Editorial integrity: Date of Receipt?

Marc Roussel mroussel at alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Thu Jun 23 23:16:43 EST 1994

In article <9405237724.AA772406487 at clink.acad.com> kmetzner at ACAD.COM
(Metzner, Ken) writes:
[Quoting me, Marc Roussel]
>In chemistry, physics and
>mathematics, the best journals are generally those published by professional 
>         Concerning Marc Roussel's comment about the best journals, it might be
>          interesting to discuss what are the criteria for goodness of a 
>          journal? How do they rank? Are the criteria and their rankings 
>         different for different communities of journal users? How do you apply
>          the criteria to compare actual real journals? 

     When I wrote the above-quoted comment, I was thinking of the great
families of journals put out by the American Chemical Society, the
American Physical Society and the American Mathematical Society.  I know
a little less about the AMS journals, but the ACS and APS journals cover
all the major subfields and are generally well-read and well-cited.
They are also generally editorially very responsive.  There are certainly
individual journals published by corporations which I would rank equally
highly (and professional-society journals which I consider poor) but
considering each stable of products as a whole, I think the
professional-society journals are usually better, from all perspectives.
     In short, I suppose that there are two principal evaluation
criteria, at least for me:

	  1. Editorial responsiveness:  Refereeing process is generally
	     quick and inquiries are promptly addressed.
          2. Is my audience likely to read my work there?  If no one
	     reads a particular journal, I'm likely to avoid it.

Note that I write here of evaluation for the purpose of submission, not
for the purpose of reading or buying.  Those are separate issues.


				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel at alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca

More information about the Jrnlnote mailing list