next »

[inquirer]

  I assume that no matter what kind of school I apply to, from a relatively unknown SLAC to a big university, that the more publications I have, the better.  I have a paper I recently delivered at a conference. I want to get it published so that I can add it to my CV.  I can do that relatively faster if I choose a somewhat less prestigious/less well-known/new/on-line journal as opposed to the slow process of getting it accepted in one of the top journals in my field, which is likely to be a much more difficult task. 

   Is having an article on my CV, even if it's in a refereed but little-known or fourth-tier journal soon better than spending easily two years attempting to get something published in a really prestigious journal, trying to negotiate conflicting comments from readers when they reject the article?  That's at least been my experience.  I've never aimed for a little-known journal.  I often get a rejection letter from tier-one journal A that says I should have done abc, and I do abc and prestigious journal B rejects the article in part because I did abc.  I haven't figured out the trick to getting published at the top, so it could take me a long time to get published again in a journal in the upper tiers.  Is it worth taking that time?

[hegemony]

Yes, it's worth taking the time.  The quality of the journals you publish in will be a topic of discussion among the search committee.  The big-name journals are more selective and get wider exposure; placing an article there carries much more weight.  You're very negative about the possibilities of placing an article there, but those journals are filling up with the work of scholars who are less pessimistic.  The hard part is doing the research and writing the article; the r & r and the waiting are a small part of it.  You might as well get maximum return for your work.  It's okay to publish in lesser journals; just publish in the best journals you can get in as well.  Truly, it counts a lot to a search committee.

[sciencephd]

This depends in part on what your existing publication profile looks like.  I advocate a range of publication tiers, in order to maintain consistent productivity.

[runwithscissors]

I wouldn't automatically assume that publishing a paper in a lesser tier journal is a lot easier, as you still have to persuade the reviewers that the article has merit. The quality of review is not likely to be less stringent even if the editorial decisions are a little kinder. Basically don't assume they'll just publish anything. If it's publishable, therefore ,why not go for a higher tier journal? A sort of reverse catch 22 if you will.

[janewales]

I think it's better to aim for the higher tier journal. I've been on many SCs (am chairing one now), and have seen people skim over the lesser placements, but linger on the impressive single article. And as has already been pointed out, a lower-tier journal isn't necessarily going to be any faster.

Good luck!

[systeme_d_]

If you are aiming to move up, then publishing in the top-tier journals is a must, not an option.

This does indeed take time, and I know it's frustrating.  But to move up, you must keep up your productivity, and always aim high.

[galway]

It's also important to evaluate the work itself and consider where the work really belongs.  Aim as high as you can but be critical too.  Is it highly innovative work?  Or solid but an incremental contribution?  Not everything we produce is a major breakthrough but it can still be a valuable contribution.  Try and judge the work like a reviewer would - would you accept it for that journal?  I think the key is to write the best paper you can and then aim for the appropriate level for the work.

[racerboy]

A lot of disciplines still view online journals as somewhat suspect.  Better to aim high and miss than to aim low and hit.

[seniorscholar]

Search committees in my R1 English department are extremely wary of online publications, even though many faculty members in the department have placed a relatively unimportant essay (especially one that's short, and often a conference presentation) in one or another. Here's one reason: several of us (including myself) are on the editorial board of one of the relatively new online journals in our various specialties -- I'd assume that most accepted the invitation to serve as a favor to a former grad student or junior scholar whose book manuscript we'd read and recommended, as I did. And I certainly know that my standards for reviewing manuscripts for the online journal are more relaxed than they are for the print journals I review for (or else nothing would ever be accepted for this particular and fairly reputable online journal).

[ls410]

I'd be selective in submitting to on-line journals.  A lot has been posted (here and on various listservs) about new ones that are charging hefty fees and seem to be targeting scholars in developing world countries.  But my field also has one with some of the biggest names around as editors - it carries major weight in my department.   My experiences submitting to top tier journals is so much better to lower ones - faster peer review (1 month vs 6) and more constructive feedback. 

[this_is_my_username]

 I'm a little torn on this. If you have zero peer-reviewed articles, then I'm of the belief you need something, anything. If the top journals in your field would take years of revision and waiting, then I don't see the problem in pushing something through a smaller journal to improve the CV quick. That's assuming the smaller journals move quick. In my experience, and especially with everyone trying to frantically publish these days, they don't.

 But it would certainly prove you can publish. The next step would be to prove that you can publish at the top. That's something another handful of small journal articles on your CV can't demonstrate.

 I'm new, so my strategy has been to diversify the submissions. Some go to the top, some have a pretty specific audience in mind and go to smaller journals. We'll see if that works.

[the_honey_badger]

Acceptance in a peer reviewed journal at any tier likely brings you into the same pool of reviewers. Recently I've been given assignments from the top discipline journal, the top national field journal, a definite second tier subfield journal and one regional "third-ish" tier journal all within my research specialty.  The thing that distinguished whether the article under review was acceptable was related to scope and the importance of the contribution.  The *quality* demands by all the editors was the same.

Head for the highest ranked journal in your discipline but use some common sense---in history the AHR wants articles that speak to the broadest audience and potentially shift paradigms.  The Journal of Northwestern Corn Farming History is the place for the essay on "Corn Shucking Parties and Regional Identity in Pocatello, Idaho from 1931-1936."  Does you article provide a nice little case history?  Chances are that a nice little regional journal is its natural home no matter how well it is written and researched.

[racerboy]

The Journal of Northwestern Corn Farming History is the place for the essay on "Corn Shucking Parties and Regional Identity in Pocatello, Idaho from 1931-1936."  Does you article provide a nice little case history? 

Damn.  Ten years of work on this only to find that belowtheradar has beat me to publication.

[the_honey_badger]

The Journal of Northwestern Corn Farming History is the place for the essay on "Corn Shucking Parties and Regional Identity in Pocatello, Idaho from 1931-1936."  Does you article provide a nice little case history? 

Damn.  Ten years of work on this only to find that belowtheradar has beat me to publication.

Ah, but you are in luck!  I have many brilliant insights into this issue but I will not release it to the jackals peer reviewers of the JNCFH until it is perfect.  I have my standards and I will not be stampeded into premature publication by popular demand or the insane requirements of my Tenured Masters!

 I expect that my seminal contribution to "identity studies" via a micro-history of Idaho's small farmers will be ready in early 2012.  If you would like to try to place your undoubtedly inferior study (I can only conclude that given that you have devoted a mere decade to the subject),  I cannot in good conscience stop you. <she says with her wrist to her forehead>

[helpful]

An answer to the OP would be discipline specific. What is your field, OP?