|
Abstract
|
The increasing growth of scientific literature the last decades in all fields of academia, including aquatics, has led to the inevitable discussion of how scholarly work should be reviewed and evaluated and where it should be submitted. For example, experienced water safety authorities are concerned about the inclusion of "non-research" manuscripts labeled as "research" or low-quality contributions as a solution for continuing to operate the journal. Instead, they correctly suggest
a more rigid evaluation of what is submitted as research, using peer reviewers familiar with current scientific standards, ideally people who have themselves been published in recognized scientific journals. The remainder of submissions that are accepted for publication can be classified as opinion, or similar, but conflicts should nevertheless be very clearly stated. While this may reduce the amount of content labeled as research in the International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education (IJARE), it will serve to increase its integrity, which will inure to its benefit when the next applications are submitted to PubMed and Medline. (Brewster, 2011, p. 376)
Journal editors may face the problem of how submitted scholarly work should be evaluated to guarantee high standards and increase the likelihood to be included in databases that accommodate high rated research publications (see Langendorfer, 2011). Similarly, prospective authors face this dilemma: "Should I choose to submit my manuscript to IJARE, which is dedicated to peer-reviewed aquatic scholarly work but does not have an impact factor (IF) or to another journal that may be less relevant to noncompetitive aquatics and water safety but has an IF?
Language: en |