As usual, if something bothers me, I turn to creativity to somehow vent my anger. This time it is about journal editors – how surprising. I am used to rejections and idiotic referee comments, but I find that more and more of my papers travel from one journal to the other not because the editors and referees think it is a bad paper, but because the manuscript doesn’t align with the scope of the journal. You might say, that I am choosing my journals poorly, but with the last three publications I followed very much what the editors suggested, ending up with my manuscript being ping-ponged between computational and biological journals.
The feedback I get, tells me that my research simply doesn’t fit into either category anymore. And the funny thing is, that I published methodologically identical paper in said journals already. I generally evolve stuff, and find something interesting about evolution, just to hear that this isn’t biological, or that the findings should be reported in a biological journal and not in computer science. However, there is no such journal aimed solely at doing computational modeling research in evolutionary biology.
Hence I founded the A-index initiative. You all know what H index means: number of papers that have H or more citations, make your H index. The just invented A-index counts the average number of journals your manuscript was rejected from, with the argument, that what you are doing doesn’t fit into the established categories. What this A-index really says is, how novel your research on average is, and how much paradigm shifting potential it has. The higher the better, since only if you don’t fall into established categories, you actually discovered something truly novel – otherwise there would be an established journal already.
Cheers Arend (A index ~4)
BTW: A-index stands for Abomination-Index, or Arend-index, your choice