Choosing the right journal for your systematic review

Betini, Marluci; Volpato, Enilze de Souza Nogueira; Anastácio, Guilherme D. J.; Faria, Ricardo António da Silva; Dib, Regina El

doi:10.1111/jep.12196

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A further seven remarked on journal selection as part of a wider discussion of publishing 17 – 19 , 21 , 24 , 31 , 33 . Three articles were intended to be of interest to only specific audiences: psychiatrists 25 , the authors of systematic reviews 27 or anaesthetists 37 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ready! Aim! Fire! targeting the right medical science journal

Hardman

Serginson

2017

Cardiovascular Endocrinology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveInadvertently submitting a paper to a journal that is unlikely to publish it is a waste of resources and ultimately delays dissemination of one’s research. A high proportion of manuscripts are rejected by their author’s first-choice journal. The aim of the present work was to review guidance provided within the literature for journal selection that might minimize the chance of manuscript rejection. We also consider papers that encompass more than one main medical science and describe the selection process that we used with a paper that was published in Cardiovascular Endocrinology.MethodsA database search (Embase, PubMed and Medworm) was performed for all articles published in the scientific literature providing guidance on journal selection. Articles were identified that either had journal selection as their principal topic or included journal selection as part of a broader discussion of publishing. The relative performance of four free-to-use, web-based applications that claim to provide guidance on journal selection was compared.ResultsThe searches identified 286 hits, of which 249 were in English. Of these papers, 16 discussed journal selection and a further 10 articles were identified from citations within the original 16 articles. Only one article described a comprehensive model for submission decision-making. Identification of appropriate candidate journals by various web-based applications was erratic, with the Jane database providing the most robust suggestions.ConclusionOur work suggests that little attention has been focused in the scientific literature on the mechanisms that authors use to select a journal for their work. Nevertheless, scientists for the most part seem to have a good sense of where their papers are most likely to be accepted. Beyond ensuring that a manuscript fulfils all the target journal’s requirements, the literature suggests that it is important to have an objective view of the scientific contribution or ‘value’ of your work.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ready! Aim! Fire! targeting the right medical science journal

Hardman

Serginson

2017

Cardiovascular Endocrinology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some journals accept only certain types of articles (e.g. systematic reviews), which must be considered by authors (Betini et al , 2014). Bavdekar and Save (2015) suggest that selection of a target journal should occur before the manuscript is even prepared.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal selection behavior among early-career academicians in Iran: how they choose the most appropriate journal for their publications

Shamsi

Lund

SeyyedHosseini

et al. 2021

GKMC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Journals are the essential tools of researchers, especially academicians, to present their scientific findings. So, choosing the right journal helps not only science development but also their academic promotion. The purpose of this study is to examine the factors that Iranian medical researchers consider when selecting scholarly journals in which to submit their work. Design/methodology/approach A self-administered online questionnaire was emailed in May 2021, with 101 responses received. The sample included all the faculty members with the role of “lecturer” in Iranian medical universities and who have 1–5 articles in the Scopus database as early-career Iranian medical researchers. The questionnaire consisted of 36 items, divided into five sections: basic information, attitudes and beliefs, ways to choose a journal, problems and familiarity with the components of scientometrics/validity metrics related to journals. Findings The findings indicate that these researchers value the expertise of experienced researchers and professionals, like librarians, when selecting publication venues. They often use journal indexes to guide journal selection. They also consider factors like the length of typical peer review and the complexity of submission guidelines when making decisions. Research limitations/implications The study of one country, though detecting requirements of journal selection behavior, cannot be generalized to the entire region. Practical implications The current study has academic implications as far as decisions on journal selection are concerned. University policymakers in Iran may consider re-examining their emphasis on academicians’ promotion policies at Iranian universities of medical sciences. Originality/value These findings may support the work of early-career researchers and those individuals (e.g., librarians) that serve them, as well as publishers and editors of scholarly journals.

show abstract

“…A range of guidelines has been established for systematic reviews, including the procedural handbook of the Cochrane Collaboration [5]; risk of bias tools, such as ROBIS [6]; reporting guidelines, as in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) [7]; and guidance for making recommendations, such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [8]. Prominent journals issue specific instructions for authors of systematic reviews, typically requiring adherence to PRISMA, although one analysis found that this was explicitly demanded by merely 27% of journals publishing systematic reviews [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%