On April 2, 2012, Jeffrey Beal asked Paul Peters : > > How many of those 5,400 [March] submissions [to Hindawi journals] will > be accepted for publication? >
Maybe I should wait for Mr Peters' reply, but if he knows the answer before these papers are reviewed, there will be some reason for concern. Even if I suspect this is by no way a na?ve question, considering Jeffrey Beall's well known (and certainly useful) hunt of "predatory" OA journals, I will take it at face value. Acceptance rate is one indicator (among many) that can be used to evaluate journal quality. But, as all such indicators, it must be used with extreme caution. Like the ubiquitous impact factor, it may vary widely according to various factors : discipline, intended readership, editorial choices, etc. For instance, due to an openly stated editorial stance, PLoS One has a 70% acceptance rate, much higher than other prestigious journals. Another thing is that comparisons are difficult, as this indicator isn't easy to obtain. Some journals display this information, others not. And if I found easily a reference to Cabell's directories (http://www.cabells.com), which covers 3000 journals in various fields, I couldn't go farther without a subscription. The same applies, to a lesser extent, to the impact factors, which are available for only a fraction of journals (and a small one for OA journals). So, even if I had the numbers for some or all Hindawi journals, I don't know what it would really mean, except when it is close to 100%. To end with a little bit of humour, I invite your to discover what is certainly the most prestigious journal according to this indicator : http://www.universalrejection.org Marc Couture
