Timeline for How do you judge the quality of a journal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4, 2017 at 9:17 | comment | added | Alireza | This is like if you want to find out if that is a poison, test it out! | |
| Jul 5, 2015 at 4:15 | comment | added | 299792458 | PS - The only sad part of the story is - LVK doesn't seem to a mathematician from his/her profile. :P | |
| Jul 5, 2015 at 4:13 | comment | added | 299792458 | Somehow, @LVK's reasoning (though correct), reminds me of the old black sheep joke about generalizing from a small amount of data. :) | |
| Aug 19, 2012 at 8:46 | comment | added | Speldosa | @LVK That's a fair point. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 21:35 | comment | added | LVK | I disagree with @Speldosa. All you know on the basis of one submission is that the journal has at least one editor who picked good referees for at least one paper. Another half of editors could be accepting junk for all you know. Multiple submissions increase the odds that your conclusion is correct, but is not this an extremely expensive experiment to undertake, given that you are paying with your research output? Especially when you have a lot of observational data already available: other papers published in the journal. | |
| Jun 24, 2012 at 9:21 | comment | added | Speldosa | IMHO, this is the best answer here, even though you don't really have time to go through the process of testing every journal you might be interested of. However, if the peer-review process is good, then the journal is good. End of story. | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 10:06 | history | answered | JRN | CC BY-SA 3.0 |