Don't belittle others like this. Some people are volunteering to lead large groups for bioinformatics training for freshmen and students from major universities. Although there were paid online courses before, most of the group information is free. It's convenient for those who use it, and they don't have to code. With such a strong foundation of domestic users, the IF is naturally high

(0) 讚！ | wow9

What should we do then?

(0) 讚！ | wow9

The research article is all Chinese. Most of the spotlights are done by foreigners. They have put in a lot of effort to reduce the proportion of Chinese publications. Quite funny

(0) 讚！ | 思文

Recommend some classic botanical conservation journals in the field of botany, thank you

(0) 讚！ | 抵制不良编辑

The quality of the article is average, with very poor reputation. Even if it can score five points in a botany journal overseas, MP will not be considered

(3) 讚！ | 渡渡鸟

@NatPlants, please don't embarrass yourself. MP is a top-tier publication, and so is Horticulture Research, probably even better than MP. One is the premium version of a journal, and the other is the basic version

(0) 讚！ | 首龚

Chinese self-entertainment magazine, Horti Res is much more reputable than MP

(1) 讚！ | NatPlants

After looking at the articles from 2022 and 2023, the number of citations is quite good. However, upon closer inspection, over eighty percent of the citations are from Chinese authors. This is quite strange. Why are only Chinese authors citing the articles and not foreigners? It seems abnormal for a reputable journal to have this kind of phenomenon. Could the rumors be true?

(3) 讚！ | mountain tai

TBtools, which is often criticized by bioinformatics, has contributed over 6000 citations to MP in the past two years. Without TBtools, the impact factor of MP would probably drop to zero. 

MP might as well switch to being a bioinformatics tools journal. Then the impact factor could increase to 1000

(1) 讚！ | 仲元

Just because it's convenient, it can be published in MP? Don't look at innovation? Don't look at scientific significance?

(0) 讚！ | 仲元

Hahaha, hitting the nail on the head

(1) 讚！ | 素采

The level of articles in MP cannot be said to be bad, but it definitely does not look like a top journal. It seems to have a lot of data at first glance, but upon closer inspection, there are either logical bugs or deliberate attempts to exaggerate innovation, or simply lack of innovation. Many things reported in foreign journals over a decade ago can still be published in MP. The lower limit is relatively low.

Of course, those who are able to publish in top international journals would not even consider MP, as everyone knows that this journal has a very poor reputation

(1) 讚！ | 素采

When it comes to usefulness, there are so many useful tools out there, so why bother getting excited? Anything without much innovation can be submitted to the MP. Most articles on MP are junk. It's all about exchanging benefits

(0) 讚！ | 素采

But you can't deny that tbtools is really useful, otherwise there wouldn't be so many references. The impact factor of this journal is a bit inflated, but the quality of papers in the field of botany is still good

(0) 讚！ | KKK

The tool article, rejected by bioinformatics, was finally published in MP, with extremely negative reviews. It was this article that propelled MP's impact factor through the roof. Citation counts are no longer necessary for the sake of impact factor. Whether the article is innovative or not is irrelevant. It is estimated that 80% of the impact factor is due to inflated numbers. Remove the review letter, remove the mutual citations, and the score cannot go any higher

(0) 讚！ | 茜54655

How come you're everywhere, you asshole?

(0) 讚！ | 博_L

On the one hand, I can't hit my own shots, and on the other hand, I mock the magazine's content. Who really has the problem?

(0) 讚！ | HELLOHEL

It just looks like good quality, but if you carefully read the content, you will realize that most of it is nonsense, let alone innovation. There is a reason why foreigners don't invest.

(0) 讚！ | David zhou

The impact factor is indeed a bit inflated, but the quality of the articles in the field of botany is still good.

(0) 讚！ | KKK

Hahaha... 
I know I'm cheating, you also know I'm cheating, and I also know you know I'm cheating. But I still cheat. 
Not only do I cheat, but I also act like I'm innocent and don't let you guys accuse me of cheating.

(22) 讚！ | Yousi

I browsed through recent publications.

There are 8 research articles and 12 reviews. There are also 8 articles listed as "in-press" without clear indications, but upon closer examination, these eight articles are not research articles.

Out of the 28 articles, only 8 are research articles, which is less than 30%. Is this a reputable journal? I don't believe it! They prioritize impact factor over quality! If they remove these tricks and eliminate biased support, this garbage would not even be worth five points.

(1) 讚！ | 林夕

All the people who are making comments are Chinese. Almost all the articles posted by foreigners are either invitation for review or minireview. They are also making great efforts to lower the proportion of Chinese people!

(0) 讚！ | 林夕

Smile.

(77) 讚！ | 林夕

The difficulty of submitting contributions to this magazine is currently considered to be very high (at least higher than New Phytologist). Last year, a paper from a senior in our laboratory was submitted to Molecular Plant, but after major revisions, it was ultimately rejected and then submitted to New Phytologist, where it was accepted immediately. Therefore, it is recommended not to easily submit to this magazine without particularly good experimental results, as the submission difficulty is too high

(0) 讚！ | 一条小涵露

Can I submit content related to proteomics to this journal? Also bioinformatics

(0) 讚！ | 削月刚捷