Comment

Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

The difference is the peer-review process. Without a good peer-review process, those journals won’t have a strong cite score and so they will be considered unreliable.

source

Sort:hotnew top

SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

Without a good peer-review process, those journals won’t have a strong cite score

So why do they charge $6000 to publish, and pay $0 to reviewers?

The top JIF journals also lead with the most retractions.

source
- Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Error correction policies like retractions mean the journal is better, not worse, right?
  
  source
  - SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Except that Nature was leading the world in retractions. The problem is the Editors form a cabal with top lab heads, because they want the best papers, first. So they close an eye to problems seen in peer review.
    
    Why does Science, CELL, Nature, etc., keep reviews secret?
    
    source