hi @scipost, I saw the call for funding and started asking around at out library
Meanwhile, scipost_202505_00027v1 is now 10 days ago submitted to @chemistry but there is no editor assigned yet. whom can I ask to have a look at it?
@egonw @chemistry Dear Egon, we just updated our Chemistry family of journals last week, and were just about to contact you to suggest shifting your submission from SciPost Chemistry to a perhaps more appropriate venue, in view of your content: SciPost Chemistry Community Reports.
If that's OK then things can get going!
@scipost @chemistry ah, let me check!
@egonw @chemistry To help further orient your thinking, you can also look at the Physics family which has a longer history.
We would now like to make our "move" into Chemistry, as we have long dreamed of doing. Expect news on this next week.
@scipost @chemistry okay, I will discuss this. also for Physics, I do not fully understand the fragmentation, and calling one the flag ship, and the others seemingly second tier
@scipost @chemistry for example, only the flagship journal describes: 'Submissions to SciPost Chemistry have to meet our highest editorial standards, and are subjected to our most stringent form of open peer-witnessed refereeing."
Sorry, but lower editorial standards is not what I am looking for, I would argue
@egonw @chemistry here what is meant is that the "expectations" and "acceptance criteria" differ from journal to journal.
The flagship journals have the toughest requirements.
@scipost @chemistry okay, I find that disappointing. research dissemination should not have tiered requirements
@egonw @scipost @chemistry well opinions differ on this one, and that's OK.
Here is my take: you don't want multi (numerous!)-layered things. But having 2 layers isn't like having 10.
I for one can take my own papers, and extract the 10% of them which achieve something special and which I think everybody should read, the rest being better reserved for the specialists "inside" my field (the core).
@egonw @scipost @chemistry these two things are distinct but not unrelated.
It's completely normal (and useful) for bigger breakthroughs to reach a wider audience.
It's useful and economical of everybody's time to have claims of groundbreaking discoveries be subjected to tougher refereeing.
It's simply practical to enable publishing more straightforward results in a more streamlined way.
That's exactly what SciPost tries to do. Many scientists have in fact pushed us to indeed do that.
@jscaux @scipost @chemistry okay, clear. I will discuss with the co-authors. thank you
@jscaux @scipost @chemistry I hear two things here: 1. which audience do you target, 2. what quality standard do you apply
Okay, if the editors feel the article is outside the scope of the journal (option 1) or feel the quality of the work is too low (option 2), please reject it. Then we can move on.