Science isn’t complete until it has been published, and the first step in that process is identifying your audience and choosing a journal to submit the paper to. For many scientists (not just those in developing nations), there are competing pressures that can make sorting out story, audience, and outlet difficult. The first pressure is to do research that is practical, solving immediate social problems. The second is to publish in prestigious journals.
The pressure to be relevant can lead to studies that provide information useful to local managers or industries but that may not offer knowledge that would be relevant to a global audience. The pressure to succeed, however, can lead researchers to submit those papers to high-profile journals even when they may not be a good fit. I have seen many of them, and I’ve rejected the majority, many without even sending them out for review.
Being rejected is painful; no one likes to be told that their work isn’t good enough. I’ve seen authors claim instead that a paper was rejected because the editor discriminated against them or their region. We don’t. Rather, the opposite is true — we want to broaden the international base of the research (and reviewing) community. Our problem is that we see many papers that were rigorously done but only offer information. In these papers, authors often highlight that what is novel is that it presents the first data on a process in a new region — trace gas emissions, nitrification, and so on. They are usually right, but that very argument is why the paper was rejected.
Any leading journal is likely to reject a paper if all it does is flesh out the information base: it’s the first data set on a new region, it demonstrates that a reaction works similarly with a slightly different substitution pattern on a molecule, or that the gene sequence from a new bacterium is only modestly different from that in known bacteria.
This isn’t about basic versus applied research. It’s about information versus knowledge. First-rate applied research goes beyond presenting a data set — it provides broader insights into the nature of the problem, insights that are useful to people working on related problems and in different areas. For example, a paper on how plowing a soil alters nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emissions might be valuable for local managers who are trying to maximize crop yield while minimizing groundwater pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. They need the information, and it should be published in an appropriate venue. But unless the paper also offers new insights into the fundamentals of N-cycling or develops a new, transferable management regime, that venue is not likely to be a high-impact basicscience journal — and that will be true regardless of whether the work was done in India or Indiana.
So before you submit, make sure you know a journal’s focus and intended audience. Do you want to offer local farmers improved tillage techniques or soil biologists new insights into how bacteria process N? Read a journal’s description carefully and analyze the papers it publishes. If you are still unsure, email the editor and ask for advice. Then pick a journal appropriate for your story and intended audience. Don’t focus on the journal’s status, but on its scope. There will always be a draw toward the journals with the highest impact, but submitting a paper that doesn’t fit is a waste of everyone’s time and energy. Ultimately, journal prestige means little — the top journals publish some mediocre papers and lower impact journals publish some extraordinary ones. In the modern world of search engines and open-access journals, good papers will be found and cited whereas bad ones will be ignored, regardless of where they are published.
|
Jack001
发表于 2023-4-23 21:13:47
柚子的pupu
发表于 2023-4-23 22:52:15
37
36
28
19
15
15
11
