Hi folks

I'm hoping to get some advice on what to do in this situation. One of my supervisors wants me to submit my paper to a journal that very likely will reject it. I have looked at articles in this journal published within the past couple of years, and they all meet certain requirements which my study does not. Basically, I had another journal in mind, which I think the paper would be accepted in at a stretch (albeit a slightly smaller stretch).

Can I somehow... coughs... get my own way here? I respect my supervisor a lot. But I am also not so blind as to see that this is a pointless waste of time (apart from the fact that it will be a useful experience of getting rejected and some potential feedback - feedback which I could get actually from reading the blurb about what this journal expects anyway).

On one hand I could just go with the flow. But that means loss of time (and the motivation that goes with that), and then having to rewrite it later in more of the style of the journal that I have in mind. If this seriously is the best option then I will just grin and bear it. I don't want to appear like I think I know better than my supervisor, as clearly I generally I don't! I'm just the student. But I have a strong gut feeling about this being a waste of time.

Could anyone offer any wisdom?

Have you told this to your supervisor? I doubt he/she wants to have a paper rejected either, so if you go to her/him with your thoughts on this then you can find a middle ground. Very often us students know these details (rules of submission and certain formats) much better than the supervisors, so if you tell her about them she might be open to trying the other journal. I know if I were in your place, and I had this issue - my supervisor would accept my proposal and we would submit in the journal I proposed. But, only after making my case eh?

good luck.

Thanks Skyisnotthelimit. Basically, I was like "wow, so you think it has potential to go in there? I was thinking X journal". She was like, "no I think in here. X journal isn't that great at the moment". She has loads of publications so I should have thought she would know. But maybe she has risen so high in the field that she does less of the hands on stuff now. We'll see. I may see if I can make an objective case just by pointing out what the submission guidance says that particular journal wants, which my study doesn't have. She is quite dogmatic though so I want to tread carefully. She isn't my main supervisor - I see her less often - and she is "higher up" than the main one. I guess I could mention it to the main one first and see what she says, although I am pretty sure she will just go with what the higher up one says.

There are good reasons for aiming high. The quality of review is often higher (as reviewers are much more likely to do a thorough job when it's for a journal that is desirable for them too) and then having a publication in a high impact factor journal is useful for career purposes. If your article is so far off the expected norm then it's likely to be a desk reject, which at least is quick, and you never know, you might stand a chance, so my inclination would be to follow her advice.
If though you deal with rejection badly and a desk reject would throw you off course, then what about making the objective case that you suggest about why not that journal, but ask her where else she would suggest. Her dismissal of your preferred journal sounds to be rooted in a reasonable enough feeling around falling quality, so I'd take that message seriously. There's a good chance she knows something you don't. Perhaps a third journal might be the compromise here?

Good idea re third possible journal. I absolutely believe in aiming high too. And my NEXT study WILL hopefully (again with a stretch) go in that journal. It seems to fit it.

No problems with rejection, thankfully. Just like to do things that make sense to me.