No raw data, no science: another possible source of the reproducibility crisis, 2020, Miyakawa

https://molecularbrain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2

 

Blimey, that is really staggering, shocking.

 

The message here is fair enough but the author may be a bit guilty of biased information too.

The author claims to be editor in chief of a journal that has had 180 manuscripts to review since early 2017 - roughly one a week. An established quality journal would probably get a minimum of 10 manuscripts a week. A premier journal might get 100+. So it looks rather as if this journal, which I expect nobody much has heard of, is tending towards the last chance saloon category for researchers.

If so it is not too surprising that the editor has been receiving a lot of non-existent studies. This may be unfair but the editorial would be a bit more weighty if it had come from Science or Blood or the Annals of Rheumatic Disease.

 

On the other hand, "Molecular Brain" currently has an "impact factor 4.051 (2018-2019), which, according to this chart by the "Journal Citation Reports" (JCR) puts "Molecular Brain" in the top 11.4% of 12,298 journals evaluated, in terms of citations. It's highest impact factor was 4.902 in 2014, which put it in roughly the top 7% of the journals evaluated at the time. In the last three years, the number of articles they have published has decreased, while their total citations have increased, which might suggest greater selectivity.
https://www.bioxbio.com/journal/MOL-BRAIN

They may not get many submissions, but those they publish seem to get cited a fair amount.