IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0178874.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multi-objective decision-making approach to the journal submission problem

Author

Listed:
  • Tony E Wong
  • Vivek Srikrishnan
  • David Hadka
  • Klaus Keller

Abstract

When researchers complete a manuscript, they need to choose a journal to which they will submit the study. This decision requires to navigate trade-offs between multiple objectives. One objective is to share the new knowledge as widely as possible. Citation counts can serve as a proxy to quantify this objective. A second objective is to minimize the time commitment put into sharing the research, which may be estimated by the total time from initial submission to final decision. A third objective is to minimize the number of rejections and resubmissions. Thus, researchers often consider the trade-offs between the objectives of (i) maximizing citations, (ii) minimizing time-to-decision, and (iii) minimizing the number of resubmissions. To complicate matters further, this is a decision with multiple, potentially conflicting, decision-maker rationalities. Co-authors might have different preferences, for example about publishing fast versus maximizing citations. These diverging preferences can lead to conflicting trade-offs between objectives. Here, we apply a multi-objective decision analytical framework to identify the Pareto-front between these objectives and determine the set of journal submission pathways that balance these objectives for three stages of a researcher’s career. We find multiple strategies that researchers might pursue, depending on how they value minimizing risk and effort relative to maximizing citations. The sequences that maximize expected citations within each strategy are generally similar, regardless of time horizon. We find that the “conditional impact factor”—impact factor times acceptance rate—is a suitable heuristic method for ranking journals, to strike a balance between minimizing effort objectives and maximizing citation count. Finally, we examine potential co-author tension resulting from differing rationalities by mapping out each researcher’s preferred Pareto front and identifying compromise submission strategies. The explicit representation of trade-offs, especially when multiple decision-makers (co-authors) have different preferences, facilitates negotiations and can support the decision process.

Suggested Citation

  • Tony E Wong & Vivek Srikrishnan & David Hadka & Klaus Keller, 2017. "A multi-objective decision-making approach to the journal submission problem," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0178874
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178874
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178874
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178874&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0178874?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Warren E. Walker & Marjolijn Haasnoot & Jan H. Kwakkel, 2013. "Adapt or Perish: A Review of Planning Approaches for Adaptation under Deep Uncertainty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-25, March.
    2. Benjamin M. Althouse & Jevin D. West & Carl T. Bergstrom & Theodore Bergstrom, 2009. "Differences in impact factor across fields and over time," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(1), pages 27-34, January.
    3. Gregory Garner & Patrick Reed & Klaus Keller, 2016. "Climate risk management requires explicit representation of societal trade-offs," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 134(4), pages 713-723, February.
    4. Robert J. Lempert & David G. Groves & Steven W. Popper & Steve C. Bankes, 2006. "A General, Analytic Method for Generating Robust Strategies and Narrative Scenarios," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 514-528, April.
    5. Oster, Sharon, 1980. "The Optimal Order for Submitting Manuscripts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 444-448, June.
    6. Santiago Salinas & Stephan B Munch, 2015. "Where Should I Send It? Optimizing the Submission Decision Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, January.
    7. Langlois, Richard N & Cosgel, Metin M, 1993. "Frank Knight on Risk, Uncertainty, and the Firm: A New Interpretation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(3), pages 456-465, July.
    8. Heintzelman Martin & Nocetti Diego, 2009. "Where Should we Submit our Manuscript? An Analysis of Journal Submission Strategies," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, September.
    9. David Adam, 2002. "The counting house," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6873), pages 726-729, February.
    10. Gregory Garner & Patrick Reed & Klaus Keller, 2016. "Climate risk management requires explicit representation of societal trade-offs," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 134(4), pages 713-723, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zeynep Didem Unutmaz Durmuşoğlu & Alptekin Durmuşoğlu, 2021. "A TOPSIS model for understanding the authors choice of journal selection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 521-543, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. William Mobley & Kayode O. Atoba & Wesley E. Highfield, 2020. "Uncertainty in Flood Mitigation Practices: Assessing the Economic Benefits of Property Acquisition and Elevation in Flood-Prone Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Julie E. Shortridge & Benjamin F. Zaitchik, 2018. "Characterizing climate change risks by linking robust decision frameworks and uncertain probabilistic projections," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 525-539, December.
    3. Casey Helgeson & Robert E. Nicholas & Klaus Keller & Chris E. Forest & Nancy Tuana, 2022. "Attention to values helps shape convergence research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(1), pages 1-19, January.
    4. Zeynep Didem Unutmaz Durmuşoğlu & Alptekin Durmuşoğlu, 2021. "A TOPSIS model for understanding the authors choice of journal selection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 521-543, January.
    5. Martin Vezér & Alexander Bakker & Klaus Keller & Nancy Tuana, 2018. "Epistemic and ethical trade-offs in decision analytical modelling," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 1-10, March.
    6. Frank Mueller‐Langer & Richard Watt, 2021. "Optimal pricing and quality of academic journals and the ambiguous welfare effects of forced open access: A two‐sided model," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 1945-1959, December.
    7. Damien Besancenot & João Ricardo Faria & Franklin G. Mixon, 2017. "Academic Research and the Strategic Interaction of Scholars and Editors: A Two-Stage Game," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(01), pages 1-16, March.
    8. Judy Lawrence & Robert Bell & Adolf Stroombergen, 2019. "A Hybrid Process to Address Uncertainty and Changing Climate Risk in Coastal Areas Using Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis & Real Options Analysis: A New Zealand App," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    9. Simona Mannucci & Federica Rosso & Alessandro D’Amico & Gabriele Bernardini & Michele Morganti, 2022. "Flood Resilience and Adaptation in the Built Environment: How Far along Are We?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-22, March.
    10. Sascha Baghestanian & Sergey V. Popov, 2018. "On publication, refereeing and working hard," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 1419-1459, November.
    11. Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Joao Faria, 2012. "Search and research: the influence of editorial boards on journals’ quality," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 687-702, October.
    12. David C. Lane & Özge Pala & Yaman Barlas & Willem L. Auping & Erik Pruyt & Jan H. Kwakkel, 2015. "Societal Ageing in the Netherlands: A Robust System Dynamics Approach," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 485-501, July.
    13. Giacomo Marangoni & Jonathan R. Lamontagne & Julianne D. Quinn & Patrick M. Reed & Klaus Keller, 2021. "Adaptive mitigation strategies hedge against extreme climate futures," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-17, June.
    14. Kwakkel, J.H. & Cunningham, S.C., 2016. "Improving scenario discovery by bagging random boxes," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 124-134.
    15. Bhave, Ajay Gajanan & Conway, Declan & Dessai, Suraje & Stainforth, David A., 2017. "Barriers and opportunities for robust decision making approaches to support climate change adaptation in the developing world," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68318, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Moallemi, Enayat A. & Elsawah, Sondoss & Ryan, Michael J., 2020. "Strengthening ‘good’ modelling practices in robust decision support: A reporting guideline for combining multiple model-based methods," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 3-24.
    17. I. Jarić & J. Gessner, 2012. "Analysis of publications on sturgeon research between 1996 and 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 715-735, February.
    18. Hurford, A.P. & Harou, J.J. & Bonzanigo, L. & Ray, P.A. & Karki, P. & Bharati, L. & Chinnasamy, P., 2020. "Efficient and robust hydropower system design under uncertainty - A demonstration in Nepal," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    19. Ram, Camelia, 2020. "Scenario presentation and scenario generation in multi-criteria assessments: An exploratory study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    20. Luciano Raso & Jan Kwakkel & Jos Timmermans, 2019. "Assessing the Capacity of Adaptive Policy Pathways to Adapt on Time by Mapping Trigger Values to Their Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0178874. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.