1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThen allow me to introduce myself. My name is DoctorScribbles, although you should feel free to call me Doctor.
I have NEVER met a scientist that would make the claim that you have.
You should hang out with better scientists.
To accept more than 25% of phytology or botany papers would be an exercise in mass euthanasia via boredom-incuded comas. It would be a merciful one, of course. I'd rather be dead than a botanist.
You've published "plenty" of articles and never had one of your papers rejected? You are a smart guy, Dr. Scribbles; nevertheless, I find this claim hard to believe.
I am not very familiar with the IEEE. I just googled them and discovered why that might be the case for an economist. How prestigious are these journals within academic circles?
Just for the record, I'm currently 0 for 1 in publication attempts. Hoping to get up to .500 soon.
Originally posted by telerionGood luck man. I'm 2 for 9. I'm hoping to get to four for 11 in the next month.
You've published "plenty" of articles and never had one of your papers rejected? You are a smart guy, Dr. Scribbles; nevertheless, I find this claim hard to believe.
I am not very familiar with the IEEE. I just googled them and discovered why that might be the case for an economist. How prestigious are these journals within academic circles?
Jus ...[text shortened]... r the record, I'm currently 0 for 1 in publication attempts. Hoping to get up to .500 soon.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionI'm not merely a smart guy. I'm a [fornicating] smart guy and I have done some [fornicating] good work.
You've published "plenty" of articles and never had one of your papers rejected? You are a smart guy, Dr. Scribbles; nevertheless, I find this claim hard to believe.
I am not very familiar with the IEEE. I just googled them and discovered why that might be the case for an economist. How prestigious are these journals within academic circles?
Jus ...[text shortened]... r the record, I'm currently 0 for 1 in publication attempts. Hoping to get up to .500 soon.
I'm the Champion of Debates, and that was an achievement attained in my spare time.
IEEE is the best, the gold standard of technological advancements in engineering.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat;d be journals like these?
I'm not merely a smart guy. I'm a [b][fornicating] smart guy and I have done some [fornicating] good work.
I'm the Champion of Debates, and that was an achievement attained in my spare time.
IEEE is the best, the gold standard of technological advancements in engineering.[/b]
10 IEEE AERO EL SYS MAG Impact factor 0.261
11 IEEE T AERO ELEC SYS Impact factor 0.770
I'm alot less surprised that you never had anything rejected now.
New Phyt has an impact factor of 4.2
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzVaht are dese . . . how you say . . . ah eempact faktorz?
That;d be journals like these?
10 IEEE AERO EL SYS MAG Impact factor 0.261
11 IEEE T AERO ELEC SYS Impact factor 0.770
I'm alot less surprised that you never had anything rejected now.
New Phyt has an impact factor of 4.2
Edit: Googled. In the good doctor's defense, this ranking system must be flawed. The American Economic Review should be the #1 science journal.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionImpact factors - the number of times an "average" paper is cited from that journal within 2 years. A higher number means a better journal. Within biological sciences it works somewhat like this;
Vaht are dese . . . how you say . . . ah eempact faktorz?
0 - 1; local journal, limited interest or poor scientific quality.
1 - 2.5; national interest, good scientific quality - limited scope.
2.5+; international standard. Excellence in quality of work and theoretical advancement. Work must be comprehensive and complete.
For my own, I have an aim to always maintain an average 'impact' of over 3. Currently, I'm sitting around 3.7. I also am a reviewer for New Phyt. I, unlike DrS, would not reject an article because they used a poor English phrase or two - not everyone's first language is English - and some people produce excellent science, but can't write well. It is the reviewers job to help the writer through the process, not to crush them for a grammer error.
Originally posted by telerionThe Journal of Economic Literture comes higher, at 5.2 (as opposed 1.9).
Vaht are dese . . . how you say . . . ah eempact faktorz?
Edit: Googled. In the good doctor's defense, this ranking system must be flawed. The American Economic Review should be the #1 science journal.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzHmm . . . well I guess it's a useful tool for natural and physical scientists.
The Journal of Economic Literture comes higher, at 5.2 (as opposed 1.9).
Among economists the AER is the top journal followed by The Journal of Political Economy, Econometrica, The Quarterly Journal of Economics (though this one is losing ground), and then maybe the Review of Economic Studies. The Journal of Economic Literature is second-tier; it's okay, but not career-forwarding (i.e. tenure-inducing 😉 ).
I suppose the broad foundational interconnection between the natural and physical sciences permits more intra-citation among them than inter-citation with the social sciences.
Finally, certainly a referee should not reject an article solely upon the grounds of a few grammatical errors. That's what the "Revise and Resubmit" option is for.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf the number of quotes is the determining relevance factor, it appears as though the Bible is kicking everyone's ass.
Impact factors - the number of times an "average" paper is cited from that journal within 2 years. A higher number means a better journal. Within biological sciences it works somewhat like this;
0 - 1; local journal, limited interest or poor scientific quality.
1 - 2.5; national interest, good scientific quality - limited scope.
2.5+; internat ...[text shortened]... iewers job to help the writer through the process, not to crush them for a grammer error.
Originally posted by telerionISI's Journal Citation Report has the Quarterly Journal of Economy as #1 (IF 4.8). [i]American Economics Review/i] comes in at #15 (IF 1.8). I got the previous figures from a google search (2003 figures), but these figures come from ISI JCR 2005.
Hmm . . . well I guess it's a useful tool for natural and physical scientists.
Among economists the AER is the top journal followed by The Journal of Political Economy, Econometrica, The Quarterly Journal of Economics (though this one is losing ground), and then maybe the Review of Economic Studies. The [i]Journal of Econom ...[text shortened]... grounds of a few grammatical errors. That's what the "Revise and Resubmit" option is for.
Impact factors are great indicators of quality - normally they are very indicative of great quality, cutting edge science. Unfortunately, journals within subjects are only comparible with each other and not across subjects. It very much depends, some subjects don't cite much, some cite lots. A typical scientific paper will have 30 - 40 references.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe QJE is losing ground. People in the field have begun to realize that's it's become a journal for people at Harvard and MIT. Smart people to be sure, but I'm sure that you, as a biologist, know why restricting to such an isolated group would be deleterious over time.
ISI's Journal Citation Report has the Quarterly Journal of Economy as #1 (IF 4.8). American Economics Review/i] comes in at #15 (IF 1.8). I got the previous figures from a google search (2003 figures), but these figures come from ISI JCR 2005.
Impact factors are great indicators of quality - normally they are very indicative of great qual ...[text shortened]... don't cite much, some cite lots. A typical scientific paper will have 30 - 40 references.