Journal selection advice for publishing my papers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mainframes
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around selecting appropriate journals for publishing research papers, specifically focusing on the suitability of Scientific Reports as a venue for a paper that was initially submitted to Nature Physics. Participants share their experiences and opinions regarding journal selection, editorial feedback, and the characteristics of different journals.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant shares their experience of receiving feedback from Nature Physics, indicating that their paper may not be suitable for a broad readership and suggesting Scientific Reports as an alternative.
  • Another participant notes that Scientific Reports is an NPG journal and suggests that editors may prefer to recommend their own journals over competitors.
  • Concerns are raised about the quality of papers published in Scientific Reports, with one participant mentioning a shift in the journal's review process and the perception of declining standards.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about the significance of their own work and questions whether Scientific Reports is a valid option given the feedback received.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of reading journals regularly when selecting where to publish, but refrains from making specific recommendations without reviewing the paper.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the quality and suitability of Scientific Reports, with some highlighting concerns about its reputation while others suggest it may still be a valid option for certain types of research. There is no consensus on the best journal for the participant's work.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various factors influencing journal selection, including the number and quality of references cited in the paper, the editorial process, and the perceived significance of the research. Limitations in the discussion include the lack of specific evaluations of the participant's paper and the subjective nature of journal quality assessments.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for early-career researchers or those transitioning from industry to academia, particularly in understanding the nuances of journal selection and the editorial process in scientific publishing.

Mainframes
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
How did you find PF?: Google

Hi all,

I completed my PhD close to 20 years ago and have since been in finance. I recently decided to try some research and authored 3 papers. I submitted the first paper to Nature Physics (a bit ambitious I know), and the editor replied saying that "they are unable to conclude that the paper in itself provides the sort of clear advance in scientific understanding that would be likely to excite the immediate interest of a diverse physics readership".

The editor suggested that I present the paper in a journal that publishes more specialised research. At the end of the reply the editor suggested I "consider Scientific Reports journal as a suitable venue for this work".

My questions are:

1) Is Scientific Reports a good journal? I've read some mixed reviews despite its high impact factor.
2) Would the editor only suggest Scientific Reports if they felt it a suitable place for my paper, or is it quite generic and polite for them to suggest another journal?

I don't have experience on the academic publishing side so appreciate the advice. Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
:welcome:
 
PeroK said:
:welcome:
Thank you
 
Welcome to PF. :smile:

Mainframes said:
I submitted the first paper to Nature Physics
How many references did your paper list? What journals were those references from?
 
Scientific Reports is also an NPG journal. They are more likely to point you there than to a competitor, and in any event, it;s not really the job for an editor to find alternative papers for papers they reject.

As a journal, it was a bit of an experiment. The original idea was that it was to be open access, and without Nature's prohibition on confirming or negative results. It then shifted a bit towards a lighter reviewing process, and some lousy papers started getting through, The external board complained, so NPG decided they didn't need one, and so got rid of it. It's probably fair to say that this didn't really improve things.
 
Reply
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: phinds
berkeman said:
Welcome to PF. :smile:How many references did your paper list? What journals were those references from?

Thank you for the reply. 32 references in total split across the below. I added 6 references recently following advice, and also formatted it into the APS following his advice to make it look more professional. I am not sure how much this helps, but I know presentation is important.

Online / not published
7​
Physical Review Letters
5​
Physical Review A
5​
Text book
4​
Reviews of Modern Physics
2​
Nature
2​
Nature Reviews Physics
1​
European Journal of Physics
1​
Nature Physics
1​
EPJ Quantum Technology
1​
Journal of Research of National Institute of Standards and Technology
1​
Applied Physics Reviews
1​
Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical
1​
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
Vanadium 50 said:
Scientific Reports is also an NPG journal. They are more likely to point you there than to a competitor, and in any event, it;s not really the job for an editor to find alternative papers for papers they reject.

As a journal, it was a bit of an experiment. The original idea was that it was to be open access, and without Nature's prohibition on confirming or negative results. It then shifted a bit towards a lighter reviewing process, and some lousy papers started getting through, The external board complained, so NPG decided they didn't need one, and so got rid of it. It's probably fair to say that this didn't really improve things.
Thank you for the feedback, so I understand you would have a slightly negative view of it. Of course, it is likely my work is not of much significance either in which case it is still a potentially a valid route, unless you are advising me to stay well clear of it?
 
I can't say "this paper best fits Journal X" without reading it, and I am not going to do that. I do enough of that as a referee.

The generic advice is "publish in a journal you read regularly".
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mainframes, PhDeezNutz and berkeman

Similar threads

Other Becoming anxious since my paper was submitted to journals
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Senior student publishing a first paper
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Other Your thoughts about "International Journal of Theoretical Physics"
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Journal of Physics: Submit Research Paper on Braneworld
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Where Can I Find Reliable Paper Publishing Advice?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Graduate School Advice regarding Arvix
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Other Changing the editor of my submitted paper
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
What journal should I submit my paper to?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
What does "not suitable" mean? [for a mathematics journal]
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
Is recieving such an email on desk rejection a good sign?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K