Yes. For example--just try to add the name of a journal in this particular database if it isn't already here! The journal may be peer reviewed, but not a "highly cited" journal because of being new, being in a small field, or being in a developing discipline. Your department and potential funding agencies are going to be much more impressed by the tier of your journal. "Science," versus "Indiana Journal of Science" (if there is such a thing).

Thanks all of you for sharing your information. I just want to share a thing. LIke, why sometimes a good piece of research work doesnt find its place in a good journal with impact factor? Some good works are also published in journals with no impact factor.

Various reasons for selecting journals to submit an article. Perhaps the journal is having a theme issue? Perhaps editor is your department chair. A newer journal won't have impact factors. A perfectly fine journal may have been around for a while and be popular within its subject area, but the bean-counters haven't been interested in counting it.

Papers published in high impacted journal are reviewed by many experts working in related area of research .The comments are very useful in improving the quality of the paper. I suggest we should publish our research paper in high impacted journals.The visibility of our research will be improved definitely.

I personally believe that an author can be visible by publishing a large number of articles in non-peer reviewed journals. I take visibility in qualitative terms, such as publishing in higher ranked journals according to their impact factor (JIF) scores and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator of journal prestige or influence. You may notice that most of LIS scholars use citations from top journals only. They generally do not use any articles of non-ranked journals even though they are relevant to the topics of their research papers

Let's start with a strong opinion: impact factors are the poison of scholarly communication. In theory there is absolutely no reason why you would evaluate an article, researcher or group by using impact factors. They were never intended for that use and are still not useful for that at all. That is unless you accept that science is rotten already and it is just necessary to keep on playing the game. To a certain extent I can understand that, but it has to change at some point. Let that point be now. IFs were made for librarians to help decide which journals to subscribe to. The producers of the IF (Thomson Reuters) and all bibliometricians I know explicitly state IFs should not be used for evaluation. Swaths of scholarly organizations agree with that as they signed the DORA petition against IF use: http://am.ascb.org/dora/

We understand that all the metrics developed for measuring impact factors have flaws and several studies have also found the cases of manipulation of IFs scores. However, we need to come up with the ideas how to prevent them problems and we see suggestions of all kinds in each article published on the topic. The amount of literature on pros and cons of various metrics is increasing with the time, Some have come up their own metrics. The issue here is how to improve the methods of measuring the quality of scholarly communications. Without using any instrument of measure how are we going to make decisions about collection development, faculty promotions and hiring, research proposals and other

In my view and experience collection development is largely a thing of the past, supplanted by PDA, big deals and Open Access. Evaluations can be based on peer review, perhaps slightly informed by some article level metrics. In the UK, the national research evaluation REF has already abolished used of any impact factor or ranking.

@ Sandeep Panda: Yes. No doubt about it. If you publish your research findings in high impact factored journals, it will bring more visibility to your publications besides bringing more citations which will help you build a good h-index.

Yes, publishing in high impacted journals improves the visibility of a researcher. In addition to that, promotion often depends on the researcher's publications in journals with high impact factor.

Not quite true. My colleagues did publish in Nature & Science but received very few citations. So, do NOT simply accept such idea. It's all the game of Thomson Reuters in marketing their journals.

 The visibility of a researcher depends on many other factors , apart from impact factor . There are journals available on Pubmed , which do not have an impact factor . The citation index is a good method to assess , how a researcher's work is evaluated . In addition , RG has reads which gives an idea how your research is viewed every week . It is the duty of a researcher to make his work available to as many of his peer group & it is not essential that it should only by publishing in a high impact journal . RG allows you to present your work as a dataset ( without publishing in a journal ) , to be assessed by your peer group . The aim of a researcher is  to share his work with his peer group & there are many ways of doing it .

Agreed absolutely, but the assessment & criteria of WUR doesn't consider your views since PubMed is a non-ISI/Scopus indexed journal. The current game of WUR is entirly based from cited journals in ISI-WoS/IF & Scopus.

NOT always TRUE. One may just publish in a GS indexed paper but has been cited highly from ISI/Scopus indexed journals. We have to look at the citations nowadays. It is a matter of quantity as well as quality of publishing. Again, the "games" of journal publishers & indexing bodies.

The aspect to citation and impact-factor chasing that most concerns me is the so-called fast-track publication in electronic journals with accelerated refereeing - I am appalled at some of the scientific garbage that makes it through the refereeing process and is accepted for publication. I now refuse to referee for those journals that demand a two week turn-around since it seriously compromises the quality of the refereeing and thus the quality of science that is allowed to be published.

I didn't see any issues on fast-turn around refereeing process if reviewers got paid for such tasking. Take note that some university-based publishers pay Referees for such assignment

KJ, I feel you miss the point of my response - it is nothing whatsoever to do with being paid to undertake refereeing - I would reject any offer to referee a ms on the basis that will get paid to do this task; refereeing is an aspect of scientific duty - No, the point I was making (perhaps not clearly enough?) is that RUSHING to undertake a refereeing 'assignment' of a technically complex and lengthy ms is fraught with the possibility that the job is done hastily (and likely poorly) with the result that a  ms is accepted for publication when it would have been better been subjected to very heavy re-writing, or even rejected.

Bear in mind that a Referee also has a CODE OF ETHICS-to ensure a fast rapid review! So, why reject it?

I don't want to extend this thread further, other than to say that 'fast rapid' is not necessarily ideal for a 60+ page ms. And in case it appears I shirk my duty as a referee, in 2015 I refereed 13 mss for impact-factored journals and a further 6 for newsletters. All delivered on time.

For majority of law journals, yes, I agree with you. An original article normally exceeds 60+ pages. But most of the sciences/IT based journals, very selsom u find articles of more than 20 pages.

I think an Impact factor of journals and importance of a researcher both of them are important .article may be less than 10 pages more focus of the research problem than article 20 pages.

Dear Sandeep: Publishing in an impact factor does count regardless of whether the journal has a high or low impact factor.  Nevertheless, I think a work attracts increased attention  when the research question that you have chosen engages or impinges on a theoretical area that is popular, has attracted considerable research attention, and the hypotheses tested settle and/or raises a controversy. I guess what I am trying to say is that your hypotheses address or challenge issues central to a popular theoretical . Ssndeep, I hope I  have succeeded in making some sense to you.

Publishing in an impact factor does count regardless of whether the journal has a high or low impact factor, pending on which WUR Game that your institution plays. For eg, if your institution plays the QS WUR, IF is NOT counted. QS talks about SCOPUS indexed publications. Bear in mind that if a journal is indexed only in SCOPUS (not ISI-WoS), then such journal does not bear an IF, instead a H-index.

Yes. It does. The demands of high impact factor journals and the quality of papers they publish drives the entire process. Researchers tend to prefer papers from high impact factor and reputable journal due to the trustworthiness of information published therein and how strigent is the journal. They ensure that low impact work is filtered out during screening and novel work is published. Only cream of the cream makes it to high impact factor journals.

Not necessarily cream of the cream make it.Sometime people name drop a highly known authour ignorer to get into the elite club.This high impact factor journals at times becomes conference cliques.