This is a test version of Biostars. For the public version, visit https://www.biostars.org.
Forum: Journals for Bioinformatic and Metagenomic Studies?

Hello everyone,

I have a question regarding the publication of metagenomic and bioinformatic studies, as well as predictive-statistical machine learning models in the context of clinical research and human diseases. I have conducted a metagenomic study on blood tissue (sourced from consortium cohorts) related to neurodegenerative diseases, and I am looking for a high-impact journal to publish it.

I have found that the journals I’ve submitted to so far have rejected the paper immediately—without even sending it to peer reviewers or providing feedback on what could be improved. These journals had agreements with my university that covered the publication fees. Consequently, I am now considering paid options directly, including those suggested after the rejections, but the APCs are generally quite expensive.

The journals that rejected my paper have previously published articles of a similar style. Does anyone have any advice? Do you recommend any specific publishers or journals? Also, how can we identify the flaws in our paper if the editors don't provide any feedback at all?

Thank you for your help.

bioinformatics learning machine journal
• 505 views • link
updated by ATpoint ATpoint • written by egascon • egascon

If you publish at biorxiv one can have a look and recommend a journal and/or adjustments on the story/narrateive/layout.

• 0 views • link
written by ATpoint ATpoint

2 answers

Hello,

Most of the journals ask some kind of validation for in silico analyses, it's difficult to publish bioinformatics investigations without bench experiments, unless it is a preprint.

Some publishers, however, have tools to help you find the most appropriate journal to submit your article, the Elsevier journal finder is one of them.

• 0 views • link
written by pinheirofabiano • pinheirofabiano

Not all the journals consider and publish papers based only on scientific merit. Many of them publish the topics they consider to be trendy or of high impact. In other words, given a choice between a paper in a relatively obscure field that might be strong scientifically, and a paper that will yield them 5000 citations, they will go for the latter. Ideally we'd want our papers to be rock solid and of such importance that trendiness won't matter, but that's just not the reality.

The journals that rejected my paper have previously published articles of a similar style.

What was trendy a year ago may not be trendy today. Or it could mean that the expectations have risen: a year ago a speculative paper might have been accepted because of the novelty, while today they require some experimental proof as well.

Also, how can we identify the flaws in our paper if the editors don't provide any feedback at all?

Top journals reject more papers than they accept, and like I said it is not always on merit. They would need to hire an extra person - let's call them a rejection editor - to explain in a meaningful way why the paper was rejected, and they may not even have a reason beyond not thinking that a paper is of sufficient importance. My suggestion is to share the paper with local colleagues and get their feedback.

I don't think anyone can give you a specific journal or a publisher without actually reading the paper. From your description we have no clue if your paper is purely predictive or not; what kind of novelty is in it; what is your geographic location (that matters, even if only a little); who are your coauthors (also matters); what exactly do you mean by high-impact journals (both Immunity and Nature are high-impact journals but there is a vast difference in how they make their editorial decisions). Again, I suggest you talk with local colleagues about the nuances of finding an appropriate journal.

• 0 views • link
written by Mensur Dlakic Mensur Dlakic

Log in to answer this question.

More posts like this