How does one decide on a journal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sojourner01
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Journal
AI Thread Summary
The selection of a journal for research publication primarily depends on its relevance to the study and the journal's impact factor, which indicates how well-cited it is. Researchers aim to publish in journals that are most likely to be interested in their work while balancing the visibility of their research. Submissions are rarely rejected due to space constraints; instead, the process involves a thorough evaluation, often requiring mentorship to navigate the publication landscape effectively. High-impact journals like Science and Nature demand extraordinary contributions that resonate beyond the immediate field, leading to high rejection rates. Familiarity with the target journal's previous publications is crucial for ensuring alignment with the research caliber.
Sojourner01
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
How is it decided which journal a piece of research is to be sent to for publication? Naturally the journal must be relevant to the area of the research, but there are numerous journals who tend to operate either nationally or internationally with overlapping areas of interest. Is it simply whichever journal the researcher feels is most likely to be interested?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is mainly what journal is most appropriate for that specific research. In addition, there are journals are used more by Russian or European or American physicists. Specifically, nuclear physicists from the US typically publish in PRC, while European nuclear physicists typically publish in the journals Nuclear Physics A or Nuclear Physics B.

You always try to get your article published in the journal that is interested in your research which has the highest impact factor- which is some kind of measure how well cited the journal is.
 
Ah ok, so it's a balance between the desire to get your research seen, and a realistic appraisal of how interesting it actually is - and up to the submitter to decide on the most widely-known journal that has a likelihood of publishing you.

Are submissions ever/often refused flat out on grounds of space?
 
Some journals have max length criteria (don't know if that is what you mean by space). But, typically the submission process takes some time and they will fit your article in soon after it is accepted for publication.

I have never heard anyone being rejected on the grounds of "Sorry, all filled up- no more room in the journal."
 
This is why you need either a mentor or a supervisor who understands not only the technical aspect of the subject matter, but also the "politics" of the system. One tends to start learning and have a feel for it after one is in the field for a while, but before that, a consultation with someone in the same field is the most appropriate thing to do.

Journals such as Science, Nature, and even PRL require a paper that has a significant and extraordinary impact, even beyond the narrow field of study of that area (this is true for Science and Nature). So unless your work has that caliber, your manuscript will not even make it pass the editors who, I think, reject more than half of the submission even before they get to the referees.

Even for specialized journals, you still need to know or have a feel for what level of importance they would want. I have submitted papers to Phys. Rev. B, and often, they were sent to 3 referees, which is a common number for PRL, Nature, and Science. Yet, it has almost the same degree of scrutiny as the other more "prestigious" journals.

The best thing you can do is familiarize yourself with the journals that you wish to submit to. Check if they have published topics in your area, and if the caliber is of the same as what you will be reporting. You want a journal that people in your area are most familiar with and cited often.

Zz.
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
Back
Top