Know the Difference: Scientific Publications versus ... - ACS Publications

---

Editorial pubs.acs.org/JPCL

Know the Difference: Scientific Publications versus Scientific Reports ach scientific journal carries a special flavor or identity and reaches out to its readers with the latest scientific research, irrespective of any well-publicized impact factor. Leading mainstream journals such as The Journal of Physical Chemistry (JPC) A/B/C/Letters are committed to maintaining scientific excellence and integrity by utilizing a rigorous peer review process. The scope of individual journals varies and ranges from a broad outreach to specialized disciplines. Hence, it becomes important to know the journal’s scope and criteria before submitting a manuscript to it. The better the match, the greater the impact the published work will have. According to a National Academy Press publication, On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, “The object of research is to extend human knowledge beyond what is already known. But an individual’s knowledge enters the domain of science only after it is presented to others in such a fashion that they can independently judge its validity”.1 Hence, the majority of the leading scientific journals only consider papers that present new scientific advances. Papers that are derivative of earlier published work or a variation in the experimental approach leading to the earlier established scientific conclusions are not regarded as new scientific advances. Editors and reviewers do not consider such papers suitable for scientific publication. Typically the acceptance rates in these mainstream scientific journals range from 20 to 50%. The authors of the rejected majority of papers are left with the choice of either doing further revision to overcome the deficiencies or shopping around for a journal that would consider publication of their paper.2 Because one of JPCL’s publication criteria is to consider only papers that present new scientific advances, papers representing routine scientific reports or incremental advances are returned to the authors after the editorial and peer reviews. A typical example of such rejection is the report of experimental results that have been carefully conducted to reaffirm a previously reported conclusion. Obviously such papers, although technically sound, do not significantly advance scientific knowledge. Papers that are appropriate for JPCL and similar scientific journals need to provide a compelling scientific story about an important scientific discovery. A new set of journals has now emerged that considers all technically sound papers for publication in a broad scientific field. Some familiar names in this category (referred to as “report journals” in this Editorial) are Scientif ic Reports, PLoS One, AIP Advances, Frontiers Journals, and RSC Advances. Some of these journals have recently published papers at an increasing rate, presumably providing an alternative publication format for contributions that may not qualify for publication in the main portfolio of the same publisher (Figure 1). Elsevier has also joined this venture with the announcement that they will introduce an open access (OA) journal, Heliyon, which will cover topics across all disciplines in 2015. If one carefully reads the scope of these journals, their focus becomes apparent (see Supporting Information Table 1). Many of these report journals consider all technically sound papers irrespective of

E

© 2015 American Chemical Society

Figure 1. Comparison of publication growth of report journals (top) and mainstream physical chemistry journals (bottom). The total number of publications in 2011 is set as the baseline for comparison of publication growth in the following years. (Note that the y-axis scale in the top graph is logarithmic.) Source: Web of Science (as of February 9, 2015).

originality or novelty of the reported research. As a result of lack of stringent requirement for originality or new scientific advance, many authors find it convenient to publish in these report journals. These requirements differentiate new report journals from mainstream physical chemistry journals such as J. Phys. Chem. Lett., J. Phys. Chem. A/B/C, ChemPhysChem, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., and J. Chem. Phys. (Supporting Information Table 2). Many of the report journals are OA journals and usually charge the authors a hefty sum ($750−5000) to get their scientific reports published (see Supporting Information Table 1). These journals require a mandatory article publication charge (APC) and allow OA to published articles. In contrast, subscription journals like JPC do not carry APC and charge OA fees that authors can pay if they want to or are required to make their article OA. We note that RSC Advances is a hybrid journal and carries optional OA charges like other subscription-based journals. Because the report journal format promotes a greater number of published articles and is usually coupled to mandatory OA charges, the resulting journal becomes a large part of the revenue stream for the publisher (the Matthew Effect).3 The explosive growth of OA journals has thus resulted in an escalation of the number of citations in a few popular (and well-funded) disciplines. According to a recent editorial in Published: March 5, 2015 858

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.5b00286 J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2015, 6, 858−859

The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters

Editorial

Science, “The lowering of quality barriers by some open-access publishers has generated a citation explosion in some fields, boosting citation counts by publishing papers that otherwise might not have been published.”4 Whereas one can argue that these report journals provide an archival platform for technical reports, it is also of concern whether they are encouraging mediocrity in scientific research. Merely extending a newly established concept with other experimental variations is an easy approach to getting an article published. One must consider to what extent these reports advance scientific knowledge and justify funded research. Funding agencies support the creation of new scientific understanding and thus advancing knowledge-based research. $1.4 Trillion is funded annually by governments, foundations, and corporations worldwide.4 Researchers who solicit and receive academic funding from government agencies especially need to focus on new scientific advances and not just on generating reports. Indeed, a more appropriate place to present reports is to archive them on a free preprint server, as is often done in the particle physics community. Identifying new research areas and achieving new scientific breakthroughs require a long-term strategy with well-articulated efforts and collaborations. Such major research findings are published in mainstream scientific journals and are less likely to appear in journals that publish routine scientific reports. It is important that the authors realize the clear distinction between the two types of journals and judge their criteria before submitting their work for publication. JPCL and other ACS journals are committed to providing readers with new and significant scientific advances. Our editorial and peer review processes ensure that high-quality papers are published in every issue. We will continue to work with authors in advancing the scientific knowledge and publishing significant work.

sspnet.org/2015/01/29/ask-the-chefs-what-do-you-think-will-havethe-biggest-impact-on-scholarly-publishing-in-2015/ (2015). (4) McNutt, M. The Measure of Research Merit. Science 2013, 346, 1155−1155.

Prashant V. Kamat, Deputy Editor

University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, United States

George C. Schatz, Editor-in-Chief

■

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, United States

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

Comparison of article publishing charges, open access features, and publication criteria for a few, representative report and mainstream journals; numbers of published papers in 2011 and 2014. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Notes

Views expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the ACS.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, 2nd ed.; National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1995, (2) Esposito, J. Making a Case for Open Access. Scholarly Kitchen. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/01/05/making-a-case-foropen-access/ (2015). (3) Michael, A. Ask The Chefs: What Do You Think Will Have the Biggest Impact on Scholarly Publishing in 2015? http://scholarlykitchen. 859

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.5b00286 J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2015, 6, 858−859