PHD Discussions Logo

Ask, Learn and Accelerate in your PhD Research

Question Icon Post Your Answer

Question Icon

5 months ago in Scientific publishing By Shraddha

My co-authors and I disagree on which journal to submit to. How do we reach a consensus without damaging our working relationship‑Strategies for resolving disagreements among co-authors regarding target journal selection.

Our manuscript is ready. My senior co-author wants to "aim high" for a top-tier, low-odds journal. I think we should be pragmatic and target a solid specialty journal for a quicker publication. Another author has a different preference. How do we navigate this decision democratically?

All Answers (3 Answers In All)

By Fanita Answered 3 months ago

This common tension requires a structured, objective conversation. Propose a brief meeting with a simple agenda: list each person's top 1-2 journal choices. For each journal, discuss objective criteria: 1) Scope & Fit (analyze recent tables of contents), 2) Impact & Prestige (consider the audience you want to reach), 3) Likelihood & Timeline (review acceptance rates and average review times), and 4) Cost (APCs for OA). Frame it not as "my journal vs. yours," but as "what's best for the paper." Often, a tiered strategy resolves the conflict: agree to first submit to the "high-risk, high-reward" journal for a limited time (e.g., one round of review). If rejected, you immediately move to the agreed-upon "plan B" journal without further debate. This honors the ambitious goal while having a pragmatic backup. The lead/corresponding author often has the final say, but a transparent process respects all voices and preserves the relationship.

Replied 3 months ago

By Shraddha

Thank you, this was really helpful Fanita.

By Berat Answered 3 months ago

I’ve been through this a few times, and what helped most was shifting the focus away from prestige and toward audience. Asking “Who do we actually want reading and citing this paper?” often clarifies things quickly. Once everyone agrees on the target audience, the journal choice becomes more obvious.

It also helps to ground the discussion in data recent acceptance rates, review times, and how similar papers performed in each journal. When decisions are evidence based, disagreements tend to feel less personal and more professional.

Replied 3 months ago

By Shraddha

Thanks a lot for this perspective. Focusing on audience instead of impact factor really resonates with me and feels easier to justify to the whole team.

By Amir Answered 1 month ago

In my experience, disagreements ease when roles are clearly defined early. If the corresponding or lead author is responsible for managing submission strategy, that expectation should be explicit from the start. That doesn’t mean ignoring co-authors’ input but it does help avoid stalemates.

Another useful approach is agreeing on constraints upfront, like a maximum review time or required visibility level. Once those boundaries are set, the list of viable journals narrows naturally, making consensus easier without straining relationships.

Replied 1 month ago

By Shraddha

Really helpful Shraddha thank you! Setting constraints ahead of time sounds like something we should’ve done earlier, and I’ll definitely suggest it next time.

Your Answer