Escribir un comentario

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Partly

The paper addresses a genuine concern; however, the objectives are not explicitly stated, and the readers are left to infer them from the text.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

Many unsupported assumptions were made by the authors. There is inconsistency in the number of venues the author stated in the abstract (40 journals) and in the methodology section ( 16). The model used was poorly justified, and there is no theoretical backup to support the model. The model also lacks validation.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Neither supported nor unsupported

There's so much generalisation and the results presented are descriptive. The conclusion is too brief and does not give a robust representation of the scope of study. Only ACM Computer Science dataset was used, and yet the author seems to generalised the findings across other fields.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Neither appropriate and clear nor inappropriate and unclear

There are no objective performance measures of claims like "acceptance", "better", "genuine", and the likes. Some figure captions are vague and do not spell out exactly what is presented. Some other figures are not well interpreted, for example, figure 7.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Neither clearly nor unclearly

Some recommendations were made for further research; however, combining the results and discussion sections into one makes the writing deviate from standard norms. Also, the discussion was not backed up by any scholarly literature. No limitations of the study were identified.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Somewhat likely

If improved, it can address the bias in relying solely on the journal impact factor (which can be prone to manipulation) as a measure of journal quality when selecting an appropriate venue for journal publication.

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

There are a lot of informal words used and non-academic tones.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

No, it needs a major revision

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they used generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.