1
$\begingroup$

I do not know if this question to suitable here or not. I posted it as I think biologists can help me in this question. If not suitable here, then I am sorry for that.

I have written paper which I spent about 3 years working on it and it has nice findings and original sequenced data (deposited in NCBI). I submitted the paper to "Genome Biology" and I got editorial rejection but they offered to transfer the paper to "BMC Genomics". However, my supervisor refused this and suggested that we submit to "Nature Scientific Report". I tried to convince him to go to BMC Genomics because it is more focused journal and it is better for my CV, however, he said the second one is better because it has better impact factor and it is Nature! (Impact factor: 5 for Scientific Reports vs 4.04 for BMC Genomics).

What do you think as I am really confused which one to select?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This might also be a good question to pose on academia.stackexchange.com $\endgroup$ – Luigi Oct 23 '14 at 19:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not that journal metrics is the answer, but just for the record, BMC Genomics is ranked slighty higher based on the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR rank). In short, the SJR rank is a weighted impact factor, that takes journal prestige of citations into account. Might be useful when you discuss with your supervisor. $\endgroup$ – fileunderwater Oct 23 '14 at 19:32
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks very much @Luigi and fileunderwater for the vey useful comments. Looking forward for more comments from other experts. $\endgroup$ – Abbas Oct 23 '14 at 19:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Personally, I would go for PLOS ONE, just because I am a big proponent of open-access publishing. I'm not sure about the BMC family, but Nature is notorious for its closed-access policies. I think that if your work was funded in any way by public grants (such as from the NIH in the US), your research should be open for all citizens to read if they want. I'm sure this argument has gone on long tangents on Academia.SE, but that's my view of things :) At any rate, do some research on different impact factors, and their relative advantages and disadvantages, then have a chat with your PI. $\endgroup$ – MattDMo Oct 23 '14 at 20:48
  • $\begingroup$ @MattDMo ALL BioMed Central journals are open access, as is Nat Sci Reports. $\endgroup$ – blmoore Oct 24 '14 at 10:32
4
$\begingroup$

This is too long for a comment, so I post it here. And these are my personal views, someone else might handle this different. I would submit the paper to BMC Genomics for some reasons:

  • The editor offered to transfer the paper, so you get past the editorial review. This is not guaranteed for Nature Scientific Report (NSR). You still have to get through the peer review, but this is not different between both journals.
  • Honestly: Forget about the difference in the Impact Factor. Both are medium range impact factor journals closely located together. My most cited paper is published in such a medium impact journal, today you find papers by a Medline search, so this doesn't matter anymore (besides prestige). Additionally a lot of citations will raise the journals impact factor in the future. I would understand this argument when you would have to choose between Nature and BMC Genomics, there is quite a difference.
  • If your work fits better into BMC Genomics the chance for acceptance is higher, so I would go there. This is of course always a point of consideration. The same is true for your CV.

If you have the chance to do the decision for yourself without angering your supervisor too much, I would go for it. Even better would be to convince him.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I disagree somewhat with the others comments. Scientific reports has a broader audience, higher impact factor and is associated with the Nature family of journals.

The BMC family of journal family does not have the same reputation and certainly plosONE does not, and has a reputation among some as publishing almost anything. For anyone outside your specific field they will consider publication in SR a better publication. This does not mean that SR is better journal in a scientific sense but if you are looking for prestige SR is better journal for sure.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I certainly disagree with this outdated view of bibliometrics. Impact factor is a highly contentious issue that may be directing science off-track and many people want an end to JIF. I agree association with Nature is still a big deal, and for a careerist that is the one to go for over BMC, furthmore showing commitment to open access science (which there are also problems with, but that's another story) is as important for young researchers. I certainly wouldn't disregard plosONE so flippantly. plosONE has a lot of dross, and a lot of outstanding publications. $\endgroup$ – James Nov 13 '15 at 3:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.