In:
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Vol. 125, No. 4_Supplement ( 2009-04-01), p. 2682-2682
Abstract:
Attractions of a journal are its widespread availability, its archival (forever!) nature, its priority in literature searches, and its prestige. Articles should be readable to others in the field, be significant, and original. JASA is selective and imposes standards. Perceived quality is often measured by the “impact factor,” which may have very little to do with the extent to which the journal fulfills the mission of the Society. Of great frustration to the editors is that a substantial fraction of authors who submit papers seem to be somewhat clueless as to what is a reasonable topic and what is a reasonable scope for an article in JASA. Frustrating also is that most good work reported at Society meetings never gets submitted. The present talk critically discusses the selection process, its peer-review aspects, and its flaws. The selection process deals with realities, such as that willing and competent reviewers are hard to find and that submitted reviews are often inane, with carefully selected highly expert associate editors who can make authoritative decisions without absolute reliance on external reviews. Suggestions are given on how to prepare a suitable manuscript and on how to cope with the vagaries of the peer-review process.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0001-4966
,
1520-8524
Language:
English
Publisher:
Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
Publication Date:
2009
detail.hit.zdb_id:
1461063-2
