Academic spam can be funny some times. Who on earth is going to fall for this one?
I had a glance at your profile online and was extremely amazed with your work. I feel you will be an ideal person who helps us for the progress of our Journal. Hence, I am approaching you through this email.
All the authors around the globe are cordially invited to submit any type of the article based upon your research interest for the upcoming edition.
I hope you will consider my request and I wish to have your speedy response in 24 hrs.
Await your cheerful comeback.
👉 So, please, all the authors around the globe, quickly submit any article! I’m sure it’s going to be great, any you’ll have plenty of readers… but note that you’ll have to respond within 24 hours…
Shouldn’t we know more about the journals we submit to? When starting out in academia, I found it quite difficult to judge journals: who reads which journals, what kinds of research is appreciated by which journals, etc. Most journals advertise their impact factors, but that’s probably not the most important information. SciRev is probably the most useful service out there for this (beyond senior colleagues), giving information on the time journals take to make a decision (which of course greatly depends on the reviewers, but also what they let the reviewers get away with), the number of reviewer reports, and some subjective quality score. Some reviews justify their score in a couple of words. What would be even better is if SciRev made its non-profit objectives clearer (it’s run by the SciRev Foundation), user-contributed information on the journals, and perhaps a forum to discuss the scope of journals. Submitting reviews is very easy, by the way!
I have just come across this website: http://thinkchecksubmit.org/ and thought it deserves a wider audience. The “check” section includes useful advise, but I think one item is missing: Does this journal publish the kind of research you do? Browse the table of contents, do a quick search…
One part of being an academic is (trying to) publish research in peer-reviewed journals (well, most do…). There are literally thousands of journals, so which one should we choose? There are different ways to approach this problem, but I’m afraid no easy answers.
Apparently there are scholars who undertake research with a particular journal in mind: the research design and writing process is geared towards this journal. This sounds great, but actually just shifts the problem. Moreover, what do you do when the targeted journal rejects the article?
An easier way is to look at your references. Which journals do you cite most often? Which debates do you relate to? I find this one of the most useful approaches, although one problem is that even simple and unexciting papers often refer to papers in top journals. The challenge is to distinguish between “referring to” a paper, and “engaging with” a paper or debate.
Perhaps easier still is asking a senior colleague in the field. This only works if you know what the contribution of the paper is (or what you want it to be), which usually means having a good abstract in hand. Knowledge of journals comes from reading these journals, but also from having submitted papers to journal. Sites like SciRev, laudable as they are by letting us review journals and the submission process, are, however, no substitute to knowledge of the field. And remember, apparently even the most seasoned academics sometimes get it wrong…