Case Studies

Of the 39 responses we received, 4 did not identify a reason for the decline in submissions. In several cases the apparent decline was an artefact of the data caused by a change of submission systems (n =3) or the splitting of the journal into two (n = 3). Some respondents identified external factors, such as Impact Factor (n = 4) or competitor journals (n = 3) as the primary factor. The emergence of “sound science” mega-journals has added to the competition from more traditional specialized journals. Others identified internal journal changes as the primary factor, including a change of editor(s) (n = 2), increased rejection rates (n = 3), and turnaround times (n = 2). In several cases the decline in submissions was explained as an intentional editorial strategy to refocus the journal (n = 6), or by a move away from commissioned content (n = 4). In one case, the decline in submissions was connected by the respondent to a highly publicized case of misconduct by the editor-in-chief. In another case, the decline in submission was explained by imposition of complicated and unnecessary submission requirements (Table \ref{995320}).
The importance of Impact Factor was a common feature of respondents. One publishing manager said “If authors have to choose between 3 journals with the same scope, they’ll go in order of impact factor almost all the time.” An editor-in-chief worried about the influence of Impact Factor, noting that some authors chose a competitor journal with a higher Impact Factor, despite claiming “this is a poorly managed and uneven journal, and that papers published there are viewed very differently”.