Skyrocketing Submissions Part 2

In 2025, we set another record for the number of submissions, close to 3800. The figure shows how our submissions have increased over the past 10 years, steadily increasing until the COVID dip, then skyrocketing over the past 3 years. How many manuscript submissions are enough? Maybe at some point, we should see this increase as no longer a good thing. . We're not the only journal in this situation; in fact, most journals are seeing a boom in submissions. We speculated last year that the solid reputation of JFS was behind this increase, with authors shunning the journals that promised faster, but less stringent, peer review. I'm not so sure. I think there are many other factors, not the least of which is the increasing pressure to publish papers, both in the United States and around the world. Over the course of my career, I've known faculty members with radically divergent publication strategies. One would chunk everything down to the “smallest publishable increment” (SPI) and end up with over 800 publications in one's career. Another colleague argued that fewer were better, as long as they were “seminal” works. Certainly, high numbers attract attention—often speakers are introduced with a note to the number of publications, suggesting that more is better. On the other hand, it's difficult most of the time to assess if a work is groundbreaking or not, especially since most scientific advances are incremental. More on that topic next month. Contributing to the number of submissions, some programs have a standard that a PhD candidate must have five publications to graduate. In my opinion, this often (although not always) leads to publication of the SPI, a good way of padding the resume for both the PI (principal investigator) and the student. The pressure to publish can be even greater in other countries, especially those with growing scientific institutions. In China, for example, professors are required to publish numerous papers per year, with half of those in Q1 journals—that is, the top quartile of journals by Impact Factor in a given subject area. The specific numbers depend on the institution and the professor's rank. In some institutions, publication bonuses are awarded based on the number and quality (as determined by the journal's high IF) of publications, providing a financial impetus for churning out articles, whether original research or reviews. I'm sure similar factors apply to other countries with increasing submission numbers. Since our rejection rate has remained about the same (hovering between 76% and 78%), the increase in submissions means we have a consequent increase in the number of manuscripts we publish. Last year, we exceeded our previous high, with over 800 articles. While we still think of rising submissions as a positive indicator, it comes with a cost. Every submission goes through a sequence of automated and manual checks before it even gets to an Editor. At JFS, we scan for things like iThenticate similarity index, IRB numbers for works with human subjects or animals, proper formatting (i.e., references, figures, etc.), potential conflicts (e.g., author-recommended reviewers come from the same institution), valid email addresses for all co-authors, duplicate submissions, and so on. But things like quality of work and fit within the journal scope are left to Editors to evaluate. The more manuscripts submitted, the more work required by both staff and editors at all levels. This increase in submissions has meant we've added numerous editors at all levels in recent years. We've gone from 10 Scientific Editors (some shared with CRFSFS) 5 years ago to 14 dedicated to JFS now. Likewise, the number of Associate Editors (AEs) has increased to accommodate the increase in submissions. Members-at-Large to the Editorial Board have also increased. These increases come with an additional cost to IFT. Increased submissions also mean we call on more potential reviewers. I believe this is, at least in part, why our AEs have more and more trouble getting reviewers to agree to a task. I hear it over and over from AEs that it's often frustrating to get three solid reviews per manuscript. As submissions go up, the AE job gets harder and harder. It would be great if increasing numbers also meant enhanced quality of manuscripts, but it sometimes seems that these are inversely proportional. With paper mills and AI-enhanced writing, it is easier and easier for authors to submit. This means that our editors have to deal with increasing numbers of manuscripts of low quality. Thus, editors also express a greater sense of despair, having to spend time with manuscripts that contain weak science or don't even fit within our scope. Maybe we shouldn't be so happy to have greater submissions year after year. Sincerely, Rich Hartel, PhD Editor in Chief, Journal of Food Science Professor, University of Wisconsin–Madison