Find Easy Journals to Publish In: Tips & Advice

[OpticalPhysics]

I am wondering if anyone has any ideas on what journals are the easiest to publish in. How do you choose a journal to get started in? What do you look for to tell if the process will be quick and easy, and the results not being Earth'shaking. I'm afraid my advisor is not the most helpful person in the world. How do you find out which journals to choose? I really don't care about "reputation" I just want to get something in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

[imabug]

The journals you choose will be largely dictated by the topic and subject matter of your paper. As to what those journals are, if you've done a thorough literature search on what you're planning to write on, then that should give you a starting list of journals to consider for submission. Each of those journals will have some kind of Info for Authors that details all their expectations for submitted papers.

I'm sure others will have more advice to add.

 

[HallsofIvy]

There exist a number of journals published by individual universities. They are typically looking for papers to fill their pages- though that goes up and down. Can't guarantee that there are any that are easy to get into.

(I hope you are not planning to publish your "elementary proof of Fermat's theorem"!)

 

[OpticalPhysics]

Elementary proof of Fermat's last theorem

Hey, how did you know I had one?

Actually, I have some far-less-then-spectacular results I am trying to put together. While these data may be used in later, more complete papers, I want to get familiar with the process and get a line on my rather thin resume. I have thought that it is easier to get published in more specialized journals. I have been unsure where to start. However, the suggestion of doing it in a journal that has articles I have been reviewing makes sense.

Thanks

 

[Monique]

However, the suggestion of doing it in a journal that has articles I have been reviewing makes sense.

I was going to suggest the same thing. You can look up impact factors to make a ranking of journals you are considering, some are here https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-9822_impact_factor_of_physics_journals.html

Side note: those impact factors are low comparing to biology journal impact factors, are there less physicists than biologists or do you guys cite less?

 

[Telos]

(I hope you are not planning to publish your "elementary proof of Fermat's theorem"!)

I'm missing something. Is this something quacks try to do?

Has it been disproved that an "elementary proof" is not possible?

 

[Stingray]

I was going to suggest the same thing. You can look up impact factors to make a ranking of journals you are considering, some are here https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-9822_impact_factor_of_physics_journals.html

Despite being in theoretical physics (specifically gravity), I've never even heard of half of the journals in that link (and never read anything from the remainder). It really strikes home that you need to look through a journal first to see if it fits your needs. Most are rather specialized.

And yes Monique, there are far fewer physicists than biologists. In my field (admittedly on the small side), a big conference might include 100 people. My understanding is that fields like neuroscience can have thousands...

 

[devious_]

I'm missing something. Is this something quacks try to do?

Has it been disproved that an "elementary proof" is not possible?

There was an old thread in the general math forum where the poster claimed he had an elementary proof of FLT. I think that's what HallsofIvy was hinting at.

 

[juvenal]

Despite being in theoretical physics (specifically gravity), I've never even heard of half of the journals in that link (and never read anything from the remainder). It really strikes home that you need to look through a journal first to see if it fits your needs. Most are rather specialized.

And yes Monique, there are far fewer physicists than biologists. In my field (admittedly on the small side), a big conference might include 100 people. My understanding is that fields like neuroscience can have thousands...

Yeah - in all my years of grad school, I've never heard of the concept of the impact factor (or at least remembered hearing of it) until Monique mentioned it in another thread. I think at least in physics (or the areas I'm familiar with), if you do good work within your field, people within your field will know it. Maybe because there are far fewer physicists.

 

[juvenal]

I am wondering if anyone has any ideas on what journals are the easiest to publish in. How do you choose a journal to get started in? What do you look for to tell if the process will be quick and easy, and the results not being Earth'shaking. I'm afraid my advisor is not the most helpful person in the world. How do you find out which journals to choose? I really don't care about "reputation" I just want to get something in a peer-reviewed journal.

Are you in grad school? How big is your group? If you can't get your advisor or someone else in your group to give you any helpful information about a matter as simple as publishing in a journal, then you're in big trouble, and you may seriously want to find another advisor.

However - it doesn't sound like you're in grad school, based on your follow-up post.

 

[Monique]

Yeah - in all my years of grad school, I've never heard of the concept of the impact factor (or at least remembered hearing of it) until Monique mentioned it in another thread. I think at least in physics (or the areas I'm familiar with), if you do good work within your field, people within your field will know it. Maybe because there are far fewer physicists.

A journal's impact factor is a measure of the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period, it basically reveals a journal's importance relative to others in its field. In other words: the usefulness of articles that the journal publishes.

There are many journals with an impact factor of 4 (in biological sciences), the number of journals with an impact factor above 10 are far less, and there are only a few with an impact factor of 20 (e.g. Science, Nature).

Prestige and Impact http://scientific.thomson.com/knowtrend/essays/journalcitationreports/usingimpactfactor/

A journal's reputation may not tell the complete story about its impact on the scholarly community. In fact, a study by Christenson and Sigelman on social science journals suggests quite the opposite. Their research showed that there is a nonlinear relationship between a journal's reputation and its impact, especially at the extremes of the prestige scale. They conclude that citation data "permit scholars to evaluate the importance of journals based not on opinion but on the frequency of citations" and that "frequency of citation implies scholarly acceptance, or at least acknowledgment of importance through utilization of others' work." The researchers go on to mention that "journals have prestige, but their prestige is only derived from the usefulness of the articles they publish."

The JCR® satisfies the need for quantitative measures. It provides a detailed picture of the scientific literature. It shows the journal-to-journal relationships and permits the discerning user to track important trends or changes over the years, such as a shift from pure to applied research. The changes are not always reflected in the names of the journals. For instance, while the title of the Journal of Experimental Medicine conveys one image, its primary focus today is in fact immunology.

 

[ZapperZ]

A journal's impact factor is a measure of the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period, it basically reveals a journal's importance relative to others in its field. In other words: the usefulness of articles that the journal publishes.

There are many journals with an impact factor of 4 (in biological sciences), the number of journals with an impact factor above 10 are far less, and there are only a few with an impact factor of 20 (e.g. Science, Nature).

The problem with ISI's algorithm (or any algorithm for that matter) is that it ignores the large area being covered by some journals, such as Phys. Rev. Lett. PRL covers a huge range of fields, and this includes areas of physics with a small number of memberships, such as Beams and Plasma, etc. It doesn't diminish the importance of such fields, since advancement in FEL, for example, can have wide-ranging impacts. But the citation frequency for papers published in such fields is quite low and so, it brings down the "average" citation number for PRL as a whole. Yet, ask ANY physicist, and getting a paper published in PRL is something they clamor for. Thus, for PRL not being included in the list is a serious flaw in how an "impact" factor is evaluated. Note that for high energy physics experiments, PRL is THE ultimate journal to publish in. Furthermore, Science and Nature are certainly considered as two of the most sought-after avenue for physics publications, and these are not listed either.

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

I too think the ISI algorithm measures something other than the "sought after"ness of a journal. Science, Nature and PRL are nowhere to be seen, and PRB just barely makes it in Cond. Mat ? Clearly, breadth is hurting them.

 

[Monique]

In 2002 Nature had an impact factor of 27.96, Science 23.33, PRL 7.323.

I agree that you should not stare yourself blind on an impact factor rating, it's a statistic.