I am working on a research project that all total will probably end up lasting about two years. As the research progresses, I am writing articles about each new discovery/study, with each article becoming more relevant to current interesting trends (for lack of a better description).
What I mean by this is that in the plan for publications my group has, the first article discusses just the structure, dynamics, etc. of some new interesting carbon/silicon/etc. system. The second article will elaborate on this for an even more novel, more developed structure than the first. Then the last article will (hopefully) provide a deep new insight into how this structure can be used for energy storage/transport/etc.
As I'm sure you can tell, each article gets more interesting, and thus I think each article has a better chance than the previous one of making it into a more highly ranked journal. Our current strategy is to submit the article to a succession of less prestigious journals (each getting rejected) until it eventually gets into one. This way, it ends up getting into the journal it probably deserves to be in, and not something lower, and there's always the chance it is accepted into a highly ranked journal as well.
However, I am curious if this is a bad idea in the long run. Will editors remember "Oh, they already submitted articles to us twice and got rejected; what are they doing it for again?" Will they be quicker to dismiss the next article they receive even though it is higher-quality/deeper research than the previous one?
Or do the editors give each new submission a fair chance for acceptance, with no memory of previous submissions?
I know some of you all are journal editors, so any insight you can reveal to me about your thought process would be quite appreciated.
No comments:
Post a Comment