Good
journals are not necessarily the same - but in many cases a correlation exists.
Basically
there are two reasons why people publish their research work:
1. To make
everyone in the field aware of the research they have lead. Their research serves as a forum for the exchange of ideas among scientists, young researchers, students and readers from all over the world.
2. To gain
respect of their peers and improve their CV. So that when they apply for the
next job, they can objectively prove that they are indeed doing noble research.
You
might think that just making your research publicly accessible on the internet
should be sufficient for point 1, but it’s not true. Most researchers/
scientists/ professors can’t keep pathway of the thousands of articles
published every year in their field. They tend to follow some journals (by
subscribing to emails of the table of contents of every issue) and attend a few
conferences to be aware of current growth in the field. If you publish your
work at an unknown site that is accessible to very few people, it is very
likely that it will be lost in the enormous volume of research being produced.
Good
journals also help your research through a strict peer-review. In my
experience, peer reviews of most of my papers has been very useful. In most
cases, the peer review helps you to improve the quality of the paper. And once
you’ve had enough articles peer-reviewed, you tend to understand the common errors
that should be avoided and in general become a better communicator of ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment