The paper reveals the irony in how researchers navigate journal tiers, suggesting that standards may shift unjustly.
It is often assumed that researchers submit their work to the highest prestige titles and, when rejected, move down the 'hierarchy' to titles with less stringent review criteria (see, for instance, Poynder, Richard, 'PLoS ONE, Open Access, and the Future of Scholarly Publishing', 2011, [https://richardpoynder.co.uk/PLoS_ONE.pdf](https://richardpoynder.co.uk/PLoS_ONE.pdf), p. 29). The irony is that at each stage of this process the paper may be
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martin Paul Eve (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: