Article publishing is purely a business. Previously, before introduction of online publication of article, that business was under the control of a few journal publication companies.
They started "peer review" to check suitability of articles for publication. It was a proud of many of such journals that only 5% of submitted articles are accepted by them!
That means, 95% of research results submitted as articles are not fit for publication!
Every human being is having limitation in every aspect, as the reviewers having limitation in their knowledge.
So, one or two persons may not think correctly in many cases. Sometimes such reviewers are also research administrators and so may be stereotyped in their thinking.
Some articles are rejected for improper presentation (weak English).
Do you think these factors are more important than quality of research and the result of it?
Then the era of online publication of journal was started. Many journals are created worldwide and in many cases, proper checking of the articles are not performed practically.
But article publication become very easy! The monopoly of a few publication companies is lost.
Researchers of the developing countries are benefitted. They can publish their article with less expense. The high or very high APC was the main problem for publication of articles to most of them.
Now many of these new online journals are criticised at different heading.
Do you think expression of good research and its result definitely need good dress and costly ornaments?
Or
The research and result is only important?
IF is one of the factors to assess the journal's quality. It is not the strongest factor. The strongest factor is the sum of different factors including IF.
I think it is the quality of research that matters, not the journal. Gregor Johann Mendel chose annual proceedings of Brunn Natural History Society to publish his outstanding work, instead of a reputed journal.
Please also have a look at this useful RG link.
Preprint Research Counts, Not the Journal
No. Sometimes we play politics with science on issue of impact factor. I believe on the impact on the general knowledge and effect on the society and not a competition within the field with little or nothing to show in the real sense.
Partially yes as big journal usually accept only good papers . meanwhile, the quality of the research itself is so important.
The impact factor (IF) of a scholarly journal may be considered as one of the factors which reflect the quality of published research. However, I do not think that IF is the strongest factor concerning the main question of the thread.
Regards
Yes I do. The use of impact factor as an index of journal quality relies on the theory that citation frequency accurately measures a journal's importance to its end users.
I don't agree that IF is solely responsible for journal quality; and peer reviewed criteria is without flaws. These peer reviewed and high IF journals, actually led to publication bias of publishing studies with only significant results. If corporate reasons are there (which are there), then whole system could not be considered transparent and without flaws.
There is no relationship between article quality and IF of the publishing journal. Sometimes a journal with a high impact factor can publish a mediocre article for money. At the same time, in many cases it takes a lot of efforts to publish an article for free in a journal with a low impact factor. Reviews do your head in and you'll regret the day you were born
IF is just ONE of the many metrics for judging the quality of a paper. Personally, the greatest indicator of a good paper is with how scientifically rigorous the study is and its novelty to experts the field.
All parts of research or article or study are very important, address, scientific methodology, theoretical side, description and analysis of results, results accuracy, conclusions and recommendations, logical sequence of content, language
Yes , It is or that is what the young researchers say and I go with them !!!!!!!
It is a metric for quality so why not ??
The impact factor is not the only measure on the quality of the publication, it may indicate quantity, but it refers not quality.
The impact factor for journal was good Reference for quality of journal and can help you in citation.
Quality of the paper alongwith number of citations are also important alongwith impact factor. Easy accessibility of published research is essential for enhancin research quality as well as citations.
Yes, IF is one of the factor that attracts high quality paper. But not always.
IF is one of the factors to assess the journal's quality. It is not the strongest factor. The strongest factor is the sum of different factors including IF.
I think this journal (Research Journal of Finance and
Accounting) which have a high IF
Quantitative bibliometrics cannot measure creative scientific performance; it can, however, measure quantitative circulation of publications and journals. We can understand it as an industrialized index of publication output as science has also become a systemic part of economic production. Journal metrics (e.g. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-lancet/) is definitely an argument, in terms of quantitative circulation, no doubt.
All metrics in scientific fields suffer from a very big problem that makes them relatively unreliable, but we have to accept that for the time being there are no better alternatives. All of the metrics that measure scientific quality are Anglo-centric and presentist. There is very little coverage for science that is not produced in English language.
A scientific work can be very cited: because it is a masterpiece or because it is very lacking. Therefore, the number of citations and the IF are not sufficient to judge the goodness of a scientific work regardless of the journal on which they were published. The following link can be a small exemplum: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306038575_The_missed_sides_in_the_reconstruction_of_Italy's_marine_fisheries_total_removals_by_Piroddi_et_al_2015
I think journal's IF is one of the important facors which determine the quality of research.
The strongest factor is the sum of different factors including IF. Agree with Rama.
I do not agree, the quality of the journal depends on different aspects one of them is IF.
Yes, IF attracts quality research papers and probability of accepting article submitted in such a journal is comparatively low. But there are also some exceptional cases that some article published may be not in high quality as expected.
Some times I wonder some very low quality journal write saying their journal impact factor is 6.6....? Whats this?
Yes indeed it is as IF of any journal is described as its reliability and Quality of the journal. Even IF of 0.1 of any journal is better than thousands of Predatory or Scam journals on internet. Guys be aware of All predatory journaks. Regards
IF is considered a very important factor for lack of better metrics to measure the quality of a publication. Other factors are also relevant.
@ Dr. Shibabrata Pattanayak Sir,
Please also have a look at this useful RG link.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_your_idea_about_Nobel_Laureates_speak_out_against_the_role_of_impact_factors_in_research
Not always. Sometimes, very nice and well written papers can be found and in the Journal with not so high IF.
IF is one of the important indicators of quality of Journals.
Sometimes, in new journal, we may find very high quality research paper.
In my opinion, IF is not the strongest factor to determine the quality of research, but it is one of the important items that researchers should attention to.
Publishing in impact factor journals is worth and good, especially to differentiate and put the author in the top league of the researchers but the quality of research is something which is determined by the impact and applicability of the research to its context.
Many have highlighted the shortcomings of Journal Impact Factor (JIF). JIF applies to those journals that are indexed by Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Naturally, journals not covered by JCR will not have an Impact Factor!
For a long time, there was no competition for the Impact Factor. Elsevier launched CiteScore to compete with the Impact Factor. You can freely access it on the Scopus Journal Metrics website. At the same time, JCR is a paid subscription. Elsevier also claims that CiteScore is calculated from the list of Scopus journals, which is much larger than the Web of Science list. Problems of similar nature as that of JIF are evident with CiteScore too. Despite the shortcomings, we do not have a better system to gauge journals than JIF or CiteScore!
Dear Dr. Thomas,
Yes, I agree with you. Thomson Reuters are facing competition with SCOPUS.
As per my idea, it is good for the scientific community.
Interesting question and interesting replies. Whatever the case, it is important to have the main point of publishing in mind. It has to do with disseminating work and getting feedback directly or indirectly.
The IF is important but it is also necessary to look into other parameters too.
The journal statement and areas of interest are important too.
As per my opinion the idea of IF is very good. But the development research idea and methodology of the experiment is unique of the particular Scientist of the particular country.... ecosystem..... animal..... etc. Hence, the disseminating the research findings in good language, correct proforma is the main agenda. It may publish anywhere in the world, it should be recognized.
Journal IF is one of the criteria to assess the quality but not always.
No. there is no condition to publish the research in journal which have IF, because there are many journals high quality in the world provide scientific researches but with out IF.
A journal’s impact factor is a measure of its quality or prestige. This metric, owned by Thomson Reuters, is commonly used by researchers to identify appropriate target journals, but this approach can be problematic.
Impact factors are rigorously calculated from citations, as described on the Thomson Reuters website. Journals with a high impact factor quickly convince readers that they are reputable or prestigious.
There are other metrics that measure journal quality, such as the eigenfactor score and SCImago journal rank.
The impact factor has become the hallmark of journal prestige — so much so that it has even spawned misleading ‘fake’ metrics in which high ranks can be bought by unethicalpublishers. [4] There's even one called the ‘journal impact factor’, which can be easily confused with the Thomson Reuters impact factor.
And the impact factor itself has received criticism from Nobel laureate Randy Shekman and from articles published in a number of leading journals, including some with high impact factors
References
[1] The impact factor game. (PLOS Medicine, 2006) [2] Kai Simons The misused impact factor (Science, 2008) [3] Beware the impact factor (Nature Materials, 2013) [4] Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania(mBio, 2014)
Quality of research is known by the work done by the candidate and results of that work, simply publications, they can be published in any related journal not alone hi-fi journals. There are many journals based on working field. I do not bother about these IF etc. May be you should consider these when filtering the candidate for some high posts.
Everyone want their article should publish in 'Nature'. is it possible!!
Thank you all for this good discussion. I totally agree that IF is just a factor, however, there are a number of other strong factors. The summation could be the strongest factor in order to deal with the issue.
IF is not always indicate the quality of publishing journal. Recently open access journals due to availability increase the IF based on citation.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication