There is some truth in it and yes, if we focus on a specific journal (for example, one with a high impact factor in this case) we may sometimes do certain characterizations which otherwise not needed or important. I think the key point here is..we have to make a balance between focusing on getting high impact journal articles and writing good articles which sometimes may not go into the so called high impact journals..

you are absolutely right. In the current era of science scientists are more determined to get high impact than high quality research i feel. Thus the topics of research based on the subject which leads to publication in high impact journals. This leads to degradation of research in many interesting fields and researchers even leave their field of interest to join the race of impact factor. This may lead to development of certain areas of research but can harm many other good topics.

-Pati

Thanks Dr. Subhanshu and Prof. Kooen for the valuable comments. I do agree that funding agencies also influence the researchers to select topics in certain areas. Funding agencies usually are multinational who have their own profit oriented motives definitely drive the researchers to select some specific topics. But state funded institutions are also doing the same especially in the developing country where ignorant managers like me prefer those proposals which include some components of molecular technology or have titles that include the words such as nanotechnology etc. I am very much sure that thinking behind preference of such topics is influenced by external factors leading to reputation of the institution rather than addressing the internal issues of the local industry, country or public. So there is time the researchers must select the topics that address local problems irrespective of the factors whether its results are published in high or low impact factor. It has been observed that the research institutions as well as individual researchers are usually influenced by research which is ongoing in highly developed countries and the results of such investigations are generally not beneficial for that country. So research for research may not be preferred to research for benefit of the society.

This can make harder to publish in high impact magazines, because they have a line of ideas and things, and of course everybody wants to publish with them... but I see two options, publish for a high impact work or publish for a high quality paper.

@ Alma: What will be the yard stick to measure " high impact work or a high quality paper."?

There is some research in that field:

http://www.ease.org.uk/sites/default/files/on-line_biomedical_databases-i_masic-2012.pdf

http://sports.ukzn.ac.za/docs/18.3%20SpEd%204/13%20How.pdf

http://jamia.bmj.com/content/18/Suppl_1/i166.full

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0405467907752g50/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01070.x/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+25+August+from+13%3A00-15%3A00+BST+%2808%3A00-10%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance&userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TihhfjcOVagC&oi=fnd&pg=PA138&dq=High+impact+research+quality+magazines&ots=hrUhTc9LSM&sig=RkVE6nkQsqGmtqR1mZUleazZOhM#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.valaconf.org.au/vala2008/papers2008/47_Mercieca_Final.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2490908?uid=3739656&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101000990253

http://www.akademiai.com/content/fptn68rnw9q7ltp8/

High impact has criterias like citation and readers.

Quality is aout don't worry about it and just follow your passions, write correctly, find enough evidence and then jump with your paper and find a magazine.

Thank you very much for posing valuable links.

You are welcome:) There is a complete field called scientometrics or something like that about this issue. I am not expertise but one day someone asked me a similar question and I did a research about it.

There is some truth in it and yes, if we focus on a specific journal (for example, one with a high impact factor in this case) we may sometimes do certain characterizations which otherwise not needed or important. I think the key point here is..we have to make a balance between focusing on getting high impact journal articles and writing good articles which sometimes may not go into the so called high impact journals..

Absolutely right.

I think bibliometric data are like a powerful weapon - useful in skilled hands but dangerous when used by the unskilled and uninformed. Unfortunately the latter category includes most administrators (who are not scientists). It is *our" responsibility as scientists to make sure such data are used appropriately when research grants and awards are refereed, and tenure decisions are made.

I agree, It depends how you use the information.

Really nice discussion. One thing I have noticed is People(Researchers) are writing papers as per the requirement of high impact factor journals, which I think is diverting the researcher from his/her core area of research. I have seen many of my friend doing the same.

The dedicated researcher dont care about Impact factor they just wanted to spread their work/outcome as much as they can.

The very positive thing about these journal is - since the scope is limited, they are making significant contribution in the subject related, the researcher who wants to harness knowledge can get a constant source.

Dear Parag, you have pointed out the factual problem where the researchers have choice either to publish a high impact factor article or a high level research. That is why I have posted this question to brainstorm the scholars to create awareness that the impact factor is not a measure of the researchers` performance.

Such an interesting question! But some other issues just occurred to me.

1 - What do you mean by "high level research"? Who assesses the research level? Maybe the peer researchers, and I believe that some of the most prestigious ones are reviewers of those high impact factor journals.

On the other hand,

2 - How can science progress, if peer reviewing (subjectivity underlined) can sometimes imprison research domains and problems, and determines what is acceptable or not?

Thanks Dear @Helia Jacinto for your valuable input and valid concern. You are absolutely true that in the present system only the peers can judge value of the research. This is worth mentioning here for your kind information that the peers do not enjoy the absolute liberty while reviewing as they have to follow the policy and guidelines of journals in review process. This fact limits the judgement of reviewers as well as scope of the review process. As far "high level research" is concerned,, I mean a research with higher practical or field value. I am very much sure that the articles on invention of PCR, HPLC, Elisa and such other most important techniques would not have initially been entertained in high impact factor journals and it is possible that some peers would not have understood or appreciated future impact of those techniques; some might be termimng those concepts as rubbish too.

Science can progress with open mindness as brain is just like a parachute and it starts working after opening. If we limit the science to some schools, research institutes or research groups etc, science will not progress, The "Nature Publications" should be opened to all nationalities and regions. Likewise Nobel prizes should be kept millions miles away from politics. Researchers of all localities, regions, schools, universities, colours, races and ethnicities must have firm belief that "Nobel Prize" is awarded purely on merit bases and the "Nature Publications" only value the essence of research. If I expect that a British national must write an article in native Dutch, Russian, French, Arabic, Spanish or Siraiki language, my demand must be considered as a "Fool`s demand" because this is impossible. Likewise if one highlights highly significant work pertaining to for example Africa, the editor sitting for example in Australia must not reject it on the bases that the work is not significantly related to Australia. Science should be considered as Science above from all personal reservations.