Post <blockquote>You "know for a fact"? Quality is some objective matter? You have an advanced degree in this, or any subject, really? That is one article. And again "who remains unemployed" again suggests that whatever is popular at the moment is right. Like the IF focus. Leaving Clancy aside, can you genuinely not imagine someone not thinking that way? That whatever is most fashionable might not be best? It's really something you can't even imagine, I guess. To publish the best work he or she can find. He's not in sales, which seems to be your idea. Why? What do you think the job of an editor actually is? I can't get over the focus on impact factor as a self-evident measure of virtue, GMC (!) as a model etc. Bro - he published a solo article by a graduate student who remains unemployed, claiming that Tom Clancy's work actually influenced Gorbachev's and Reagan's summitry. It didn't; and no evidence at all was provided to bolster the argument that it did. Does that sound like"the best work he can find"? Thinking what way? He rejected 95% of submissions. I'm guessing, strongly, that the submission pool didn't decrease in quality. But I know for a fact that the pool of published articles did. Ask me how I know. I do, in fact. I'm a full professor of political science. Are you?</blockquote>

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.