1887

Publishing, Objectivity, and Prestige

    Author: Khaled Moustafa1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Paris, France, Khaled.moustafa@gmail.com
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2016 vol. 17 no. 3 331-332. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1155
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • XML
  • PDF
    117.80 Kb
  • HTML
    19.55 Kb

    Abstract:

    Some journals reject up to 80-90 % of the received manuscripts as they claim in their information to authors. Here, I propose a piece of tongue-in-cheek Instructions for Authors that would reflect some unspoken policies behind such high rejection rates in some 'snobbish' journals.

Key Concept Ranking

Snow
1.0
1.0

Letter

This article contains letter applying to the following content:
Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Volume: 22, Starting page: 367

References & Citations

1. Cottey A2016R educing ethical hazards in knowledge productionSci Eng Ethics22236738910.1007/s11948-015-9651-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9651-3
2. Fischer BA, Grinnell F, Zigmond MJ2014Introductory comments for the scientific ethics themeJ Microbiol Biol Educ1528210.1128/jmbe.v15i2.878 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.878
3. Goldina A, Weeks OI2014Science café course: an innovative means of improving communication skills of undergraduate biology majorsJ Microbiol Biol Educ151131710.1128/jmbe.v15i1.678248395104004733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.678
4. Ioannidis JPA2005Why most published research findings are falsePLoS Med2e12410.1371/journal.pmed.0020124160607221182327 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
5. Kalichman M2014A modest proposal to move RCR education out of the classroom and into researchJ Microbiol Biol Educ152939510.1128/jmbe.v15i2.866 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.866
6. Moustafa K2015Blind manuscript submission to reduce rejection bias?Sci Eng Ethics21253553910.1007/s11948-014-9547-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9547-7
7. Moustafa K2015Is there bias in editorial choice?Yes Scientometrics10532249225110.1007/s11192-015-1617-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1617-3
8. Moustafa K2015A proposal for an ‘equal peer-review’ statementTrends Pharmacol Sci36849449510.1016/j.tips.2015.06.00126112779 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2015.06.001
9. Moustafa K2016A proposal for print-online hybrid publishing systemScientometrics1081649165010.1007/s11192-016-1944-z http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1944-z
10. Oosterhaven J2015Too many journals? Towards a theory of repeated rejections and ultimate acceptanceScientometrics103126126510.1007/s11192-015-1527-4258212814365185 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1527-4
11. Smith R2010Classical peer review: an empty gunBreast Cancer Res12Suppl 4S1310.1186/bcr27423005733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/bcr2742
12. Smith R2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journalsJ R Soc Med99417818210.1258/jrsm.99.4.178165749681420798 http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
13. Spier RE2002Peer review and innovationSci Eng Ethics8199108discussion 109–11210.1007/s11948-002-0035-011840960 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0035-0
14. Spier RE, Poland GA2013What is excellent science and how does it relate to what we publish in Vaccine?Vaccine 315147514810.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.04924012572 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.049
15. Woolley KL, Barron JP2009Handling manuscript rejection: insights from evidence and experienceChest135257357710.1378/chest.08-200719201723 http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.08-2007
16. Zigmond MJ, Fischer BA2014Teaching responsible conduct responsiblyJ Microbiol Biol Educ152838710.1128/jmbe.v15i2.874 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.874
17. journal-id:
jmbe.v17i3.1155.citations
jmbe/17/3
content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1155
Loading

Citations loading...

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1155
2016-12-02
2017-03-30

Abstract:

Some journals reject up to 80-90 % of the received manuscripts as they claim in their information to authors. Here, I propose a piece of tongue-in-cheek Instructions for Authors that would reflect some unspoken policies behind such high rejection rates in some 'snobbish' journals.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/17/3/jmbe-17-331.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1155&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error