What's the difference between journals?At first glance, of course, fame, IF, recognition, advice, influence....that's all right!
But this is only a representation or an existing state, not a deep/underlying cause.I've been wondering, what makes a good journal famous, IF, recognized, and influential?
Some journals are industry-leading, such as some journals run by the American Chemical Society, so it has a great influence on American scholars.The advantage of such journals is that the publishers are more united and united, because they work for a common goal, so the reviewers often make a lot of suggestions and opinions on the submission of manuscripts, which shows more responsibility.But it will undoubtedly focus on its own people when choosing a paper, because no one wants to turn their territory into someone else's position.Therefore, the disadvantage is a certain eccentricity, or disregard for out-of-circle problems.Another problem is that the processing is less efficient, because the pace of work in Europe and the United States is really casual and casual.
Some journals are business-driven, such as Elsevier-led journals.Because they are not affiliated with any academic organization or region, they invite editors from all over the world, and the professional direction is basically dominated by the editor-in-chief.The advantage is that it is not particularly biased toward an academic point of view, is relatively impartial, and is more efficient because of interest-driven (e.g., fast review and editing cycles).However, the disadvantage is that editors and reviewers do not have a sense of collective belonging and purpose, so sometimes the opinions of the review will be mixed, and some editors may use sent to review as a tool for exchange of interests.The momentum may be strong when it's good, but it can also be poor when it's bad.I think that although scientific research activities need to be carried out freely, scientific research services may also make scientific research achievements appear scattered if they are not specific and fixed.
Some journals are in between the above, such as WR, which has the support of IWA institutions, but is not limited to the perspective of one country and one place, so the advantages and disadvantages are in between.
There is, of course, a class of well-known, high-impact but very commercial journals whose editors are not full-time researchers, but recent PhD graduates or recent postdocs.I didn't understand that before, but now I'm a little bit more straightened out.Although they do not have a strong professional background, they are good at identifying industry hotspots and high-traffic events / manuscripts, so their publications tend to rise quickly or start high, so they have a strong brand effect.Although they also seek professional review of manuscripts, which is the same as the previous journals, the current situation is that such journals have a particularly high IF and reputation starting point.People seem to be a little superstitious about these famous periodicals, and even about the famous brand's sub-papers Sun Yat-sen, which is incomprehensible and unreasonable.
Of course, no matter what kind of journal, they provide the same service, is to accept and publish manuscripts!What is the contest between the journals?What are the fundamental reasons why their effects are so different?
From an editorial point of view, in addition to accepting (which is the ultimate and greatest wish of every contributor), contributors actually have other expectations and hopes, such as the following three points:
1.Professional review opinions, as it can help improve the quality of manuscripts and scientific research capabilities;
2.Fair and equitable treatment, as it gives the weak or minorities the same opportunity to speak;
3.Deal with it quickly and reasonably, because it doesn't waste the contributor's time and energy.
So, frankly, the quality of the journal depends on what the contributor wants.It also depends on whether journal editors recognize that to improve journal impact, they need to provide as many of these services as possible and as well as as possible!Although journals and editors look at the master (domestic called officials), they are actually only service personnel.Service personnel should actively and enthusiastically meet the needs of customers.Recognizing the most important/basic needs of the customer and working hard to meet them can better and longer-term development and growth of the brand.
In this world, sometimes power drives people (such as more people want to eat in restaurants with a lot of queues) and sometimes people drive power (such as naturally there are stores around the school).Reputation and good service, complement each other, can be long-term.The same is true of periodical development, with high IF before popularity, or with high IF before popularity?It's all possible!
For historical reasons, some journals now have an innate advantage and may be stronger in the future.But emerging journals will not sit idly by.After all, we all know the traffic password, regardless of IF, H-index indicators, as long as it is set by people, there will be defects.As long as there is a defect, there must be room for manipulation (better called planning/layout).Only some journals deliberately do not, and some journals dig into it.
I have no intention of evaluating the quality of journals and their respective ways of developing them.It is believed that every scholar can use the above criteria to conduct rational observation and evaluation of the target publication.Ideally, the editors are quick and fair, the judges are professional and rigorous, the contributors are thoughtful and supportive of each other to promote the development of science and technology.But the reality is that all parties can be biased and the parties can influence each other.After all, there is always a gap between knowing and doing; between ideal and reality, it is often regrettable!