15

I am about to submit a paper from my master's thesis, my ex supervisor is my co-author. They are letting me choose between two journals: one is a top journal, one is a good journal.

I'd like to submit to the top journal, and if the reviewers ask for major extensions I'd rather not do them, withdraw the submission and try with the lower impact journal (of course, I won't submit to a different journal if they spot a flaw).

I wouldn't want to spend much more energy on the paper, I moved away from academia and I prefer to focus elsewhere. If put gracefully, is this something "ok" to say to an ex-supervisor? After all, they are fine with the other journal to start with.

I really like the comment of @R1NaNo. They say that the difference between the two journals, both respectable, is the required novelty, not the thoroughness of the reviewing process and the magnitude of the asked revisions.

My choices then are not submitting, or trying the top journal.

Improve this question
8
  • 8
    The difference between higher impact journals and respectable lower impact journals is the factor of novelty. If your work has flaws and needs further work, it will be picked up by any good reviewers and enforced by any good editor. So your logic is flawed. If you feel your work has novelty/impact then go high, if not then go to an appropriate topical journal. If you feel the work is incomplete and questionable, I guess there is always MDPI, Hindawi, and a laundry list of questionable venues that will push through incomplete work for an APC.
    – R1NaNo
    Commented Jul 25 at 14:25
  • 3
    Just to mention that some journals nowadays call everything beyond typo corrections a "major revision". The major revision we just received on one of the papers I'm a co-author on amounts to a few days of work at most. We are currently cautiously celebrating paper acceptance as that seems to be the most likely thing to happen.
    – penelope
    Commented Jul 25 at 14:37
  • 2
    @R1NaNo Thanks for the comment, this perspective makes me think that my choices are higher ranked journal or not submitting. I encourage you to make your comment an answer, btw.
    – Lilla
    Commented Jul 25 at 14:52
  • 2
    @penelope you consider a few days of work minor? I'm surprised - that seems major to me.
    – Allure
    Commented Jul 26 at 2:51
  • 2
    @Allure before we read the feedback, we were afraid that "major revision" would mean at least a couple of weeks of work, probably not running new experiments but maybe producing new data visualisations.To the point where we'd almost decided to not get started on the revision yet as we all currently have a busy schedule, and get started on it mid-August when people are back from leave. Considering that the proposed revisions can be done with light rephrasing and making some schematic figures (not data visualisations), we decided to just go for it and hopefully resubmit by the end of next week
    – penelope
    Commented Jul 26 at 12:36

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
33

Beware that your proposed course of action can backfire.

That lower tier journal that you submit to instead of addressing the reviewers' concerns may very well invite the very same reviewers as the original higher tier journals.

These reviewers may have spent a possibly considerable time reviewing your original submission. After all, as Bryan Krause writes, a Major Revision means that the editor, and presumably the reviewers, believes your paper can be published in the higher tier journal after some work on your side. So pointing out what exactly needs to be done may indeed have cost your reviewers quite some time.

If a reviewer sees your submission to a different journal without changes corresponding to their review, they will not be pleased. I have been in the reviewer's situation in cases like these, and I strongly felt that the authors were wasting my time. This is not the reaction you want to provoke.

Improve this answer
5
  • 21
    Has happed to me. I review a paper. In my review I point out errors. Later, I receive the same paper, submitted to another journal, with errors not corrected.
    – GEdgar
    Commented Jul 25 at 15:12
  • 7
    @GEdgar: how did you react?
    – Stephan Kolassa
    Commented Jul 25 at 18:37
  • 4
    I've also been there, and I just sent my original review to the other journal.
    – silvado
    Commented Jul 26 at 10:45
  • 4
    @StephanKolassa I haven't had that, but I would clearly state that to the authors and the new editor. I guess a good editor would know what to do.
    – Captain Emacs
    Commented Jul 26 at 11:32
  • 3
    I had something similar happen: I reviewed a paper for Scientific Reports (which is supposed to publish basically anything as long as it's correct), and I pointed out errors, then in lightning speed saw the paper published in a journal with a lower impact factor without the errors corrected (even very basic spelling errors). You can imagine what that made me think of the authors.
    – Nik
    Commented Jul 27 at 12:57
20

In my experiences, the filter at top journals is mostly the editor's desk reject followed by a strong initial negative response from reviewers.

If you get to review and a major revision decision, your paper at that point likely has a higher chance of being accepted at that journal as any other (putting aside journals that just accept everything because their peer review is a sham).

Almost every initial submission that goes through quality peer review is going to come back with some revisions necessary. If you're not willing to do those revisions, you're not really willing to go through the legitimate peer review process.

I'd recommend discussing with your advisor the task of revisions before submitting and perhaps ask if they would be willing to do those tasks for you, given your current situation outside academia. If you feel like this is not something you're willing to do at all, you can even go beyond an ask and just set a boundary that you won't be doing it or setting a strict time limit. In either case, as you're giving up some of your responsibilities on the paper, it would make sense to let your co-author/former supervisor have the primary decision on where the paper goes.

Improve this answer
9
  • 1
    Thanks for your answer. I guess then that I can clarify my limits to my supervisor, as I already know that I am going to be the one who's messing around with the re-writing process. The limits are: rewriting, restructuring and in case, fixing flaws (unless my results are fundamentally flawed). But not doing additional research for the moment.
    – Lilla
    Commented Jul 25 at 14:05
  • 2
    What a "major revision" is will depend on your specific field. In my fields (forecasting and psychology), it very rarely amounts to doing additional research. Rather, it's precisely the rewriting and restructuring you mention, possibly some new data analyses. Ask your reviewer what kind of revision work you could expect.
    – Stephan Kolassa
    Commented Jul 25 at 15:04
  • 1
    @Lilla See Stephan's comment, and also I would add that if a major revision suggests additional research that you have reasons not to do, you can always come back with a response that says exactly that, and the editor will have to decide what to do. If the work is otherwise in good shape and the additional requested work is not entirely necessary to make the paper meaningful it may still be accepted once other changes are made.
    – Bryan Krause ♦
    Commented Jul 25 at 15:17
  • 3
    @Lilla I mean, it is your reason, isn't it? That doesn't mean your supervisor needs to agree, they don't have any power over you once you've graduated and left academia. You can of course choose to invest your own time to keep up a good relationship etc, but if you don't need or value any of that then you can't be forced. For the reviewers, it depends entirely on the state of the work with and without additions. Sometimes reviewers make suggestions that they think are simple but actually require far more work.
    – Bryan Krause ♦
    Commented Jul 25 at 18:11
  • 5
    @Lilla I don't know them, so I can't predict. Academics can be used to the norm of working on past projects in new positions that is common within academia but mostly unheard of elsewhere. You can raise it as a discussion about how much you are willing to contribute, but ultimately if you're not willing to do more than some amount of work that's simply your position. I think it's better to have the conversation than to try to avoid it passive aggressively by suggesting to submit to a journal that you don't think cares enough to require necessary improvements.
    – Bryan Krause ♦
    Commented Jul 25 at 18:30
7

There's an elephant in the room: you don't know what the reviewers' comments are. Major revision reviews can range from "clarify this step in your derivation, I don't get it" to "this needs more experiments to be convincing". Obviously the first review takes much less time to address than the second. If you ask me, you're likely to regret not revising the manuscript if you get the first review, while with the second you might reasonably say you no longer have time.

That said, if you do get the second review, the manuscript might still be published eventually (since your ex-supervisor might be able to engage another student to do the necessary experiments).

Therefore, I think you're asking the wrong question. You don't know what the reviewers' comments are, hence now is not the time to worry about how to address them. Submit the manuscript to the best journal that might accept the paper, and decide what to do when the comments come. If your ex-supervisor thinks you have a chance at the top journal, then submit there.

Improve this answer
4

I would approach this from a different perspective. For master thesis results, it's often more strategic to submit to a good, but not top-tier journal.

Top-tier journals typically require a more comprehensive introduction and writing style that appeals to a broader readership. While master students often have strong technical knowledge in a specific area, acquiring the broader expertise needed for these journals can take much longer.

Thus, preparing a manuscript for a top-tier journal demands more efforts on the text, which is time-consuming (even with the help of your supervisor). In contrast, submitting to a reputable, but not top-tier journal will allow you to focus more on the technical aspects of your presentation.

Improve this answer
0

I wouldn't want to spend much more energy on the paper, I moved away from academia and I prefer to focus elsewhere. If put gracefully, is this something "ok" to say to an ex-supervisor? After all, they are fine with the other journal to start with.

You are doing a favour to your ex-supervisor. Since this is a master thesis, the publication is very (very) likely to never matter in your life (yes, never say never but, let's face it, a master thesis is a basis and nobody is going to dig).

So this is a combination of interpersonal relations and strategic relationships (= how much will you get of it (the egoist version), how much you like them and want to help (the altruist part), how much time you can dedicate to that)

There is a possible alternative: let them write the paper (and possibly rearrange the order of authors, this really depends on the case) and deal with the submission.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .