#Neuroscience people! How do you decide which journals to submit to? What factors to you consider? Excluding glam mags like Nature, Science, etc. What is your favourite journal? I always found J Neurosci reviews a bit savage so reluctant to go there. Other options?
@mick That hasn’t been my experience at JNeurosci, but I’m boosting your question because I assume other folks have experienced what you have.
I like J Neurophysiol because it has a high tolerance for seriously nerdy Methods sections, and I find that it’s held in much higher regard than quantitative rankings would imply.
Edit: typo
@mick I endorse @eLife — publishes lots of #neuroscience and the review process is sane. No limits on text or figures, no formatting requirements, and entirely open access.
@albertcardona@mick@eLife thoughts on how the new eLife model is going? I’m worried it’s all a bit confusing and now the handling editors opinion has too much influence.
@cian@eLife@albertcardona I've not had anything go in under the new model yet. I really like the idea behind it, and don't see any issues assuming funders & institutions see them as valid publications...
As far as I can tell not much has changed. Since April 2023–when I started as Senior Editor at eLife–I've handled both the old and the new style of submissions. The consultations with reviewing editors on whether to send the manuscript out for review are the same.
@albertcardona@cian@mick@eLife I was wondering to myself the other day, in the wake of the "controversy" around the anthropology paper, why eLife doesn't point reviewers to the preprint archive and ask them to do their initial reviews there, on that platform, before accepting. If the reviewers accept it, move everything over to the eLife platform and go through the rest of the steps as now. Reviewers reject the preprint? Their reviews will still be there, public, on the preprint archive.
There may not be any further steps short of establishing a version of record. The reviews are posted on the preprint server right away in any case. So what you are describing is essentially the same. Let’s not lose track of the point of peer review: help authors improve the reporting of their findings in the manuscript.
@mick I send my first author papers to eLife first now. Huge fan of their new review model and want to support that becoming the standard in the field! I've had the same experience with JNeuro, harsh reviews and high fees, never again!
@mick by no order of preference:
JoNeuro, I just love the stuff they publish..
BioPsy, harcore reviews but guaranteed quality
Neuropsychopharm, especially if lots of behavioral data
Both iScience and Cells seem to be going up, and are OA (but the latter is MDPI, and I know folks find them disturbing)
Elife, for obvious reasons.
The decision of where to submit is normally based on a mix of personal experiences, data fit & ambition (?). Also, on suggestions from colleagues & a lookout for recent publications that are equivalent to the manuscript at hand.
I don't think I have a favorite journal, but I do have few i would never submit to ever again 😂😅 #traumatised
@mick I would say eNeuro & European Journal of Neuroscience? I have never submitted there but reviewed for them and I liked the system (public/transparent reviews, consultation session between reviewers at the end, at least for eNeuro)
I actually also like Journal of Neuroscience… but I agree they do weird stuff sometimes (like rejecting your paper but asking you to resubmit)
@elduvelle thanks El. EJN I published in once, submission portal for Wiley is gross but EJN do good things. I also like idea of Brain Comms. I actually dislike SfN as a society so don't feel inclined to support their journals or give them more money.
@mick I agree… it is very sad what has become of SFN. I’m sure the intentions were good originally. Why does everything turn bad once it becomes successful??
@elduvelle@mick +1 for eNeuro, speaking as both a contributor and an editor.
El, FWIWI am not sure but I think the “reject w option to resubmit” is there as a way to say “the data are such that we might not be able to accept this even if you do resubmit but we’re rooting for you” vs “we have concerns but we think it’s going to work out.” But yeah I agree it’s probably unnecessary.
@schoppik@mick I think the reject+ resubmit is (was?) there to inflate their rejection rate… also at the time (a few years ago) they made you pay the submission fee twice. In my case I just did (most of) what the reviewers suggested, no new data, and it was accepted the second time. I am not the only one that this happened to at #JNeuro. I would say it is borderline unethical.
More recently they’ve removed the submission fee, so I might submit there again but it is true that the open access cost is way too high, so I don’t know.
@elduvelle Thanks @schoppik! I've never looked at eNeuro as a I dislike JNeuro for ridiculously harsh reviews (I'm not alone in this) so wrote off eNeuro as well...
Add comment