Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
When the Best Home for a Paper Is Not the Highest-Ranked Journal
Every researcher has probably asked themselves the same question before submitting a manuscript: “Which is the highest-ranked journal that might accept this paper?”. Perhaps we should be asking a different one: “Where will this paper make the greatest difference?”.
These two questions do not always lead to the same answer. I have been reflecting on this dilemma from two different perspectives: as a researcher working in Spain and as co-founder and editor of the Journal of Boredom Studies (JBS).
Building a Specialized Scholarly Community
Together with my colleague Mariusz Finkielsztein, I founded the Journal of Boredom Studies in 2021 as the official journal of the
International Society of Boredom Studies, an academic society I created with a
simple goal: to bring together researchers interested in boredom across
disciplines. Philosophers, psychologists, neuroscientists, sociologists,
educators, management scholars, historians, and many others were studying
boredom, but there was no dedicated venue where these conversations could
naturally meet.
The journal was born to fill that gap. Ironically, that has also become one of our biggest editorial challenges. Whenever we apply for inclusion in major indexing databases, one recurring concern is that many of our authors are members of the International Society of Boredom Studies. The implication is that there is too much overlap between the journal and the scholarly community behind it.
I understand why this raises questions. But I also think it overlooks how emerging fields actually develop. When a research area is still relatively small, its scholars naturally know each other. They organize conferences together, collaborate on projects, review one another’s work, and publish in the journal specifically created to advance that field. That is not editorial endogamy; it is often how new academic communities grow.
Over time, those communities become larger, more international, and more diverse. But expecting a young, highly specialized journal to resemble one representing an established discipline with thousands of researchers seems unrealistic.
When Journal Prestige Becomes a Proxy for Quality
At the same time, researchers are facing another kind of pressure. In
Spain, as in many other countries, academic careers continue to depend heavily
on where we publish. Recruitment, promotion, research assessment, and funding
applications often place considerable weight on whether an article appears in
journals indexed in specific databases. Whether we like it or not, journal
prestige frequently becomes a proxy for research quality.
Rethinking Research Evaluation
Fortunately, I also see reasons for optimism. In recent years, Spanish
research evaluation agencies have begun moving in a promising direction.
Increasing attention is being given to the broader impact of research,
considering not only the reputation of the journal but also citations, societal
impact, contributions to public policy, knowledge transfer, outreach, and other
qualitative dimensions of academic work.
I welcome this shift. Yet implementing it remains challenging. Demonstrating broader impact often requires researchers to collect evidence manually because many journals, particularly newer, smaller, or highly specialized ones, do not provide integrated metrics or visibility tools. As a result, researchers still find themselves relying heavily on journal rankings because they remain the simplest and most widely accepted indicator during evaluation.
The Tension Between Prestige and Impact
This is where I believe one of the greatest tensions in scholarly
publishing lies. We increasingly say that research should improve society,
inform public policy, influence professional practice, and reach diverse
audiences. Yet our incentive structures often continue to reward the prestige
of the publication venue more consistently than the actual reach or usefulness
of the research itself.
As editors, we experience another side of this paradox. A specialized journal may operate rigorous peer review, follow the highest ethical standards, embrace Open Access, and serve a committed international community. Yet many authors hesitate to submit their strongest work simply because the journal has not yet reached a particular indexing milestone.
The Cycle Facing Young Specialized Journals
This creates a difficult cycle. Young journals struggle to attract outstanding submissions because they are not yet indexed in the most influential databases. Without those submissions, gaining that indexing becomes even more difficult.
Breaking this cycle requires patience from editors, but also confidence from researchers and perhaps a broader understanding from evaluation systems. I am certainly not arguing that journal quality should not matter. Rigorous peer review, editorial transparency, ethical publishing, and high scientific standards are fundamental. Indexing databases play an important role in identifying journals that meet those expectations.
Beyond Journal Rankings
But perhaps we should remind ourselves of something equally important.
Excellent research is not created by an indexing database. It is created by
researchers asking meaningful questions, conducting careful work, and
communicating their findings to the people who can actually use them.
Sometimes the best place for that work is a highly ranked multidisciplinary journal. Sometimes it is a specialized journal built by and for the very community that is advancing that field. Both have value.
As scholarly publishing continues to evolve, I hope we can move towards evaluation systems that reward not only where research is published, but also who it reaches, what conversations it generates, and what difference it ultimately makes. Because the best home for a paper is not always the highest-ranked journal. Sometimes it is simply the place where the right readers are waiting.
Keywords
Journal Selection Journal Prestige Research Evaluation Journal Indexing Scholarly Publishing Research Impact Specialized Journals Academic Publishing Journal Metrics Scholarly Communication
Josefa Ros, European PhD in Philosophy and recipient of the 2022 Spanish National Research Award, is Spain’s leading expert in Boredom Studies. She currently leads the “PRE-BORED. Well-being and prevention of boredom in Spanish nursing homes” project as Principal Investigator at the Complutense University of Madrid, funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 program. Previously, she was a researcher and assistant professor at Harvard University. Ros is the author of The Disease of Boredom (Princeton University Press, 2026), a frequent speaker, trainer of social and healthcare teams, and regular media contributor. She also serves as President of the International Society of Boredom Studies and co-directs the Journal of Boredom Studies.
View All Posts by Josefa Ros VelascoDisclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their affiliated institutions, the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE), or the Editor’s Café editorial team.
