Hi Abdelaziz,

Your question is a concerning question among many researchers, especially for the M.Sc. or Ph.D. scholars, where their institute may force the IF threshold for their graduation, in that case, I join my voice with Dr. Whitehead's opinion and recommend to follow such measures. Besides that case, based on my past experience, the relationship between the amount of work in one paper and the grantee for higher IF is not that clear. I think it is not only about the amount of work, but many other merits are also to be considered, e.g. novelty, robust analysis and the interpretation of your results among others.

I recall a statement that says one paper in nature never equals 40 papers in 1.00 IF journals, but also, many prestigious journals do exist with low IF but within the Q1 of its field (category). IF is used to define Quarntiles for each category, which is a standardized way to compare between different fields within life science. Thus, Q1 should be a target than just the IF.

My piece of advice is to read as much, try to define an interesting gap of knowledge, keep tracking the good ideas and related updates, apply the most proper methodology in your work and validate your outputs as much as possible while being as neutral as needed. Try to guide yourself to the most comprehensive ways to report your results, and search for the proper journal (i.e. proper reviewers and readers) based on its scope and the past published articles. You will eventually find yourself reaching journals with the necessary Q1 for your career and field of study without worrying much about the IF numbers! Unless it is a prerequisite for your career or graduation.

Best of luck!!!

Abdelaziz - that would depend on several factors. Obviously, if your current institution/discipline only 'counts' articles above a certain IF - then that is the measure to follow. Also - when you say one 'big' article - it's the quality (and not the length) of the article that often matters most. Take medicine, for instance. Many of their 'popular' high IF journals only accept maximum word counts i.e. 3,000 words - whether it is say a single case study - or an international clinical trial. I favour mixed methods studies - whereby several data collection phases occur. It is often hard to do justice to mixed methods approaches within a limited word count. In that case, I favour splitting them into at least two articles - reporting the different methodology phases and, hopefully, the full study. That is more likely to lead to what you refer to as 'small' articles. A consideration of 'many' small articles is that one avoids the criticism of too much 'salami slicing'.

Dear Dr. Whitehead,

Thanks for your comment, it is so nice to hear that from you. Actually, I aim this question for the articles publishing in Biology, because it is the major of my interests. Thus, the meaning of "big" and "small" depends on work approaches, time, findings, quality, length, and IF as well. So, this question was to discuss this point. Thanks for your contribution ~

Hi Abdelaziz,

Your question is a concerning question among many researchers, especially for the M.Sc. or Ph.D. scholars, where their institute may force the IF threshold for their graduation, in that case, I join my voice with Dr. Whitehead's opinion and recommend to follow such measures. Besides that case, based on my past experience, the relationship between the amount of work in one paper and the grantee for higher IF is not that clear. I think it is not only about the amount of work, but many other merits are also to be considered, e.g. novelty, robust analysis and the interpretation of your results among others.

I recall a statement that says one paper in nature never equals 40 papers in 1.00 IF journals, but also, many prestigious journals do exist with low IF but within the Q1 of its field (category). IF is used to define Quarntiles for each category, which is a standardized way to compare between different fields within life science. Thus, Q1 should be a target than just the IF.

My piece of advice is to read as much, try to define an interesting gap of knowledge, keep tracking the good ideas and related updates, apply the most proper methodology in your work and validate your outputs as much as possible while being as neutral as needed. Try to guide yourself to the most comprehensive ways to report your results, and search for the proper journal (i.e. proper reviewers and readers) based on its scope and the past published articles. You will eventually find yourself reaching journals with the necessary Q1 for your career and field of study without worrying much about the IF numbers! Unless it is a prerequisite for your career or graduation.

Best of luck!!!

Hello Abdelaziz Mansour,

I think to aim at obtaining your certificate either of the two is ok. For my field of study, crop genetics and breeding, targetting Nature and other higher IF above 10 may require me to do many related experiments which my program duration may not allow. Big articles can be one of your goals in or after school. Other respondents have made valid points. Thanks to all.

The length on a scientific article depends chiefly on its object and on conventions developed within a particular scientific community. What's why the question: which better? has no sense (to me, at least). Besides, there are personal differences among the authors: some people love short and concise publications, others prefer long papers, with many details, long discussions etc. Both approaches have their pros and contras. Both long and short papers may be issued in high-impact journals. I think, there is no a prominent correlation between the paper length and IF (though possible there are some scientometric studies on this matter).

Thanks, Dear Dr. Mahmoud Elmosallamy for your comment. Really, I appreciate your logically arranged opinion and your so productive advice and suggestion.

Best regards,

Mansour

Thanks, Dear Karikari,

I understand your point well. I think it is the same situation for all postgraduates unless they are working in a cooperative teamwork

Best of luck in your coming steps,

Mansour

Thanks, Dr. Vinarski for your highly appreciated contribution. Your point of view is most welcome.

Kind regards,

Mansour