Hi Dear Mellah
I think the impact factor is very important to other index
publication in peer reviewed journals is a common way for gaining approval for a research work by supposedly prominent international experts in the subject. Although, I don't think the impact factor be an important quality factor.
I think that the publications with ISI impact factor aren't the only places with quality research works. Many researchers publish their work in less known publications with peer reviewed process and with good possibilities to be on-line or in journals in another basis. It depends of many objects (social resources, time for review process and publishing, etc).
This is, I think a very interesting question as it rather timely. I don't think, at the moment, that there is a good measure. That is to say, I think that the ISI impact factor is, in some cases, a useful measure of quality. The problem, I think, is that publishing is changing as technology (i.e. the internet) is assimilated into the paradigm. There are a lot of excellent research work products out there that are not published through outlets with a high IF (though I find that most (but not all) self-published pre-prints and the like are eventually published in more mainstream) journals. There are a lot of online journals popping up and some are little more than vanity presses but there are some legitimate efforts to put together high quality online journals. Beyond that, not all peer review processes are equal and the "publish or perish" mandate has certainly created a market for dubious outlets.
I don't think that the new online outlets are sorted yet. Something like the IF will be useful once these things settle out but in the short term, it's not easy to tell ahead of time what's worth your time. In general, I think that the IF is useful for evaluating established outlets (noting that it is a metric that can be and, indeed, has been gamed) but is a lagging indicator of quality.
Not always: in some research areas, some books have also become influential and in some small areas, it is also good to publish in journals that are indexed e.g. in Scopus but are not ISI indexed (yet).
Few months ago I posted a similar question. I don't think that the IF proves nothing, but the fact that you published in a well stablished journal that may or may not be a good journal. IF has become the main measurement of "quality", because it's s single number that is related with the reputation of a publication within a field. In biomedicine, everbody want their papers to be published in Science, Nature, Cell, PNAS among many others, but there are fields where the top journals have IF below 3.0. I don't think that we should move away from the IF, but unfortunately many institutions and researchers use it to qualify other researchers and choose what journal to submit their papers.
Here you can see the imput of some people regarding the IF when I asked about it.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_important_is_the_Impact_Factor_when_taking_the_decision_of_what_journal_to_submit_a_manuscript
@Mellah, nice discussion! Definitely, ISI Impact Factor is not the only indicator of quality, originality is assumed. Peer reviewed journals are the real place for it, but also papers should be published and presenteed at the Conferences, chapters, ..., ..., in order to present results of research widely. Sometimes, good results appear after conference presentation and accompanying rich discussion on paper presented!
Oh, I remembered, it is useful to look at the following reflections in the discussion regarding the similar question, see link below!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_scientific_impact_of_a_paper_How_can_it_be_measured_How_can_researchers_be_assessed_properly?cp=re65_x_p2&ch=reg&loginT=uHfj00VR_MG_ou9tos6acAhw3m5ai6DcXiQErOHaOyU%2C&pli=1#view=5282ff52d039b11d128b4643
Ljubomir's comments made me think of something else that is related. The question of what is the impact of a paper is, I think, a meta-analysis question. Some folks doing meta-analysis, however, have been turning up some very disturbing things such as John Ioannidis' work on medical research (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124). Certain fields, disciplines, etc., for a number of reasons, are not doing things well. Because the issues are systemic, the (poor) results and conclusions that they engender are picked up a propagated within these domains and can have a significant impact, even beyond their field. Impact is NOT the same as quality...
I see some Eastern Europe and Russia journals a good quality but, without impact factor.
Just reading David and Goliath and can't help but think about the Salon in 19th Century Paris all but excluding the Impressionists as they did not conform to their notions of what was acceptable. While technical journals have objective standards, there is, I think, an unavoidable subjective component to evaluation that is biased against heterodoxy.
@ Mellah: Please don't think the journals which are having high IF and ISI index are the best journals. There are a good number of best journals available without the above said flags. The reasons are so many. Please count the reputation of the journal and its reach before submitting your paper.
I have a personal experience to share with everyone who are dedicated in publishing their research article. In 2002, I submitted a research paper to an ISI-indexed Journal with a reasonably high impact factor. After one month I received a very positive response saying that the paper was accepted as it was( meaning with no corrections whatsoever). But, it was only published in 2004. Within 2 years anyone could have repeated the study and reproduced the results to be published elsewhere. I was helpless then. In 2003 I submitted another paper to an established peer-reviewed Journal in Europe. Within one month I received an acceptance letter and the paper was published in 2003. That decent peer-reviewed Journal was already in circulation for more than 30 years then but was not ISI-indexed so had no impact factor and furthermore it is free access even until today. However, my previous University only takes into account the paper with ISI impact factor for evaluation.
Nowadays many universities count on the impact factor (let it be the two year or the five year one). No matter whether we have a better measure or not, we might have it all wrong. As a researcher I would like to achieve sustainability. If I develop a new method that is adopted by fellow researchers I would be happy if this happens over time spanning more than two or even five years. If people apply my method, say, ten or 15 years after its invention then I have achieved something but I did not contribute to any type of impact factor. Let's go for sustainability rather than a short sighted impact factor (or invent some better measureI),
Not at all, both sides can be reversed:
Top quality and original works published in journals without ISI impact factor.
But also, publications with an ISI impact factor, that are neither good quality nor original in their fields…
My answer for this is no our work quality and originality is not depends on sci impact
Certainly not. I have acted as a reviewer for many journals of different quality and my judgement did not depend on the journal. I also received reviews by journal of different impact factor and journals with higher impact factor were not necessarily more strict about the reviewing process. The important thing is a true peer review process. There is a loose correspondence between impact factor and review process (that is the basis for the quality of the article) and the impact factor is deeply sensitive to the discipline and to the language in which the journal is published
Hi all,
I have initiated a relevant discussion topic on this issue. You can check it out here:
http://www.researchgate.net/post/Problems_associated_with_using_the_impact_factor
There is a building consensus that the impact factor is actually a very bad measure by which to assess the quality of out work. Take for example the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment published in 2013, which advises that we should no longer use "journal-based metrics, such as journal impact factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion or funding decisions."
Looking forward to your comments!
Impact factor is a fashion show, a more popular brand does not mean a better quality than the one which is less popular As a researcher one should know in which journals to publish his/her work.
Hi Dear Mellah
I think the impact factor is very important to other index
It is right that Thomson Reuters IF is not the only quality measures. There are others factors and there are various journals not indexed in ISI data base which publish very good quality original work. It is just a fashion show.
Why almost all ISI IF journals are paid? Why can't they be made free. It just like a big business.
Importantly, impact factor is produced based on the past few years history of journal publication, therefore, it incorporates some performance parameters. That in tern provide a level of confidence in the continuity of the journal production through a set assessment.
publication in peer reviewed journals is assumed to be the common way for gaining approval for a research work, but in my experience, it is not always so. Some reviews are just meaningless), pretending the author's opinion is in line with that of the reviewer or asking to refer compulsory to some scholarly articles (the reviewer itself?). I don't think the impact factor is always an important quality factor.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305887180_Beyond_the_Border_Yellow_Goes_International
Article Beyond the Border: Yellow Goes International
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing