Discussion Overview
The discussion centers around the question of which astrophysical journal is considered the best for publishing research. Participants explore various aspects of journal selection, including publication fees, selectivity, turnaround times, and the suitability of specific journals for different types of papers.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Technical explanation
- Exploratory
Main Points Raised
- One participant notes a limited number of choices among international astrophysical journals and mentions that some charge fees for publishing.
- Another participant raises the distinction between the best journals for subscribing versus those for article submission, highlighting a tradeoff between selectivity and turnaround time for submissions.
- A suggestion is made to consider Arxiv as a starting point for publication, particularly for those new to publishing in astrophysics.
- A later reply reiterates the suggestion of Arxiv but adds that journals require introducers for submissions, mentioning the General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology journal as a potential fit for their paper.
- The same participant expresses uncertainty about the acceptance of their paper currently under review by the International Journal of Theoretical Physics and Reports on Progress in Physics, noting a lengthy review process without a decision.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants do not reach a consensus on which journal is the best, and multiple competing views regarding journal selection and suitability remain present throughout the discussion.
Contextual Notes
Participants express uncertainty regarding the acceptance of papers in specific journals and the implications of publication fees and review times, which may affect their choices.