Are open access journals legit for my CV?

  • #51
2. For the journal 'Universe' it is listed in Scimago. It has an impact factor of around 2.00 which is good. Its H-index is 16 which means it has published at least 16 papers each of which is cited at least 16 times so far. H index of Universe is not so good. Its SJR score is 0.72 which placed it in the second quartile. Moreover, nearly 40% of all the papers published so far in 'Universe' are yet to receive any citation. In short it is a mediocre peer reviewed academic journal and you can go for it . Find out more at the link: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100903488&tip=sid&clean=0

But then how do you reconcile it with the fact that Journal Universe contacted me regarding my arXiv paper which, according to Dr.AbeNikIanEdL, is a bad sign (see Reply number 17)
 
  • #52
But then how do you reconcile it with the fact that Journal Universe contacted me regarding my arXiv paper which, according to Dr.AbeNikIanEdL, is a bad sign (see Reply number 17)

Yes it is usually true that a journal in the second quartile does not generally hunt for papers like this. But, being established in 2015 it has already published some articles that are cited nearly 100 times which is not an easy feat. I have attached a few of its highly cited articles for your review. You may dive into a few of them to judge the quality of some of its best shots.

1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...nsolved+Questions+and+Future+Directions&btnG=

2. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ini+Gravity&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=nF3ZWdLJth0J

3. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...+and+Partially+Massless+Bimetric+Theory&btnG=

4. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ennial+Year&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=FvAMave3sPoJ

5. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...R)+Theories&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=tTBTf8tykyAJ

The list is in no way conclusive. They are cited very well and have also received some influential citations. For your pleasure you may go to the google scholar, search out their top shots, look at their citation counts and check from where these citations have come.
 
  • #54
atyy
Science Advisor
14,693
3,172
My 2 cents: this seems such an obvious scam that I am puzzled the discussion continues.

IJQF has articles by Nicolas Gisin and Claus Kiefer, both of whom are serious scientists. Schlosshauer, who is on the editorial board, is the author of a famous review on decoherence.
https://www.ijqf.org/archives/1397
https://www.ijqf.org/archives/5309
https://www.ijqf.org/editorial-board

I think the comment of @DrClaude in post #32 is more to the point, if indeed there are serious errors in an accepted manuscript.
 
  • #55
220
101
My take is, after this statement of an editor:

3. The answer is partially true, since I don't believe in much the peer review process based on my 30 years experience in the field. (Some of my own papers have been rejected by the oponents for many years) [...] I usually just asked a member to check the math details. This is an advantage of IJQF. I think the credibility is based on the real value of a paper, not on the opinions of the reviewers. Besides, many members of IJQF will read the papers pubished in the journal, since I also have a weekly email sevice for the more than 200 members.

the journal really looses any credibility. There is no reason to trust an article published in that way any more than one just uploaded to the arxive. I don't really see how names of other scientists being attached to the journal in one or the other way changes anything. If you know that there is no proper review, you are really just trying to get a "published" stamp on your article in the hope to trick someone into thinking that it has been reviewed.
 
  • #56
Dr. Courtney
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2020 Award
3,332
2,512
But then how do you reconcile it with the fact that Journal Universe contacted me regarding my arXiv paper which, according to Dr.AbeNikIanEdL, is a bad sign (see Reply number 17)

The question in the OP is whether a given journal is legit for a CV.

Usually, those reviewing a CV only have the publicly available information on the journal - its publication history, reputation, impact factor, citations, editorial board, etc. They probably would not know if the journal occasionally solicits papers from what has been posted at arXiv.

Another important factor that has been underappreciated in this thread is the differences between different audiences (hiring committees, etc.) reviewing a CV. A hiring committee for a tenure track position at an R1 university is probably going to view it more negatively if an applicant with few publications has a history of publishing in journals of very low reputation. Hiring committees in industry and schools with more of a teaching focus may not even have a hard look at the reputation of the journals on one's CV.

When I served on the faculty of the Air Force Academy, for example, applications for employment and tenure were not often given serious scrutiny regarding journal reputation. The two main questions considered were:

1. Is the journal peer-reviewed?
2. How many times as the article been cited?

This the most widely cited paper on my CV (166 citations) got dinged, because the highly regarded journal in which it was published (Medical Hypotheses) was not peer reviewed at the time.

My co-author and I have no regrets submitting it there, though. It was an appropriate and timely work and submitting it to Medical Hypotheses allowed it to be published in a timely manner and was simply the most appropriate journal in terms of scope.
 
  • #57
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
27,661
11,880
Dr. Courtney, you seem to be assuming this is a legit journal. The evidence that this is the case is not exactly overwhelming.
 
  • #58
Dr. Courtney
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2020 Award
3,332
2,512
Dr. Courtney, you seem to be assuming this is a legit journal. The evidence that this is the case is not exactly overwhelming.

I'm not assuming anything about this specific journal, but rather trying to provide more general advice that may be applied to a broad range of journals. My focus is on the question in the thread title, rather than "Is journal YYY legit?"

I don't see journal quality or reputation as binary - "legit or not", I see it as a continuous scale that will be viewed differently by different parties evaluating CVs. An ample case has been made by others that the specific journal raised by the OP is on the lower end of the scale to many parties.

But over the next decade, the thread title will attract a readership with an interest in how the question applies to different journals. PF and similar forums have many more "lurkers" that glean the info they need from search functions rather than repeating similar questions. My answers above have them in mind, as well as informing the OP how other journals may be viewed by those reading their CV. The question of "How do I pick a journal to submit to?" comes up often, and I don't think it wise to limit the discussion to a single journal here, since the principles are more general.
 
  • #59
Dr. Courtney said:
Another important factor that has been underappreciated in this thread is the differences between different audiences (hiring committees, etc.) reviewing a CV. A hiring committee for a tenure track position at an R1 university is probably going to view it more negatively if an applicant with few publications has a history of publishing in journals of very low reputation. Hiring committees in industry and schools with more of a teaching focus may not even have a hard look at the reputation of the journals on one's CV.

Thats a good point. So let me be more specific on where I want to get hired. On the one hand, I want to get hired at the research university but, on the other hand, I know I won't make it to top tear, so I am shooting for lower tears research universities. I am also open to other theoretical research positions outside universities. One example of non-university theoretical research is Perimeter Institute. Another possibility is to do theoretical physics in either math department or philosophy department. And another possibility is applying to third world countries. Basically I want to do theoretical physics but at the same time there is too much competition for me to have a reasonable chance (unless my number of publications drastically improves) so I would like to find a way to bipass that competition if at all possible. So if you have any suggestions please let me know.

Dr. Courtney said:
My focus is on the question in the thread title, rather than "Is journal YYY legit?"

Actually, in the thread title, I "was" intending to ask "Is journal YYY legit". But, like you said, there is a question on how do you define legit. So I fugured at the moment that my ability to cite it on a CV might be one way to define it. Thats why I phrased the title the way I did.

Dr. Courtney said:
I don't see journal quality or reputation as binary - "legit or not",

But what about the journals that actually are listed on the "predatory journal list" (this one isn't listed there, but I am just trying to give more extreme example). Do you think these journals are also in a gray area?

Dr. Courtney said:
An ample case has been made by others that the specific journal raised by the OP is on the lower end of the scale to many parties.

On the lower end of the scale is not as bad as outright illegitimate. Suppose for example we have a journal with a very low impact factor. That journal would be on the lower end of the scale, but it would still be legit. On the other hand, a journal on the predatory journal list is not legit. Hence, publishing something in the former journal is "better" than publishing something on the latter.

One of the biggest things I was asking is which category should I classify that journal by? Is it legitimate journal on the lower end of the scale, or is it a fake journal? Thats what I was trying to ask.

Dr. Courtney said:
But over the next decade, the thread title will attract a readership with an interest in how the question applies to different journals. PF and similar forums have many more "lurkers" that glean the info they need from search functions rather than repeating similar questions. My answers above have them in mind, as well as informing the OP how other journals may be viewed by those reading their CV. The question of "How do I pick a journal to submit to?" comes up often, and I don't think it wise to limit the discussion to a single journal here, since the principles are more general.

Is there a way for you to split your answer in two parts: one part dealing with that specific journal and the other part with more general advice? Because I do want to know the answer about the specific journal -- even though more general advice will help too.
 
  • #60
Dr. Courtney
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2020 Award
3,332
2,512
Basically I want to do theoretical physics but at the same time there is too much competition for me to have a reasonable chance (unless my number of publications drastically improves) so I would like to find a way to bipass that competition if at all possible. So if you have any suggestions please let me know.

Do you want to "do" theoretical physics or do you want to get "PAID" for a job that is mostly doing theoretical physics. If you want to "do" theoretical physics, then get some teaching experience before you graduate, and get a job teaching physics at a teaching focused college. After your first couple of years, you'll have about 10 hours a week during the semesters and 40 hours a week during the summers to "do" theoretical physics.

Getting "PAID" to do theoretical physics is a much taller order that only the very best manage to accomplish. You have not made the kind of impression here on PF that you're a great prospect for that career.

Actually, in the thread title, I "was" intending to ask "Is journal YYY legit". But, like you said, there is a question on how do you define legit. So I fugured at the moment that my ability to cite it on a CV might be one way to define it. Thats why I phrased the title the way I did.

You've gotten ample feedback here that the specific journal in question is not likely to be viewed favorably by those reviewing your CV for positions in theoretical physics.

But what about the journals that actually are listed on the "predatory journal list" (this one isn't listed there, but I am just trying to give more extreme example). Do you think these journals are also in a gray area?

I prefer to think for myself regarding the quality of journals in physics and the other fields in which I have published. I don't need a librarian doing the thinking for me. I learn more from an hour perusing a journal for myself that from simply whether or not a librarian has added it to a list meeting certain criteria. But at the same time, I realize others may give the librarian's list undue weight without more careful consideration of a given journal.

At the same time, many of the journals on that list are complete junk based on the quality of what they've published.

One of the biggest things I was asking is which category should I classify that journal by? Is it legitimate journal on the lower end of the scale, or is it a fake journal? Thats what I was trying to ask.

Is there a way for you to split your answer in two parts: one part dealing with that specific journal and the other part with more general advice? Because I do want to know the answer about the specific journal -- even though more general advice will help too.

You've gotten plenty of good advice from a number of PhD Physicists, and you seem strongly inclined to ignore their advice regarding that specific journal. Therefore, I'm not inclined to make the effort to conduct an independent investigation and add my opinion to the list you seem most likely to ignore. One wonders if you are simply fishing for one opinion that agrees with your predetermined course of action.
 
  • #61
My take is, after this statement of an editor:



the journal really looses any credibility. There is no reason to trust an article published in that way any more than one just uploaded to the arxive. I don't really see how names of other scientists being attached to the journal in one or the other way changes anything. If you know that there is no proper review, you are really just trying to get a "published" stamp on your article in the hope to trick someone into thinking that it has been reviewed.

Well, if there is a seeming contradiction then it means that we are confused about something which calls for further discussion to see where the confusion is.

As far as my earlier question about editorial board, you already answered it: they could have lied and wrote that Rovelli is on that board when he isn't really there (as evident from the fact that on Rovelli's own page he doesn't list that journal).

But now there is a different question. What about the scientists that actually send their papers there? Are you saying that they aren't really their papers and they didn't really send them there, and the journal just put their names in order to self-promote? Or if, indeed, they did sent their papers there, what would be their motivation to do so?
 
  • #62
Do you want to "do" theoretical physics or do you want to get "PAID" for a job that is mostly doing theoretical physics. If you want to "do" theoretical physics, then get some teaching experience before you graduate, and get a job teaching physics at a teaching focused college. After your first couple of years, you'll have about 10 hours a week during the semesters and 40 hours a week during the summers to "do" theoretical physics.

Getting "PAID" to do theoretical physics is a much taller order that only the very best manage to accomplish. You have not made the kind of impression here on PF that you're a great prospect for that career.

i want to get paid to do theoretical physics. I agree that so far I wasn't doing well in this regard. But I would like to make whatever changes necessary in the future to increase this possibility.

I prefer to think for myself regarding the quality of journals in physics and the other fields in which I have published. I don't need a librarian doing the thinking for me. I learn more from an hour perusing a journal for myself that from simply whether or not a librarian has added it to a list meeting certain criteria. But at the same time, I realize others may give the librarian's list undue weight without more careful consideration of a given journal.

Since most people don't have time to do a research regarding the journal some random person has published at, what would statistically count is something that is up at the surface easy for all to see -- and that is precisely what the librarian would be looking at.

You've gotten plenty of good advice from a number of PhD Physicists, and you seem strongly inclined to ignore their advice regarding that specific journal. Therefore, I'm not inclined to make the effort to conduct an independent investigation and add my opinion to the list you seem most likely to ignore. One wonders if you are simply fishing for one opinion that agrees with your predetermined course of action.

I didn't ignore that advice. Case in point: the editor of that journal took my correspondence as an indication that I don't want that paper published there. I didn't correct him. Why not? Because of the advice I was given in this thread. If it wasn't for the advice, this paper would have been published by now (I was given 48 hour deadline to approve the proofs and its already been 4 days or so). The reason why this didn't happen is because of the feedback I received.

If I ask further questions this doesn't mean I ignore the feedback.
 
  • #63
220
101
Well, if there is a seeming contradiction then it means that we are confused about something which calls for further discussion to see where the confusion is.
But now there is a different question. What about the scientists that actually send their papers there? [...]

What? I said, with what you have reported so far, it does not matter for my opinion about this journal who is associated with it in whatever way. Where do you see a "seeming contradiction"?
 
  • #64
Dr. Courtney
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2020 Award
3,332
2,512
Since most people don't have time to do a research regarding the journal some random person has published at, what would statistically count is something that is up at the surface easy for all to see -- and that is precisely what the librarian would be looking at.

I don't care about the reputation of journals "some random person" has published at. I need a specific reason to care enough to render an informed opinion.

If I'm on a hiring committee or otherwise evaluating a CV, I care about the quality of the person's scientific abilities. I'm going to read a few of their scientific papers and not pay attention to the journals or their reputations. The papers they wrote contain much more valuable information for the decision my evaluation matters for than other papers in the same journals.

The only case where the quality of a journal matters to me is when I'm advising a student whose research I've mentored or advising my co-authors regarding which journal may best fit our needs in publishing. In either case, by this stage, I've acquired enough knowledge in a field to spend an hour or so reading papers from each candidate journal to get an idea of the journal's suitability for the paper in question.

As I explained before, I view these decisions as trade-offs between possible delays in publication if one aims too high (and the paper gets rejected) and possible not optimizing the opportunity to enhance a student's or colleague's career (if one aims too low). Just because I don't care about journal reputation when reviewing applications doesn't mean no one else does. Early in their careers, students and scientists with only a few publications may benefit from publishing in more highly regarded journals, because lots of committee members seldom look beyond journal reputation.
 
  • #65
What? I said, with what you have reported so far, it does not matter for my opinion about this journal who is associated with it in whatever way. Where do you see a "seeming contradiction"?

Contradiction between these two things:

a) The fact that editor does not do proper peer review indicates that the journal is fake

b) The fact that high profile scientists publish there indicates that it isn't.
 
  • #66
If I'm on a hiring committee or otherwise evaluating a CV, I care about the quality of the person's scientific abilities. I'm going to read a few of their scientific papers and not pay attention to the journals or their reputations. The papers they wrote contain much more valuable information for the decision my evaluation matters for than other papers in the same journals.

But then why is it considered essential to get a paper published in a journal instead of just leaving it in the arXiv?
 
  • #67
Dr. Courtney
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2020 Award
3,332
2,512
But then why is it considered essential to get a paper published in a journal instead of just leaving it in the arXiv?

Because not everyone thinks like I do when it comes to evaluating a body of work.

As I mentioned above, when it came to faculty hiring and promotion, the Air Force Academy had two main questions for each publication listed:
1. Was it in a peer-reviewed journal?
2. How many times has it been cited?

I've got several papers that have only been published at arXiv, and I've noticed my papers in peer-reviewed journals get a lot more citations. Many authors are reluctant to cite papers that are not in peer-reviewed journals. (I'm not.)

Knowing how academia and the professional world works, I could not in good conscience recommend to students or colleagues they be content having all their published papers only in arXiv.

I have the professional confidence to have a few papers arXiv-only (or other unreviewed places) since I'm in the second half of my career and I have a lot of papers in top-tier journals.

Most students and early career scientists would do well to have at least half their papers in peer-reviewed journals.
 
  • #68
Because not everyone thinks like I do when it comes to evaluating a body of work.

As I mentioned above, when it came to faculty hiring and promotion, the Air Force Academy had two main questions for each publication listed:
1. Was it in a peer-reviewed journal?
2. How many times has it been cited?

I've got several papers that have only been published at arXiv, and I've noticed my papers in peer-reviewed journals get a lot more citations. Many authors are reluctant to cite papers that are not in peer-reviewed journals. (I'm not.)

Knowing how academia and the professional world works, I could not in good conscience recommend to students or colleagues they be content having all their published papers only in arXiv.

I have the professional confidence to have a few papers arXiv-only (or other unreviewed places) since I'm in the second half of my career and I have a lot of papers in top-tier journals.

Most students and early career scientists would do well to have at least half their papers in peer-reviewed journals.

So then I could phrase my question this way. Consider three papers, all published by someone in the early stage of the career:

Paper A was posted in the arXiv and wasn't published in any journal

Paper B was posted in arXiv and -- in addition to that -- was published in one of the jounrals that is listed in the "predatory journal" list

Paper C was posted in arXiv and -- in addition to that -- was published in IJQF (the one we were talking about in this thread)

From what I gathered, all three would be viewed unfavorably. But would they be viewed "equally unfavorably" or would there be differences between just how unfavorably they are looked at?

And I realize you mentioned that you tend to focus more on the content while others on the committee tend to focus more on the source. So, in this context, I would like to know about the way others in the committe would see it.
 
  • #69
Dr. Courtney
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2020 Award
3,332
2,512
So then I could phrase my question this way. Consider three papers, all published by someone in the early stage of the career:

Paper A was posted in the arXiv and wasn't published in any journal

Paper B was posted in arXiv and -- in addition to that -- was published in one of the jounrals that is listed in the "predatory journal" list

Paper C was posted in arXiv and -- in addition to that -- was published in IJQF (the one we were talking about in this thread)

From what I gathered, all three would be viewed unfavorably. But would they be viewed "equally unfavorably" or would there be differences between just how unfavorably they are looked at?

And I realize you mentioned that you tend to focus more on the content while others on the committee tend to focus more on the source. So, in this context, I would like to know about the way others in the committe would see it.

I could not in good conscience encourage a student or scientist early in their careers to put themselves in any of the above situations you seem to be contemplating.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #70
atyy
Science Advisor
14,693
3,172
Last edited:
  • #71
What is considered proper peer review varies from field to field, and from person to person. And one can have inadequate peer review at reputable journals.

So I guess the issue is for the journal in question to *usually* have good peer review with most of its *other* papers.

If one has bad peer review in a journal that usually has good peer reviews, then one gets really lucky. Their paper gets all this credibility for nothing.

If, on the other hand, one has good peer review in a journal that usually has bad peer reviews, then one gets really un-lucky. Not only they had to go through all those struggles to get their paper published, but their paper isn't trusted once it was.
 
  • #72
Dr. Courtney
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2020 Award
3,332
2,512
So I guess the issue is for the journal in question to *usually* have good peer review with most of its *other* papers.

If one has bad peer review in a journal that usually has good peer reviews, then one gets really lucky. Their paper gets all this credibility for nothing.

If, on the other hand, one has good peer review in a journal that usually has bad peer reviews, then one gets really un-lucky. Not only they had to go through all those struggles to get their paper published, but their paper isn't trusted once it was.

In the long run, most good science usually gets due credit regardless of the reputation of the journal of record or peer-review issues. As I mentioned before, my most highly cited paper (100+ citations) was not even in a peer-reviewed journal.

Another paper that was not peer-reviewed has exceeded my expectations with a couple dozen citations even though it was published in a little known journal (Physics in Canada) in reply to a review article by a much better known physicist. Although his lifetime citations dwarf my own, to date my published reply to his review has about 4 times more citations than his original review.

Most of my other non peer-reviewed papers have less than 10 citations. But in many cases they have pointed out mistakes and errors in peer-reviewed papers, and consequently they have had a significant impact in "encouraging" scientists in those field to be more careful.

My point is, in the long run, the scientific community takes note when one publishes something that is correct, important, and useful. The status of the journal and whether or not the article was peer-reviewed are less important once the broader scientific community takes notice.

There are a couple of cases when I published papers (alone or with a co-author) that have not hardly been cited at all, yet have been influential. One paper's influence can be measured not by its citations but rather by the thousands of downloads of the analysis code it describes. Another paper's influence is recognized because it was plagiarized and it's novel method copied exactly.

Spend more time doing good work and less time counting the beans. If you do good enough scientific work, the beans will flow.
 
  • #73
atyy
Science Advisor
14,693
3,172
So I guess the issue is for the journal in question to *usually* have good peer review with most of its *other* papers.

If one has bad peer review in a journal that usually has good peer reviews, then one gets really lucky. Their paper gets all this credibility for nothing.

If, on the other hand, one has good peer review in a journal that usually has bad peer reviews, then one gets really un-lucky. Not only they had to go through all those struggles to get their paper published, but their paper isn't trusted once it was.

Ultimately, the paper is either right or wrong, and it is the author that is responsible for it. Sometimes it can take a long time to figure out what is happening.

This paper probably had reasonable peer review, but the authors reported a possible problem with the results more than a year after publication.
https://www.tudelft.nl/en/2020/tnw/...t-quantized-majorana-conductance-publication/

Wiles's first claim to have proved Fermat's last theorem was found to be flawed by peer review, but the level of peer review in that field is probably more stringent than in many other fields.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles's_proof_of_Fermat's_Last_Theorem
 
  • #74
Spend more time doing good work and less time counting the beans. If you do good enough scientific work, the beans will flow.

But you have, yourself, said earlier that at the early stage of the career the reputation of journals is important. So how does this go together with your current advice?
 
  • #75
Ultimately, the paper is either right or wrong, and it is the author that is responsible for it.

The work being "right" doesn't warrant the publication. For example, if I submit a correct solution to a homework problem, nobody will publish it. In addition to being right, it has to be "interesting" and "important". The latter two things are subjective and depend on the judgement of the referees.
 

Related Threads on Are open access journals legit for my CV?

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
890
Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
Top