emk wrote:Le Baron wrote:Can't believe that was published in a journal. The writing is terrible. Writing 'info' instead of information and lots of meaningless sentences.
I tried to look up more information on the journal where this was published. The information was conflicting, but external sites claimed the "impact factor" of the journal was 0.1. For every 10 papers published in the journal, there's an average of 1 citation in another paper. Depending on the field, typical impact factors of reasonable journals often range from 1.0-7.0.
An impact factor of 0.1 usually means one of two things: The journal exists to run up people's publication counts, or it's a niche journal in a field that doesn't interact much with larger journals in the anglosphere. There are two or three other clues pointing at the former.
Years ago, I worked as an editor at an academic publishing house. Many people who are talented researchers are rubbish writers or non-native speakers or both, and any journal with high standards for style and correctness employs editors either directly or on a consultant basis. Or, alternatively, they require the authors to pay for professional editing as a condition of approval.
Pay-to-play article mills with zero reputational impact are run on a shoestring and/or are built for maximum profit extraction, and will often publish articles as-is or with perhaps a run through MS Word spelling and grammar checker.
That doesn't mean that a poorly written/edited article doesn't have serious research behind it, but it's certainly a data point worth noting.
