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.

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
2020-07-06

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