The ‘holy grail’ of research seems to be being published in the big shooters, Nature and Science. How does being published in these journals affect your career and how exactly are they better than the many other journals out there?
Papers from less well known journals have also gained huge media coverage such as the recent Alzheimer’s ‘break-though’, this shows that not only nature stories are worth reporting
It’s known that up to 90% of papers submitted to Nature are rejected, is this because they are so selective, that so many people apply craving the prestige or both?
Looking into the topic I’m not the only one thinking about these questions Steven Curry a structural biology professor at ICL also broaches this in his blog Reciprocal Science and it was also a point of debate for this week’s Natures Podcast.
Getting published in these ‘Impact journals’ often leads to better opportunities for grants and funding for an academic, not to mention the doors it opens for a PhD student starting a career. However does this present an unfair advantage against scientists published in less high-status journals?
Impact factors are often a consideration when judging a study as well as topicality which may slant the scales in favour of one group, even if the science behind there results isn’t as solid. This has been discussed by Professor Seglen in 1997 showing that this issue has been lingering for a while.
I suspect there will always be the top dogs of journals.