The Publication Game in the Aquatic Sciences– an Editor in Chief’s Perspective

The Publication Game in the Aquatic Sciences

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13236541

Keywords:

Scientific Manuscripts, Academic publishing, Gamification, Submission, Procedures, Editorial decisions

Abstract

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

2024-08-31

How to Cite

Austin, B., & Can, E. (2024). The Publication Game in the Aquatic Sciences– an Editor in Chief’s Perspective: The Publication Game in the Aquatic Sciences. Sustainable Aquatic Research, 3(2), 77–80. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13236541

Issue

Section

Editorial

Most read articles by the same author(s)