The Publication Game in the Aquatic Sciences– an Editor in Chief’s Perspective
The Publication Game in the Aquatic Sciences
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13236541Keywords:
Scientific Manuscripts, Academic publishing, Gamification, Submission, Procedures, Editorial decisionsAbstract
The editorial in the last issue was evocative and thought provoking (Steinberg, 2024). Consequently, it is appropriate to include an Editor in Chief’s perspective on the manuscripts that are received and considered for publication. It is realized that the publication process is stressful for the authors, but success is euphoric. Authors strive to publish in top class refereed international journals with success contributing to career security and advancement. The utopian desire of editors is to publish well-written manuscripts describing excellent work that will be well received by the readership and contribute to the all-important journal metrics. In short, we live in a period dominated by impact factors, and the number of citations, article downloads and reads. There may be contractual obligations with the publisher regarding the number of articles to be accepted and published within a defined period. In short, there is pressure on editors and authors. So, what is the reality of the situation. To dispel one myth, not all submissions lead to publications. It is not unusual that only a small minority of the submissions are actually published.
The developments in the publication process have been met with a veritable explosion in the number of manuscripts submitted to journals posing tremendous pressure on the editors to deal with them in a timely manner for the benefit of authors and journals alike. Many submissions will be culled during the initial quality checks. The rest need to be assessed in terms of the content. This is the principle role of the editors and referees. However, for the system to work effectively, referees need to provide fair, impartial comment. We do not need false praise from “friends” or antagonistic comments from competitors. The reports guide the editor to make informed judgements. Could the process by improved? Well, we are certainly open to suggestions! There are clearly interesting times ahead.
References
Gulumbe, B. H., Audu, S. M., & Hashim, A. M. (2024). Balancing AI and academic integrity: what are the positions of academic publishers and universities?. AI & Society, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145
Khalifa, M., & Albadawy, M. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update, 100145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145
Steinberg, C. E. (2024). Where Have All the Good Editors Gone? - A Necessary Polemic. Sustainable Aquatic Research, 3(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10890507
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.