High rejection rates by journals ‘pointless’

Analysis suggests higher selectivity fails to increase journals’ impact factors

January 28, 2016
Woman diving into dustbin on street
Source: Alamy
Bin there: scholars told they might as well aim for titles with low rejection rates

The mass rejection of research papers by selective journals in a bid to achieve a high impact factor is an enormous waste of academics’ time, advocates of open access publishing have argued.

One analysis found that there is almost no correlation between a journal’s impact factor – a controversial measure of the number of citations a title receives that can end up influencing hiring and firing decisions on individual academics – and the proportion of papers it rejects.

Pascal Rocha da Silva, a process strategy manager at Frontiers, an open access publisher, plotted the impact factors of 570 journals against their rejection rates, only to find that there was “absolutely no correlation” between the two.

Some journals that rejected more than nine out of 10 papers had impact factors well below average, while others that accepted the majority of submissions had some of the best scores.

“One of the strongest beliefs in scholarly publishing is that journals seeking a high impact factor should be highly selective, accepting only papers predicted to become highly significant and novel, and hence likely to attract a large number of citations,” he wrote.

“Most of the 20,000 or so journals in the scholarly publishing world follow their example,” Mr Rocha da Silva wrote. However, “there is absolutely no correlation between rejection rates and impact factor”, he concluded in a commentary.

A small cluster of journals with the very highest impact factors were found to have rejection rates of more than 90 per cent. However, a “vast number of high quality papers are being sacrificed to engineer high impact factors, yet the strategy fails for the vast majority of journals”, he argued.

Frontiers finds that a rejection rate of up to 30 per cent is justifiable, to “ensure only sound research is published”, Mr Rocha da Silva wrote.

His analysis was taken further by Jon Tennant, the communications director of ScienceOpen, another open access platform. “Importantly for researchers, there appears to be a range of journals with impact factors between 5 and 10 (i.e., moderate) that have extremely low rejection rates,” he wrote.

“You might as well shoot for a journal which is 10 times more likely to accept your work [as] a highly selective one with an equal impact factor,” Mr Tennant wrote on his blog.

The fact that academics still submit their papers to journals with high impact factors could be due to a “lack of awareness in some cases”, he told Times Higher Education.

He said it was “infuriating” how much time was wasted submitting papers only for them to be rejected.

However, his analysis of the data found that for more selective journals with rejection rates of over 60 per cent, more rejections did weakly correlate with a better impact factor.

In addition to the ongoing debate about how journals achieve a good impact factor, the measure itself has come in for increasing criticism in recent years.

In 2013, organisations including the Wellcome Trust and the Higher Education Funding Council for England signed up to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, which calls for journal impact factors to be scrapped as a basis for funding, appointment and promotion decisions.

Last year, a paper in Research Policy argued that trickery by journal editors to boost their impact factor meant that the measure had lost “most of its credibility”. 

david.matthews@tesglobal.com

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 6 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

POSTSCRIPT:

Print headline: High rejection rates by journals are ‘pointless’

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

question marks PhD study

Selecting the right doctorate is crucial for success. Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O'Gorman share top 10 tips on how to pick a PhD

India, UK, flag

Sir Keith Burnett reflects on what he learned about international students while in India with the UK prime minister

Pencil lying on open diary

Requesting a log of daily activity means that trust between the institution and the scholar has broken down, says Toby Miller

Microlight pilot flies with flock of cranes

Reports of UK-based researchers already thinking of moving overseas after Brexit vote

Portrait montage of Donald Trump and Nigel Farage

From Donald Trump to Brexit, John Morgan considers the challenges of a new international political climate