow from C as many other submitters have arqued.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
CHOICE IS B FOR ME. I feel that the journal is perceived and viewed highly by the quality of the papers that are published and the citations that they receive. Often, researchers are interested in submitting their work for possible publication to a journal when they relate to it from past published work in their topic in that journal. That is why, I feel that publicizing the journal from some high quality work published in that journal is a very good idea so that it gives a positive image with scientists who are looking for outlets for their work.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
All three are important, but the relative significance of each depends on the journal area, age and other factors. (A) and (B) may be more important for new journals. (C) is probably of equal importance for every journal.
Let me also add (D) - Attract and publish high quality papers through a thorough, but fast review process.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I believe ths C is most important, as only by publishing tjhe best scientific content will we attract the finest authors and this will promote the journal.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
There are too many low quality papers that show little innovation, mainly from China and India. This is mainly because professional promotion is depending on the number of publications There is a lot of repetitive work and publications that only report a marginal improvement on previous work. Plagiarism is also an increasing concern. Striving for quality papers and the best authors would certainly be the best way to promote the journal (point C).
January 24th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I agree with the opinion from Prof. Zhao. The most important thing is to attract the best authors. High quality paper is the spirit of the journal. I prefer C.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I selected C as the quality of the journal authors as it is more important to focus on that. A journal is only as good as its authors. Having said that A and B are also important, but emphasis should be put on C.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
(A) could hint to a Kuhnian paradigm… Anyhow, it would be difficult to achieve for a multidisciplinary journal.
(B) Avoid press releases and other publicity gimmiks. An editor’s legitimate way to promote specific articles, or groups of them, is by publishing lively editiorials and commentaries that attract readership and raise new ideas.
(C) is self-evident and self fulfilling: good authors/papers attract good authors/papers. A key but often elusive tool is fair, constructive, and expedite peer review.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Mainly C, but I agree that it can be difficult to determine who the best authors are. Publication rates are generally tied to funding, and funding is rather like playing Russian roulette, so it becomes a game of ’survival of the fattest’. It is particularly hard to select best quality for reviewers and editors of a multi-disciplinary journal to which researchers from a wide variety of backgrounds contribute.
B is important also: without university subscribers and approval by funding bodies there is no journal: people will not submit papers, read papers, or subscribe to a low-quality journal.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I believe all three points are important, especially point C is most important issue. High quality authors can contribute high quality work, which can attract more readers attention and make the science is available.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I believe all three points are important, especially point C is most important issue for the journal. High quality authors can contribute high quality work and attract readers attention, therefore, make the science is available.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I prefer C. But then, who are the “best authors”? Often, they are the ones who publish in the best journals! (Although, sometimes extremely good papers happen to land in less known journals - for different reasons, one of which can be being too much ahead of your time!)
January 24th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I cannot diasgree with these three options (who could anyway) but A and B are a bit hollow, or let’s say, vague.
Attracting the best papers (and those are mostly - but not always - written by the best authors) is good for a journal. Good papers are visible but not always. Some visible papers are not so good whereas some very good papers have snowed under. In my discipline (soil science) that is fairly obvious but I don’t know of a serious study that has investigated such observations. Do you?
January 24th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
It is most important to have an open-access policy. Quality submissions follow impact factor. Impact factor follows citations. I only cite what I read - which means what I can download from home on a Saturday.
So C, attract the best papers by making the papers available.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Tentatively A. We are a journal with a wide appeal in our field, and attracting more and more attention in Asia. While we insist on maintaining quality standards, we do not wish to be exclusive (C); B is more attractive, but on the other hand, the wider our readership and appeal and the more scholars we publish, the more likely we are to be cited elsewhere.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
B is the key for success and duration. Indeed, publishing good scientific results is (or should be) the main reason why journals do exist.
A and C are valuable points, but may lead to a bias :
What is a “good” author (point C) ? a well known person ? If the results are good, then the author of the Ms is also good obviously, but he may not be a well known person ! He may even be a young unknown person…..
Building a community (point A) may be interesting, but carries the risk that the journal becomes a club and, even worse, a club dedicated to self-promotion !
January 24th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I agree with B. Promotion of results is vital importance for visibility of science and consequently for the journal that presents the results. Our society is customised on advertisement. “Without advertisement there is no sale”.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
There are too many low quality papers with low novel data content. This is mainly because the professional promotion is depending on the number of publications. Many results are known since long time. Many authors reinvente the wheel.
I definitely prefer C.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
In principle we should be seeking to emphasise the value of the science that we publish (B), as that is the real definition of quality. The more authors and other audiences appreciate the high status and quality of the research that is being published, the more thay are likely to identify with the journal and seek to place their best papers there. This route provides the best approach to attracting and securing the up and coming authors.
However it is the most difficult approach as it requires both effort to identify and promote the best science, and also receptive outlets which will further disseminate the scientific messages. So the way forward has to build on encouraging authors and raising the profile of the title so that people want to know more about the content.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I agree mainly with C that is to say attracting the best authors and A because its allows to build a community around the topic. B is more a consequence.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:48 am
All three points are important. However, in my experience leading a relatively young multidisciplinary journal, point A is the most significant. It is important for the journal to build up a reputation and points B and C would automatically follow. As the journal grew, support from universities and insitutions as well as contributions from leading authors came naturally. It is the journal name that matters most among authors, reviewers and funding agencies.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:46 am
C is the one I would invest on. Quality authors (and affiliations) attract attention and readers.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:45 am
A - this is a society journal and the main benefit of many members. We need to consider ways that will help authors and readers in the Tropics while retaining interest in UK, the rest of Europe and USA. there is an opportunity in Asia.
This entails of element of C but we must not allow the interet in impact factor and RAE to dictate what is published
Editor
Transaction of the Royal society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
January 24th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Option C
Publishing the best papers, is the best way of promoting journal.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:41 am
All three are important and I would not like to say that any one predominates. For different people are caught by different aspects. And the same person at different times has different priorities.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:37 am
C is the most important–quality attracts quality, building a community. Quality authors, when they are well-treated by the journal’s editors and reviewers, extend the community of their peers by showing and telling that the journal publishes good research by good authors (B). But A is very important for a new journal or a journal that is struggling to create its own niche.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I think neither is unimportant and that neither is s single essential - you have to do all. Still, C is top priority, if you know how to accomplish it.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:26 am
C… publishing great stuff is the best way to promote a journal…
January 24th, 2008 at 11:23 am
B and C are the most important. The “best authors” do not always remain the best for a long time. Often short time citations promote shallow science. The most interesting and progressive results can on the long run promote the visibility of a journal most.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:18 am
C: In a scientific world of too much information, often good quality work can best be traced when personalised-summarised in a high quality author’s publishing record.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:05 am
C- if the best authors and papers are selected, the rest looks after itself
January 24th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I think that the best way is through the diffusion of the best scientific results, B, although very often the papers of good scientists could be as effective, C.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am
A, B and C with preference to C which is self-explaining.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:58 am
It depends on where the journal is in its lifecycle. Early on, A may be the most important. As a journal is established, C takes over. In my experience, a rising impact factor is the single biggest draw for authors.
As an individual who edits, my personal motivation is getting useful and high quality results out to influence policy debate in my area (i.e. a different twist on B).
January 24th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I agree with the comments below that all 3 points are important. However, I would like to point out that these are only criteria valid from a marketing point of view. For an author and for an editor it is more important that a journal has a reputation of fair reviewing and selection criteria based on quality and on the focus of the journal. This will eventually create the success of a journal.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:53 am
B Good science results are the most important. They stay.
C Good science results are often provided by good authors.
Thus, these are the main boosters for success of a Journal.
Without that no decent promotion of a journal is possible.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I would go for C-B-A, as many authors tend to cite famous authors by default, rather than looking into the paper.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I believe that all three of these factors carry equal weight. Recruiting the best science is a must; however, if the journal is not promoted, even the best work will be ‘lost’.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:16 am
I go for C. If prominent figures in a field publish in a journal, other scientist will look for what is published in it, and will also increasingly use the journal and publish in it.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
My selection is in the following order:
1) C
2) B
3) A
In other words, all three points have some importance but I give the greatest importance to having journal papers published by the best colleagues in our field for this point will help a journal to achieve an excellent visibility in the most efficient manner. There is no question about this in my mind.
R.C. Ertekin
co-Editor-in-Chief
Ocean Engineering journal
December 13th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I think that all three points are equally important. We should “sell” our journals to our colleagues and institutions; we should seek to promote the important scientific information published in our journals, and, of course, we should try and get the very best people in our respective fields to publish in our journals.
Joseph S. Alpert, editor, AJM