Traditionally/historically you selected a journal based on the subject matter of your study combined with the geographical relevance it held. For example, if I did a study on the reproductive ecology of wombats from St. Clair Co, IL, I would have several options.
1) if the paper had wide ranging implications for the reproductive ecology of many organisms besides Wombats I might send it to an international ecology or reproductive biology journal. 2) if the paper had implications for other mammals, or just Wombats I might send it to an international mammalogy journal, and possibly still an international reproduction journal. 3) if the paper really provided no general insight that was applicable outside of the location where the study was done, it really focused on how WOmabats were surviving in the region, it would go to a regional journal (AMericna Midland Naturalist) or state academy (IL Transactions). 4) if it was of little signficance at all and largely replicative I might send it to a very local journal (the old now defunct Transactions of the St. Louis Academy of Sci.). However, today, everything is about citation ratings of the journals. Citations ratings are meaningless unless used in context. For example, the highest rated journal for a long time was Immunological Reviews. Does this mean that we should be targeting that journal above ecology? Journals like Trends in Ecology and Evolution and Immunological Reviews will always have higher citation ratings because all they publish are reviews. The research shows conclusively that monographs and reviews get far more citations than regular papers. Further, there are way more immunology pubs produced each year than ecology pubs. THis has a huge impact on the number of availble times for a paper/journal to be cited. So, its almost impossible for the highest ranked ecology journal to outrank even some of the medium ranked immunology journals. It is the primary reason that proper use of citation ratings cannot be used to compare journals or researchers from different disciplines, only within disciplines! You must look at the journal within the discipline (loosely defined) In ecology we have a number of highly ranked ecology journals. IS there any real difference in stature among ecology, ecological monographs, ecological applications, Functional ecology, etc? No, they are all journals with citation ratings between 2-4 and frankly anything in that range has essentially the same rating = very good. Now, look at our organismal journals (which often handle a lot of ecology journals) The Auk, Journal of Mammalogy and the Journal of Herpetology have very different ratings, but they are the same level in their discipline. THe primary fisheries journal and the journal of wildlife management are equivalents. Conservation Biology and Biology Conservation are pretty much equivalent. We get too tied up in which journal is the best. Most of the papers in any given journal are hardly cited or go uncited, even those published in Science and Nature. There is a movement to abandon rating people by where they publish and to start rating them based on how often they are cited. This is not better or worse, just different. Also, this new movement should really be IN ADDITION to the former, not INSTEAD of. Number of publications, the journals in which you publish, and whether they ever get cited matter. But you can get cited like crazy for publishing something that is wrong, and really bad! I would not, and do not, concern myself with cutting hairs of which great journal is better. No one is going to ask you why you didn't publish in Conservation Biology when the journal is published in Biological Conservation, or visa versa. They are going to look and say, "There is a high caliber pub." Too many young scientists worry too much about where they are getting published, and then don't get published. On the opposite end, many established scientists get so caught up in the ratings game that they get stressed, give up, and end up not publishing!!! My advice: Shoot for the best journal you think your stuff will get in. If it gets rejected, drop down a level and try again. If it gets rejected again, send it a tier lower. If you want it out fast, don't bother with the best journals. If you have time, then send it to the best journals. But, above all else, if you have results, publish them somewhere. On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Eco Anonym <[email protected]> wrote: > I summon people’s perspectives with regard to the “best” journals in which > to publish an ecological paper. Every year each journal writes an > editorial emphasizing all the super things about that journal (a > glass-half-full perspective). The recent one in the January 2012 issue of > Ecology raised my eyebrows for reasons that are as follows: > > > > (1) In reference to Ecology vs. Ecosphere: “We emphatically reiterate that > there is no difference in the editorial standards between the two journals”. > > > - Except that papers routinely get rejected from Ecology with encouragement > to submit to Ecosphere, where reviewers have lower expectations, and > therefore standards are lower. This seems crystal clear, so why pretend > otherwise? > > > > (2) “Ecology remains far and away the most cited journal in the ecological > sciences according to the ISI Journal Citation Reports. The cited half life > of more than 10 years is as long as any journal in our subject-matter area > (indicating that our publications stand the test of time), and our impact > factor of 5.073 is among the highest for journals publishing primary > research articles in ecology. Ecology retains the confidence of readers and > authors alike as the premier journal in the ecological sciences.” > > - The evidence is not in support of these conclusions. Everyone knows that > Ecology Letters a good while ago surpassed Ecology as the premier ecology > journal (impact factor > 15). I surmise it is less widely appreciated that > Ecology has also been overtaken by Global Change Biology (6.3), Molecular > Ecology (6.5), and Global Ecology and Biogeography (5.3). Over the past 10 > years Ecology’s impact factor gained about 1 point, approximately the > average across all ecology journals. So, the tortoise has stood still, > being overtaken by journals formerly in the “more specialized” category for > Ecology rejectees. The latter journals were born <20 years ago, gaining > momentum in the last 10, making a cited half life >10, in point of fact, > impossible. (The distinction of cited half life >10 is, FWIW, shared by > the Texas Journal of Science, impact factor = 0.1). > > > > (3) In reaction to a backlog: “The Editors therefore took steps to further > tighten up the review process (including rejections of more submissions > following editorial review). We are happy to report that these measures > had the desired effect: Ecology's backlog has disappeared. In fact, we > overshot our mark.” So, overnight it became a wild guess as to whether a > paper might get reviewed at Ecology. Strikes me as conceivable that people > started submitting good papers elsewhere. > > > > Perhaps the glass is half empty? Am I nuts? -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
