πŸ’‘ Innovative researches are NOT get published in reputed journals πŸ“° β€” R Voice

πŸ’‘ Innovative researches are NOT get published in reputed journals πŸ“°

DEBPRASAD DUTTA
DEBPRASAD DUTTA Member Posts: 1 ✭

Looking for the newest developments? Browse for less-known journals.

Sounding weird? Counter-intuitive? πŸ€” But this is how innovation spreads.

Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory of Everett M. Rogers suggests reputed journals hesitate to accept spectacular findings and mostly publish conservative research to 'play safe'.


βœ…

Comments

  • Vivien Kretz
    Vivien Kretz Member Posts: 241 ✭✭✭

    Thank you for sharing this @DEBPRASAD DUTTA ! I am going to try it!

  • Kakoli Majumder
    Kakoli Majumder Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 296 admin
    edited May 31

    Wow! Thanks for sharing this @DEBPRASAD DUTTA. This theory is an eye-opener. I've often heard anecdotes about breakthrough research being rejected by reputed journals before getting published elsewhere, but never knew there was a theory explaining this. Most researchers would be familiar with the story of Einstein's paper being rejected by the "Physical Review." I've always wondered how a top tier journal failed to see potential in such a great work, but this theory really explains it well. As authors, we keep chasing high impact factors and reputed journals, and are often heartbroken if our work gets rejected. We're thrown into a loop of self-doubt and imposter feelings, thinking our work lacks novelty or is not good enough. So the next time you get rejected, keep your spirits up - it's possible that your research is "too good" for leading journals that choose to play safe. πŸ˜€

    Would love to know our thoughts on this @Nicholas Rowe @leonard waks @Adaora Anyichie - Odis @Karen Hall @Suman Mundkur @Azzeddine REGHAIS @Abdirisak Mohamed Abdillahi @Mohamed Samunn @Soumi Paul @Praveena Ramanujam

  • Karen Hall
    Karen Hall Member Posts: 14 ✭✭

    Too good a paper viewpoint is an interesting take on journal rejection. Thanks for sharing.

  • Soumi Paul
    Soumi Paul Member Posts: 181 ✭✭✭✭

    Very appropriately explained. That is why it is also said not to chase impact factors. I honestly experienced it for my first review paper. It once got rejected by saying it is an intriguing piece, but they lack space for it. Ridiculous. Thankfully (surprisingly), it got accepted in a no-impact Scopus-indexed Springer journal. Otherwise, I have thought it won't ever get published because of its unique highlights. Studying the patterns of review article writing (in my particular subject - phytopharmacology) made me realize journals prefer a usual monotonous format. So, it is most likely that different writing highlights will lead to rejections. If you want to publish your distinct observations and hypothesis, perform a clever wordplay. Smart, balanced designing of a manuscript is one heck of learning indeed.

    Communication is the key to thriving! 😊

  • Kakoli Majumder
    Kakoli Majumder Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 296 admin

    Thanks for sharing your experience @Soumi Paul. I'm glad the journal that rejected your paper was at least honest about it - that way, you did not feel a nagging doubt about the quality of your work. Often, journals don't provide a clear explanation in their rejection letter - and this leaves authors feeling disheartened and falling into the trap of self-doubt. I'm so glad you took the decision to publish in a no-impact journal. Ultimately, it's the impact of your research that counts, not the impact factor of the journal.