Image: Three choices – out of thousands.
Warning: long post. Grab a snack.
Having lots of options is a wonderful thing – right up until you have to pick one. Have you ever been torn among the two dozen entrées on a restaurant menu? Blanched at the sight of 120 different sedans on a used-car lot? If you have, you might also wonder how on earth you’re going to choose a journal to grace with your latest manuscript. There are, quite literally, thousands of scientific journals out there – probably tens of thousands – and even within a single field there will be hundreds of options. (Scimago lists 352 journals in ecology, for example, but that list is far from comprehensive.)
What follows are some of things I think you might consider when you choose a journal. There’s no single “right” choice for any manuscript, because there are multiple factors at play and how you weight them will depend on things like your career stage, your budget, your coauthors, and more. But a little systematic thought can at least narrow the field.
By the way: I’m pretty sure that parts of this post will make some people very, very angry. I’ll be mentioning impact factor, and open-access publication, and a couple of other things, and I may not stick entirely to the sacredly anointed proper positions on them. Failure to stick to those sacredly anointed proper positions seems to provoke incoherent rage rather than thoughtful argument in a few people. If you’re one of those people, you might prefer to read something else. Here’s one of my least controversial posts.
Does journal choice even matter?
In this age of online keyword and full-text searching, some argue that it just doesn’t matter which journal your paper is in, because readers will find it anyway (hence the existence of megajournals like PLoS One). This argument is superficially appealing, but in practice, I think journals still function to steer papers to their audiences. Others take the argument further, holding that journals don’t matter because readers shouldn’t infer anything about your paper from where it appears (for example, during hiring or promotion decisions). The “shouldn’t” part of this may be correct, but since we can’t enforce “shouldn’t” on those evaluating us, I think this argument fails too (except possibly for the already-tenured-and-famous). I explore both arguments in more detail here; but in what follows, I’m going to assume that you (like me) care about journal options.
When should you choose?
I’ve had students and colleagues who wanted to write the manuscript first, and then decide where to send it. I think that’s a mistake. Instead, I recommend choosing a journal target very early in the writing process – certainly before writing the Introduction or Discussion, and likely before finishing the Results. A good stage is when you’ve got data, and you’ve produced a bunch of rough graphs and tables, and you’re trying to figure out what story to tell*.
There’s a simple but important reason for this. You can’t figure out what story to tell unless you know who you’re telling it to. Perhaps I’m writing a paper about an invasive beetle that attacks spruce trees. If I choose to send it to the Canadian Entomologist, I’m choosing to tell my story (mostly) to other entomologists. If I choose Forest Ecology and Management, I’m telling my story to forest ecologists; if I choose Ecology, to ecologists in general; if I choose Biological Invasions, to invasion ecologists. None of these decisions is wrong; but each shapes how I’ll write the paper, because these audiences will have different prior knowledge , they’ll need different context and information in what I write, and they’ll be interested in different angles on the story I have to tell.
There’s actually another reason for choosing a target journal early: you can save yourself considerable writing hassle by looking at an Instruction to Authors document early. If your target journal has a 4,000 word limit, there’s no point polishing 8,000 words of text. Some journals have figure or table limits, or citation limits. Others have formatting quirks like Abstracts with numbered points. Of course, very often your manuscript won’t succeed with the first journal you send it to, so you’ll have to make changes eventually, but why not make your first submission as easy as possible?
How do you choose?
Choosing a journal isn’t simple (unfortunately). I can think of at least 9 factors that you might want to consider (I’m sure I’ve missed some, and I hope you’ll add to my list in the Replies). And the choice suggested by Factor 1 might well conflict with the choice suggested by Factor 2, or 3, or 4 – which means you need to weight them to make a final decision. I know this sounds a bit daunting; but in fact, I think a list of considerations like what follows helps give some structure to the decision-making process.
OK, here goes.
- Audience. The link between journal choice and audience is a 2-way street. When writing, you need to know which journal you’re writing for, so you can tell the right story. But at the same time, the story you want to tell, and who you want to tell it to, may determine which journal you choose. If I have data on that invasive beetle that I think are really important in answering a basic ecological question – like how southern range limits shift with climate change – then I probably won’t pick an entomology journal, because if I do, my paper won’t be obvious to the people most interested in that question. Instead, a journal like Ecology or Global Change Biogeography would put my paper where the audience I’m after will be looking for it.
- Fit. Journals don’t publish papers about whatever people send in (except for megajournals like PLOS One, of course). Instead, each journal has a scope that defines the kind of paper they want to publish, and there’s no point sending your paper to a journal that will simply give it a “desk reject” for lack of fit. Usually, a statement of a journal’s scope can be found right up front on their web page, or in their Instruction to Authors. But relying on that alone means missing more subtle cues. Editors may have a pretty good idea what they want without having written it down in detail. Therefore, it’s worth looking at past issues of a journal you’re considering, to find out what kinds of papers have appeared there. Or you can go at the problem in the opposite direction, by finding half a dozen papers that resemble yours, and seeing in which journals they were published.
- Your CV, part 1: Impact factor**. It’s fashionable to hate the impact factor – and there are good reasons to hate it (for example, it’s easily gamed by publishers, and as a journal-level metric it has only a very loose correlation to the quality of individual papers). So many people insist that you shouldn’t infer anything about a journal from its impact factor, about a paper from the impact factor of the journal it’s in, or about a person from the impact factors of the journals they publish in. But people still make all these inferences, and in fact they aren’t completely unreasonable. (Again, fuller exploration of this issue here.) Journals have reputations, and they correlate fairly well with their impact factors. And that brings us to your CV. If your CV can have 4 papers in high-impact journals or 4 papers in low-impact journals, even if they’re the same papers you’re better off, careerwise, with the former. Actually, it’s not just your CV. Impact factor does tend to correlate with visibility, and so more people are likely to see and pay attention to your paper if you publish it in a higher-impact journal. You can overdo this, of course – nobody should care about the difference between IF = 1.0 and IF = 1.2 – but it’s entirely reasonable to think about journal reputation, and impact factor provides one signal of that. Finally: some granting agencies (e.g., I’m told, in Chile) etc. may have explicit requirements with respect to publication in journals with particular impact factors. If this applies to your own situation: you can disapprove of it, but it would be foolhardy to ignore it.
- Your CV, part 2: Communicating interests. There’s more to the CV angle than just the (arguable) impressiveness of high-impact journals – especially if you’re early in your career. That’s because the set of journals you’ve published in will send messages about your interests to people who might be considering you as a possible hire. Imagine that you have a pile of basic-science data, with an insect system, that have applied implications. Where should you publish the papers? If you’re aiming to be hired as a professor in a broad Biology department, it’s probably unwise to place all (or most of) your papers in applied entomology journals. But if you’re heading for a career in management with a government agency, or you’d like to work for a conservation-oriented NGO, then a CV made up entirely of papers in general ecology journals may send the wrong message.
- Open-access vs. subscription. There are two fundamentally different ways in which journals distribute papers. If your paper is published “open-access”, it’s released free (online) to anyone at any time; but if your paper is in a subscription journal, it’s released (directly) only to those who pay for a journal subscription***. (To make this a little more complicated, many subscription journals have open-access publishing options, although usually at substantial cost.) It seems like an obvious proposition that open-access is better, and all else being equal, it would be. All else is rarely equal. Publication costs must be recouped one way or the other, so open-access publication is generally more expensive than subscription-based publication. A decision to publish open-access, then, is a decision to forgo spending the same research dollars elsewhere. Which brings us to…
- Cost. Usually, publishing will cost you; but some journals are more expensive than others. Publication costs can be substantial. For open-access journals, the most common model is an “article processing charge”, or APC, which is a flat rate per published paper. There are a few in the $100s, but most are US $1500 or more – and it’s not impossible to find an option costing US $5000. Subscription journals usually levy “page charges” instead, often in the range of US $75-$100/page. Not all journals levy APCs or page charges, though; there are a few “free” ones. (The quotation marks around “free” recognize that there’s always a cost to publishing; all that varies is who’s paying it. “Free” journals may have foundations behind them, or may have more expensive subscriptions, but they don’t have magic.) Many journals also have discounts on, or even waivers of, page charges that an author can apply for. These are often available to early-career authors, authors in the developing world, authors who certify that they have no access to grant funding, or (for society journals) authors who belong to the publishing society.
- Society vs. for-profit. Some journals are published by scientific societies (for example, in my own field, Ecology, Oikos, and The American Naturalist). These are either non-profit or else return profit to the societies that publish them; these profits can then subsidize conferences or other society activities. Other journals are published by for-profit commercial publishers (sticking to my own field, Oecologia and Evolutionary Ecology). These return profits only to owners/shareholders. Most commercial journals are controlled by a few large publishers: Reed-Elsevier, Springer, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis and Sage. Their profit margins are rather healthy, which revolts many people****. If you choose to avoid commercial publishers, be a little bit careful. There are quite a few society journals that are published under contract by a for-profit publisher (Evolution is a good example, being published by Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the Society for the Study of Evolution). These should be considered no different from in-house-published society journals – they’re just cases of societies hiring a company to do the technical publishing work because that’s more efficient than doing it themselves.
- Speed. Journals love to compete on speed – especially, to boast about a short time either from submission to first decision or from submission to publication. With a few exceptions (I’ll come to them), please, please, please don’t pay attention to such claims. There are three reasons, I think, why these claims are irrelevant at best, and actively harmful at worst.
- Decision time statistics are easily gamed, and journals indulge in all kinds of tricks to keep those decision times short. For instance, they may favour “reject-and-resubmit” rather than “accepted with revision” because that lets them count the revision as a new submission and restart the clock. Or they may issue a lot of two-day “desk rejects”, without careful reading, because these average out the longer time it takes for real review. We’d all rather journals designed their procedures to allow better, fairer peer review, not to keep decision times artificially short.
- When journals compete on speed they race to the bottom, advertising decision times that are just unreasonable. Any journal that advertises its ability to routinely reach first decision in 3 weeks, for example, simply can’t be taking peer review seriously. When we care about journal speed, we just encourage this behaviour.
- For most of your papers, I just don’t think it will matter very much anyway. I see a lot of gnashing of teeth over how slow publication is crippling the march of science, but I don’t think I’ve ever published anything that was really that urgent. I can think of a lot of things that slow the march of science far more than a few months to get a paper published. Besides, the easy availability of preprint servers means that if you think science really can’t wait for your results, you can post them instantly.
Now, I’m going to allow one kind of exception here. There may be particular times during your career when publication speed is important, not for the march of science, but for the march of that career. You might be about to hit the job market, or a tenure deadline, or about to submit a big grant. If one more publication could make a critical difference, then journal speed is a reasonable thing to consider. Note, however, that data on journal speed are quite unreliable, because there tends to be high variance among papers in the same journal’s workflow.
- Predatory journals. Among the tens of thousands of journals in existence are thousands – at least – that are fake. They’re most often labeled “predatory journals”, which has a nice ring to it*****. These “journals” exist only to make money, and they will publish absolutely anything for payment of an APC. Many of them pretend to have serious editorial processes, including peer review, but they don’t pretend very hard (sometimes publishing submissions within days of receiving them). Publishing in one of these “journals” means nobody will read your paper or take it seriously – and that’s the best-case scenario. So how to do you identify, and avoid, a predatory journal? There are lists online, although the most well-known (Beall’s List) has become difficult to find and out of date. Amateurish journal web sites riddled with typos can be a tip-off; an even better tip-off is the offer of a ludicrously short time to publication (often two weeks or less). And if you get an email inviting you to submit, that’s an almost certain giveaway – unless you know the sender personally, and they’re putting together a special issue for a journal you’ve heard of. If you’re not sure, ask colleagues; but if a journal sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
OK, that’s my list of 9 things to consider. Exhausted? I am. I’ve made this sound complicated; but remember, there’s no single right choice for any manuscript. Some of the factors I’ve mentioned may be very important to you, others may not be, and different people will have different weightings. That’s perfectly OK, although of course it may texture discussion between coauthors. In the end, there are almost always several suitable targets for any given manuscript. Choose one, submit; and if you’re rejected, choose another. Good luck!
© Stephen Heard June 19, 2018
UPDATE: Mike Kaspari had a related post 18 months ago – it’s also worth reading.
*^Finding your story is a critical part of writing. It just isn’t true that the data speaks for itself; you need to figure out which data, and in which order, tell a story that will grab and hold a reader’s attention. Techniques for doing this are the subject of Chapter 7 of The Scientist’s Guide to Writing
**^Hear that? That was the sound of a whole bunch of people clicking away in disgust.
***^The word “directly” is extremely important, because most readers don’t access papers in journals to which they subscribe personally. A subscription-model paper (often called a “paywalled” paper) is available to anyone who pays to subscribe; to anyone working at an institution that pays to subscribe; to anyone with access to a library with a Document Delivery system (“interlibrary loan”); to anyone who’s willing to email the author (you) and ask for a copy; to anyone who’s willing to use #icanhazpdf on Twitter; to anyone who’s willing to flirt with illegality and download the paper from ResearchGate or SciHub; or to anyone who has a friend or colleague in any of the categories I’ve listed. In other words, subscription-based papers aren’t open-access; but they’re much more widely available than critics would like you to believe.
****^Oddly, nobody seems to object to corporations making money by publishing books, by manufacturing scientific equipment or consumables, or by selling groceries. Only publishing papers. I don’t know why.
*****^Although I’m inclined to think it’s not a very useful designation. The implication is that these journals are preying on unsuspecting authors by duping them into submitting their papers. That certainly happens; but authors can also use these journals to prey on unsuspecting hiring, promotion, and tenure systems by adding CV lines quickly and cheaply. Who’s the predator, and who’s the prey? It depends, and so “fake” is probably a better way to describe these journals.
I agree with almost all of this, but surprised that as an entomologist you didn’t mention that ALL the journals published by the Royal Entomological Society do NOT have page charges so it is free to publish in them even if you are not a Society member. Admittedly they are not OA, but you can pay to make them so. As for IF, we do suffer as entomologists if we publish in our ‘own’ journals although the RES ones are all over 1.5 and all have a much better reputation than PloS 🙂
The best part of your comment is that you’re recognizing me as a real “entomologist”! I never know quite what I am…. botanist one day, entomologist another, evolutionary ecologist the next – and a little shallow on all of them 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great post, a couple of additional minor factors to consider may be:
a) formatting requirements; some journals have such detailed requirements that I have occasionally ruled them out to avoid the pain
b) past experience, I have some “blacked-listed” journals which provided unfair and unpleasant experiences in the past and which I tend to avoid now.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for making this post! It will definitely help me. Just a couple of ideas:
1-“This argument is superficially appealing, but in practice, I think journals still function to steer papers to their audiences” : I wonder how long this will be true. I certainly care less about journals than my former advisors. I am also part of a generation of scientist who always had access to large database, and never went to the library to check a table of content… I think this will influence how we will one day educate new scientist.
2-I think it is quite clear why the profit margin of academic publishing rise more anger than groceries…. the margin is much higher than in other domains. You can check a great graph of that in http://www.righttoresearch.org/learn/problem/index~print.shtml or there also seems to be data about that in this (I haven’t read it all…your blog took all my “fun” reading time for the morning): https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
LikeLiked by 1 person
Emilie – like you, I wonder about the future of journals as “steering” mechanisms (and I wish I’d found a better word). Do you really think people will operate as if the title of the journal carries zero information about the nature of the paper? That is, as if every single paper was actually in PLoS One rather than where it actually is? Decide to read papers based on title alone? I know this argument gets made frequently – but think about the bookstore where the books aren’t sorted into “mystery” and “travel” etc, but just all together one giant shelf (I’m talking about Amazon, of course). Even there, you have subject sorting, and “frequently bought together”, and a bunch of other ways to steer a book to its readership. Do papers not need anything like this (other than their titles?) Count me a little bit skeptical! (And thanks for the comment).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I sincerely don’t know… and I’m excited to see how this will evolve!
I think the choice will not be made on title alone, but mostly on keywords. That’s mostly how I read, email alerts based on keyword search. But I don’t claim to represent an entire generation of scientist.
Right, good point, I said “title” but of course keywords too!
I bet it evolves in a way that neither of us expects…
I had the same thought regarding #1, that it will become less likely over time that journals will shepherd papers to the intended audience. But then I thought, maybe not! Because the keywords, title, and abstract will be different depending on the journal you choose. If you choose broad (e.g., general ecology), you’ll have different keywords/title/abstract than if you choose narrow/specific to fields (e.g., applied entomology). So perhaps #1 will continue to apply, albeit through modulating the words we search for in titles/keywords/abstracts.
Shameless self promotion: we did a reader survey on how ecologists filter the literature and find papers to read when they’re just “keeping up with the literature” rather than searching for all and only those papers on some specific topic: https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/survey-results-how-do-you-find-papers-to-read-when-you-cant-do-a-search/
-most respondents use multiple methods
-looking at journal tables of contents is still the #1 method
-grad students and postdocs do NOT use different methods than faculty, save that grad students are less likely than postdocs or faculty to use Google Scholar recommendations (presumably because you have to publish a few papers before Google Scholar can give you semi-useful recommendations)
I subscribe to Tables of Contents of particular journals for current literature but use Google Scholar to research stuff for writing papers and my own database of papers that I have already read – currently 12 000 references, which I search with keywords
LikeLiked by 1 person
I first went to conferences to represent the journal in 2005 and saw that the identity of journals was disappearing in the age of database searches (which is part of the power of big bundle marketing–it’s not about journal identity). I thought that was a worrisome thing for science in two ways:
1. Decisions on what to read have to be made. If they aren’t made by journal identity, then they will tend to be made by authorship–well known authors and prominent affiliations will be selectively favored. A third of our first authors are early career, others are from less well known institutions. In that case, If journal name doesn’t bridge the lack of familiarity, how will early career or under-represented people get heard?
2. People do focused searches. If no one picks up an issue to see what’s going on in general, then research will stay locked in keyword silos. The goal of the ASN and Am Nat are to have scientists see what others are doing, check out concepts of broader interest. We the silos in our citations. Concepts of broader interest tested on sticklebacks are cited by stickleback researchers and fish papers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s also worth assessing how risk-tolerant you are – some people seem to try Science and Nature first with everything they write, whereas others probably always aim too low in order to minimize rejections. I performed this self-assessment 13 years ago when I put together my first tenure dossier:
“Most of my work has been published in what I would describe as “respectable” journals. Very little of it has been published in below-average journals, but I also acknowledge a paucity of publications in top-notch journals such as American Naturalist, Ecology, and Journal of Animal Ecology. My lifetime rejection rate on manuscript submissions has been 14% (7/49, with only 2 papers permanently mothballed), versus 30-75% rejection rates in most of the journals in which I publish, so I concede that I have been too risk-averse in publishing, and that there have been a few ornithological manuscripts that I should have first submitted to more prestigious journals like Ecology or Journal of Animal Ecology (and I probably should have tried Science or Nature first for my American Naturalist paper). Nevertheless, there’s something to be said for having the good sense to send a manuscript to the appropriate outlet the first time around, and I find nothing embarrassing about Condor, Auk, Journal of Wildlife Management, or Canadian Journal of Zoology.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another factor is production process. For example, I strongly caution early career researchers in particular to avoid PLOS ONE because of the lack of production accountability and no author proofs. A colleague and I have both had them make major production errors with figures that we fought months to years to have corrected (in my case with zero resolution). For our paper, they duplicated an entire table in production, then put out a “correction” with the caption “there were numerous errors in Table 1,” with no consultation from me on the caption wording, which implies author fault. I will never publish there again and strongly caution against it, even though the peer review process was professional and rigorous.
Good point. And I’ve heard of other people having issues with PLoS One, although I’ve published there a couple of times and it was fine. Each individual person has a tiny sample size, which makes it hard to reliably assess these things!
Agreed about PLOS One. They acknowledged that a bug in their software caused typographical errors in our paper and then steadfastly refused to fix them.
“Finally: some granting agencies (e.g., I’m told, in Chile) etc. may have explicit requirements with respect to publication in journals with particular impact factors. If this applies to your own situation: you can disapprove of it, but it would be foolhardy to ignore it.”
In Brazil we have a classification of journals (Qualis) by the governmental agency for science, mostly based on Impact Factors, which has a great weight on the evaluation of professors and researchers on Universities. Also, it is used by Graduate schools, for instance, I am not able to defend my PhD thesis without publishing a paper on a journal above a defined level on Qualis. Therefore, not considering impact factor is not an option.
Anyway, I think IF is an obvious information to taking into account. Mainly for early career scientists, which have limited experience with journals. I don’t know all the journal on my area, so I think it is reasonable for me to use IF as an initial criterium, restricting my options. The problem is not in using IF, is in taking it as the only (or most) important information.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Weekend reads: Bragging about burying bad science; women still underrepresented in Nature; does brilliance justify bad behavior? – Retraction Watch
Thanks for the post, I found it super useful as a PhD student!
I just feel compelled to chime in about your 4th footnote about corporations making a profit from publishing scientific articles and why it upsets people vs corporations making a profit from selling books or groceries. It seems pretty logical people are ticked off that a corporation is making big profits without sharing them with a) the people producing the data and writing the papers nor b) the people who review the papers. This does not happen with publishing books, nor selling groceries. It would be like a grocery store taking produce from a farmer, and instead of paying them, charging them a fee, and then reselling groceries to the farmers at a huge profit- and leaving the farmer to rely on government funding to live and fund their work. It seems inherently unfair and parasitic.
Pingback: Recommended reads #132 | Small Pond Science
Thank you for the post (and thank you to Small Pond Science who directed me here)! I wish I had read it five years ago when my PhD advisor asked me where I wanted to publish my second and third papers (he had basically decided on the first one).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Tweeting to the Science Community: Audience, Content, and Voice | Scientist Sees Squirrel
Pingback: Can you salvage an article published in a predatory journal? – Achilleas Kostoulas
Does anyone know where I can find more info about journals with high acceptance rates. I have been asking around and personally found that two of the higher acceptance rates (both around 50%) are PeerJ (PeerJ (https://peerj.com/)) and JoVE (PUBLISHING PROCESS | JoVE (https://www.jove.com/publish/)). I have also heard that PLOS (accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/)) is around the same acceptance rate as the first two, but then I found this article PLoS Genetics Turns Three: Looking Back, Looking Ahead (https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000135) . Not sure what I make of that, but people who actually published with them told me it was actually as high as JoVE or PLOS, IDK though. Does anyone know of any others that are above 30–40% acceptance rate that I can add to my short list?
Pingback: Sharing the unwritten lore: “Being a Scientist”, by Michael Schmidt | Scientist Sees Squirrel
Pingback: Why my newest paper is paywalled | Scientist Sees Squirrel