I agree with dear Prof. Mohannad Husain Al-Sherrawi

Not all decisions are right and on the other side of the coin: Submitting a manuscript to an unsuitable journal is one of the most common mistakes made by authors just like my experiences too!

Can someone let me know where Alexander Fleming first let the world know about his discovery of penicillin. If it was published in a journal, I do not think that the quality of the journal was really a factor.

Firstly,

the publication of any type can be very positive for science.

Secondly,

The interest to you work .... or to application of this one ...

Really, not big sence & only the time will show

Usually, the quality and novelty of a research is the MAIN INGREDIENT that 'sells' it to scholars, effecting many citations and not just its appearance in an IF journal.

Its a real issue in academia

some times reviewers are harsh while rejecting very innovative research

but its part of system

Not all decisions are right.

I would suggest Prof , submit it to some editing forums , IEEE does Nature does , they will charge some amount but can fix it or at least refine it.

https://authorservices.springernature.com/

The higher the scientific reputation of magazines, the greater the citation for research, In addition to the novelty of the subject and the strict scientific methodology used in it will increase the citations.

Mostly hot topics attracts citations. Low impact factors journals also get citations, but your article can get more than average citations.

I agree with dear Prof. Mohannad Husain Al-Sherrawi

Not all decisions are right and on the other side of the coin: Submitting a manuscript to an unsuitable journal is one of the most common mistakes made by authors just like my experiences too!

Not all rejection decisions are correct and objective. Sometimes the research is sent to someone who is in a different speciality and the importance of the research is not known. A good research for me can be published even in unknown journal and it will take the right position which adds to the journal and not vice versa.

I found in recent years that the magic formula for the one I submitted that paper to, ACM Computing Surveys, is to summarize a wide range of literature uncritically as the reviewers want to see their work cited and if you say something negative, they are less likely to give you a good review.

I have also ready papers in real top journals e.g. of the Nature group that have seriously deficient analysis.

My point is not that we throw all this away but rather: if we can publish in a place that many people read and attract readers and comments on how to improve the work, maybe that would be better than a strict hierarchy of journals.

Open review as at https://f1000research.com is partway there; I published there once and it was an interesting change from the usual: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-1429/v2

I agree with@Hind S Abdulhay.

Hope you good luck

Regards

I think it's 'us' who make it matter. So they really matter.

In my opinion, your work must have been very good and attractive to attract that much of citations. Congratulations.

If that work found a place in the type of the journal that rejected it, as it appears clearly, based on wrong decisions, I think the article by now would have attracted much more citations.

This is so because readership and trust in what we label 'good journals' are usually high.

So that is how I think the journals still matter

Thank you for the question and I have an educational research I am trying to publish and whenever I send it to a magazine reject it

I agreed with Hind S. Abdulhay about not all the decision was correct, try another journal

Subir,

Alexander Fleming published his discovery in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology in 1929.

Why would a honest and legitimate scientific researcher ever want to play the system?

I agree with my colleague Andrew Mtewa