1887

Publishing, Objectivity, and Prestige

    Author: Khaled Moustafa1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Paris, France, [email protected]
    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 A 2016 R educing ethical hazards in knowledge production Sci Eng Ethics 22 2 367 389 10.1007/s11948-015-9651-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9651-3
2. Fischer BA, Grinnell F, Zigmond MJ 2014 Introductory comments for the scientific ethics theme J Microbiol Biol Educ 15 2 82 10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.878 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.878
3. Goldina A, Weeks OI 2014 Science café course: an innovative means of improving communication skills of undergraduate biology majors J Microbiol Biol Educ 15 1 13 17 10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.678 24839510 4004733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.678
4. Ioannidis JPA 2005 Why most published research findings are false PLoS Med 2 e124 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 16060722 1182327 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
5. Kalichman M 2014 A modest proposal to move RCR education out of the classroom and into research J Microbiol Biol Educ 15 2 93 95 10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.866 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.866
6. Moustafa K 2015 Blind manuscript submission to reduce rejection bias? Sci Eng Ethics 21 2 535 539 10.1007/s11948-014-9547-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9547-7
7. Moustafa K 2015 Is there bias in editorial choice? Yes Scientometrics 105 3 2249 2251 10.1007/s11192-015-1617-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1617-3
8. Moustafa K 2015 A proposal for an ‘equal peer-review’ statement Trends Pharmacol Sci 36 8 494 495 10.1016/j.tips.2015.06.001 26112779 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2015.06.001
9. Moustafa K 2016 A proposal for print-online hybrid publishing system Scientometrics 108 1649 1650 10.1007/s11192-016-1944-z http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1944-z
10. Oosterhaven J 2015 Too many journals? Towards a theory of repeated rejections and ultimate acceptance Scientometrics 103 1 261 265 10.1007/s11192-015-1527-4 25821281 4365185 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1527-4
11. Smith R 2010 Classical peer review: an empty gun Breast Cancer Res 12 Suppl 4 S13 10.1186/bcr2742 3005733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/bcr2742
12. Smith R 2006 Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals J R Soc Med 99 4 178 182 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178 16574968 1420798 http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
13. Spier RE 2002 Peer review and innovation Sci Eng Ethics 8 1 99 108 discussion 109–112 10.1007/s11948-002-0035-0 11840960 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0035-0
14. Spier RE, Poland GA 2013 What is excellent science and how does it relate to what we publish in Vaccine? Vaccine 31 5147 5148 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.049 24012572 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.049
15. Woolley KL, Barron JP 2009 Handling manuscript rejection: insights from evidence and experience Chest 135 2 573 577 10.1378/chest.08-2007 19201723 http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.08-2007
16. Zigmond MJ, Fischer BA 2014 Teaching responsible conduct responsibly J Microbiol Biol Educ 15 2 83 87 10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.874 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.874
17. journal-id:

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1155
2016-12-02
2019-04-21

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