Owan Valentine

COMPLEXITIES INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING IN REPUTABLE JOURNALS

Publishing in Reputable journals can involve various complexities that emerging researchers should be aware of. These include:

1. Quality Standards: Reputable journals typically have strict quality standards and peer-review processes. Getting accepted in such journals often requires high-quality research that meets the rigorous standards set by the journal's editorial board and reviewers. For instance, the Web of Science and Scopus databases consistently enforces their quality assurance policies on both newly accepted and previously indexed journals. Journals found wanting are discontinued from coverage, albeit they can be readmitted if it is evident that such journals have turned a new leaf.

2. Competitive Landscape: Reputable journals receive many submissions, leading to increased competition for publication slots. Researchers may face challenges in standing out among the numerous submissions received by these journals. Thus, there is a high rate of rejections among Reputable journals. Today, many journals advertise their rejection rates on their websites; the higher the rejection rate, the tougher it is to publish. Publishing in a journal with a high rejection rate is gradually gaining popularity as a sign of quality, even though the number has no intrinsic value.

3. Lengthy Review Process: Peer-review processes in reputable journals can be time-consuming. It may take several months or even longer for reviewers to evaluate the submission and provide feedback. This lengthy review period can delay the publication of research findings. Therefore, authors seeking to publish in reputable journals must start their journey early enough.

4. Revisions and Resubmissions: It is common for researchers to receive revision requests from reviewers, regardless of author status or affiliation. There can be minor or major revision requests from journal editors and/or reviewers. Addressing these comments and making necessary revisions can be time-consuming and may require additional experiments or analyses.

SALAMI SLICING: A HINDRANCE TO THE PUBLICATION OF ACADEMIC ARTICLES IN REPUTABLE JOURNALS

In my few years of interacting with academics seeking to publish in high-quality and well-respected publications, the issue of rejection is very pervasive. Most scholars have admitted to receiving as many as 40 rejections across their several articles in a Calendar. Nevertheless, facing rejections in the publication process is an academic culture that every scholar must get accustomed to since, as I used to say, "no one is bigger than a rejection." However, the reason(s) for specific rejections should be a cause for concern, and of course, receiving too many rejections from different publication attempts is another. When people come to me with frustrations over their rejections, I contextualize by looking at the paper to ascertain why they were rejected. As a reviewer for several leading journals in my field and other related areas, I also reject papers for many reasons. One common trend accounting for over 50% (An estimated value from intuition and not backed by any evidence) of the rejections these people get or that reviewers met out is the problem of "salami slicing".

Salami slicing, also known as "slice and dice" or "least publishable unit" (LPU) publishing, is a practice where researchers break up a larger study into several smaller publications, often with minor variations, in order to increase the number of publications and boost their academic record. For instance, a fresh doctoral graduate once discussed the possibility of publishing eight papers from his dissertation with eight variables and/or hypotheses so that each hypothesis or research question would stand as a paper. The trend of salami slicing is pervasive in Nigeria; perhaps it was an inherited culture from the previous generation of scholars (where print publications were rampant). Most papers in many Nigerian journals (in my field) have been published under this framework.

However, most celebrated scholars are facing a torrid experience publishing in reputable journals, especially when publications in journals indexed in Web of Science or Scopus are now used for assessment, promotion and funding by some Nigerian institutions, aligning with global best practices. The salami slicing that once worked for local journal publications is now witch-hunting most scholars at the international level. In fact, it has unintentionally and indirectly prevented many academics from getting published with the "big guys" (top publishers or journals).

The question is, how can/does salami slicing prevent me from publishing in top journals? The simple answer is that this practice can lead to increased journal rejection rates for several reasons.

Firstly, salami slicing can lead to a proliferation of articles with similar content, which can be seen as redundant by journal editors and reviewers. This can be frustrating for journals, which have limited space and resources to devote to publishing articles, and readers, who may be exposed to the same content multiple times. As a result, editors and reviewers may be more inclined to reject articles that appear to be minor variations on previously published work.

Secondly, salami slicing can result in a lack of coherence and depth in each publication. When a larger study is broken up into smaller pieces, each publication may lack the necessary detail and context to stand alone as a complete study. This can lead to confusion and frustration for readers, who may have to read multiple publications to understand the research fully. In addition, editors and reviewers may be more likely to reject articles that lack a clear focus or fail to provide sufficient detail.

Thirdly, salami slicing can raise concerns about the integrity of the research. When researchers break up a larger study into multiple publications, they may be tempted to present the results in a way that is more favourable or sensationalized than if they were presenting the entire study as a whole. This can lead to accusations of selective reporting or data manipulation, damaging the researchers' reputations and leading to journal rejection.

Fourthly, salami slicing can be seen as a sign of a lack of originality or creativity in the research. When researchers resort to breaking up a larger study into smaller pieces, it may suggest that they cannot generate enough original ideas or data to support a full publication. This can be a red flag for journal editors and reviewers, who may be looking for innovative and groundbreaking research to publish.

Finally, salami slicing can also lead to a higher rejection rate because it can be seen as a violation of ethical standards in academic publishing. Some journals have policies against salami slicing and may reject articles that appear to be part of a larger study divided into multiple publications. This can be particularly problematic in fields where publication records are closely scrutinized, such as in academic faculty's tenure and promotion process.

In conclusion, salami slicing can lead to increased journal rejection rates for several reasons, including redundancy, lack of coherence and depth, integrity concerns, originality, and ethical concerns. Salami slicing also affects citation rates and other metrics, such as the journal's impact factor (at the journal level) and h-index (at the author level). As such, researchers should be cautious about resorting to salami slicing and instead strive to present their research in a complete, coherent, and innovative way.

Valentine Owan
Follow my page for more updates at https://web.facebook.com/VowanBoss/

Owan Valentine Researcher | Data Analyst | Psychometrician | Mentor | Teacher

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCOPUS AND SCIMAGO DEMYSTIFIED

Over the last few years, there has been a proliferation in how scholars use the terms "Scopus" and "Scimago." I noticed that most academic institutions in some developing countries, especially African ones, are not using these terms appropriately. As an aftermath, most of these institutions have made grave mistakes that cost some people their promotion opportunities. It is common to hear scholars say, "I have about three Scopus and four Scimago papers" Really? Each time I hear this, I get pi**ed off. However, there are many instances where I have had reasons to sit some academics down and explain the relationship and differences between these two bibliographic databases. Today, I have decided to clarify the relationship between them in writing.

Scopus and Scimago are two popular bibliographic databases widely used by researchers, librarians, and academic institutions. While they are related, they serve different purposes and have distinct features.

Scopus is a bibliographic database that indexes scholarly literature in various fields, including science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and humanities. It is owned by Elsevier and is one of the largest citation databases, containing over 75 million records of scholarly articles, conference proceedings, and books. Scopus provides tools for citation analysis, allowing researchers to track the impact of their work and identify influential publications in their field.

Scimago, on the other hand, is a web platform that uses data from Scopus to provide metrics and rankings of academic journals, research institutions, and countries. It was developed by the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) and is freely available to users. Scimago uses a range of indicators, such as citation counts, h-index, and SJR (Scimago Journal Rank), to rank journals and institutions based on their scientific output and impact.

You can now see that it is Scopus journals that are, in fact, housed on the Scimago website. However, how Scimago uses the data obtained from Scopus differs from how Scopus uses it. Now, let us look at this relationship from an analogical perspective. Let us liken the Scopus database to INEC and Scimago to the iRev portal. INEC determines who is qualified to contest in an election, accredits voters, collects data about how many people voted who and so on. On the iREV portal, the results of all contestants cutting across different offices are published. The ranking is based on the number of votes each contestant receives in a given category. Therefore, it is wrong to think that the iREV portal contestants differ from those cleared by INEC. It is INEC that feeds the iREV portal with information. Therefore, anything INEC upload is what iREV will publish or display and nothing more.

Back to the main gist, Scopus curates and validates all the journals before deciding which to index (accept) or otherwise. Scopus determines which journals are no longer complying with the minimum standards and discontinues them on three bases - radar, metrics or publication concerns. Scopus is also responsible for tracking all the citations garnered by a journal over time and computes metrics such as h-index, citescore, etc. Scimago only receives these data from Scopus and uses them to compute other metrics such as journal ranking, institutional ranking, and quartile placement (such as Q1, Q2, Q3 or Q4) relative to journals in specific disciplines. I.e., journals are only ranked within disciplines such as Education, Public Health, Mental Psychology and so on. When Scopus discontinues a journal, the journal also stands discontinued in Scimago, and if the former readmits a journal, the journal also stands readmitted in the latter. Therefore, start now to see Scopus and Scimago as one entity operating in different forms, such as the holy trinity.

Owan Valentine
Follow my page at https://web.facebook.com/VowanBoss for more exciting academic updates directly from the source.

Owan Valentine Researcher | Data Analyst | Psychometrician | Mentor | Teacher