Dear Ragad M Tawafak

I agree with the opinion provided by Frank T. Edelmann

According to my rule, I will target the journal of the highest cite score or impact factor to increase the possibility of citing my work. If this failed, I will try with the next journal in the order of the specialty.

Both are based on citations, although the IF is related to citations over the previous 2 or 5 years, which might be a better indication of its recent importance. While all citation-based metrics are flawed in their own way, and you don't want that to be your only motivation for journal selection, what is it that your institution or national funder is most interested in? For me, its the quartile ranking, so that is the measure I place most value on for pragmatic reasons.

h-index is assigned to each individual scientist, so therefore is not a metric for the journal. Even the impact factor of the journal is not high, the journal sometimes publishes highly cited papers. In addition to the journal impact factor, there are various factors for consideration, e.g., the reader coverage, cost (fee for submission and publication), and contribution to the field and journal (for its sustainability).

Dear Dr. Ragad M Tawafak

In my opinion, I think the H-index is a more useful index to assess a journal/or an author.

BW

Egbuna

Perhaps this may be unique to social sciences, Professor Nobuyuki Hamada , but Scimago does also give a H-Index as a journal-level metric, as separate to an individual H-Index. But I totally agree, these quantitative metrics can only tell us so much, and there are many things to consider.

I have just learned from Prof Shannon Mason that an h-index has also been applied as a journal-level metric. Many thanks.

I think nighter h-index nor IF of a journal is important in selecting a journal for publication of a paper. Both these may score high if the published work is important. However, the journal should be core to the work area and have higher readership and indexed by popular secondary services.

Dear Ragad M Tawafak, although many people keep saying that they don't care about IF, we always know what the IF of the chosen journal is. After all, the higher the IF, the more often is your paper cited by other researchers worldwide. However, one should always try to find the right balance between the own ambitions and reality.

Personally, I would not consider the IF and H-index of a journal - I would check what is the percentiel rank of a journal in Scopus, especially in social and behavioral sciences (which are slightly better covered in Scopus than in Web of Science).

So I would target the upper 5% of journals in my discipline. No matter where you come from, top journals in your area (say, library and information sciences, or education) will almost unmistakenly be in the 95th percentile or upper; or in the 90th percentil or upper.

To me, top 5% journals in, say, education (about 1,000 in total in this area) sounds more understandable than any IF or H-index - because the measure is intra-disciplinary. Chemistry, physics etc., all have their top 5% of Scopus indexed journals. I like the simplicity - and the Scopus results coincide with IFs and H-indexes indeed (please verify for you fun if you wish!).

The whole recent "Excellence Initiative" for Polish research-intensive universities were built on the "top5% / top10% vs. the rest" journals...

Take care, Marek

Neither. Instead I make a judgement about the quality of the published articles.

Dear Andrew Wilkins, in my experience it makes sense to keep an eye on the impact factor when choosing a journal for publication. It gives you a good indication about the quality of the journal. At least in our field of research (chemistry) the IF more or less corresponds with the quality and importance of the published articles.

Dear Ragad M Tawafak ,

I would vote to saying " Both are important" only you need to make sure your aim of this publication, based on it list the importance level. Keep in mind that today's low H-Index/IF journals would be high by tomorrow. Also agree with Pronab Kumar Barooah

Dear Ragad M Tawafak, I agree with Q. Alajmi in that impact factors change over time. I you found a good journal that really fits your needs, it would make sense to submit good manuscripts to this journal. That way you can help improving their IF. I think this is an aspect that is often neglected.

In my opinion, both of them are important scale that indicator to power of the journal.

Dear Ragad M Tawafak

I agree with the opinion provided by Frank T. Edelmann

According to my rule, I will target the journal of the highest cite score or impact factor to increase the possibility of citing my work. If this failed, I will try with the next journal in the order of the specialty.

I think both are important score to measure the quality of the journal.

Both H index and Impact Factor are important indicators for assessing scientific achievements. Because these indicators are made of different formulas and are calculated differently. They inform about a different view of the scientific achievements and can therefore complement each other. Together, both indicators can more fully determine the level of scientific output.

Greetings,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

IMPACT FACTOR is important for measuring the quality of the journal.

H index is important to measure the scholars work.

For overall consideration case, these index is just a scale of measurement.

When to select any journal for our publication, we must have to consider its impact factor, because impact factor is the measure of the journal total assessment while, H index give the assessment of only individual researcher.

Dear Ragad moufaq Tawafak

I agree with the opinion provided by Frank T. Edelmann

According to my rule, I will target the journal of the highest cite score or impact factor to increase the possibility of citing my work. If this failed, I will try with the next journal in the order of the specialty

Dear Waleed Thanoon, that's the best way to proceed!

The h-index reflects both the number of publications and the number of citations per publication. For example a scientist with an h-index of 20 has 20 papers cited at least 20 times. The i10-index is the number of articles with at least 10 citations

Journal Impact factor must have to consider, when to publish your work.

Thank you all for your declaration and feedback.

Dear Ragad moufaq Tawafak

I agree with the opinion provided by Frank T. Edelmann

According to my rule, I will target the journal of the highest cite score or impact factor to increase the possibility of citing my work. If this failed, I will try with the next journal in the order of the specialty.

Dear Waleed Thanoon, I fully agree with you. This seems to be the perfect approach. 👍

FYI the new edition of the Journal Citation Reports and CiteScore has just been released

https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/article/the-2020-journal-citation-reports-helping-you-make-better-informed-decisions-with-confidence/

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/2019-citescore-values-released-and-improved-methodology-introduced-to-provide-a-faster-more-stable-indicator-of-research-impact-301081719.html

As long as the impact factor is used systematically by third-party funders, potential employers and various specialist societies in order to be able to assess the value of the published work, it is important for the future academic career to publish as highly as possible. Maybe from a certain career level it is no longer so crucial that you gain the independence to make decisions based on other criteria. But as long as the scientific system around us uses the impact factor as a very important decision-making value, most scientists will aim to publish as high as possible.

DR RAGAD: The impact factor is used to measure journal prestige, while the h index is used to measure researcher impact. Therefore, the two cannot be compared. Hirsch reckons that after 20 years of research, an h index of 20 is good, 40 is outstanding, and 60 is truly exceptional. ... In his paper, Hirsch shows that successful scientists do, indeed, have a high h-index. A simple example is that Nobel prize winners in physics all have high h-indices (84% had an h of at least 30).

What is a good impact factor?

In most fields, the impact factor of 10 or greater is considered an excellent score while 3 is flagged as good and the average score is less than 1. This is a rule of thumb. However, the wild card to pay attention to is that impact factor and comparing journals are most effective in the same discipline.

Regards--

Both are important. Reflect the research quality

Journal indexing and impact factor

Ragad M Tawafak it depends on how much you care about numbers found on the internet...😎

Dear DR Ragad--the comparison b/w the IF and the Hirsch Index is not possible --the former is related to the Journals' prestige ; the latter to the scientists personal performance. A more insightful analysis is contained in this RG link:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_H-index_the_most_important_metric_of_publication_performance

Regards-

Dear Dr Ragad: According to the latest Web of Science (WoS) data, 2019 marked the first year in which the impact of WoS publications has been higher than the world average, highlighting a greater push towards research and development in the country. However, the correlation between good teaching and the number of IF publications is inconclusive. Do not confuse the number of IF publications with research as both are different. Publications are a quantifiable output of research. They are an indicator of the kind of research with various categories of journals determining ‘quality.’ However, even if one is able to get published in high IF journals, one cannot be sure of quality and impact. Readers may recall the infamous Lancet paper by Andrew Wakefield that originally suggested a link between autism and childhood vaccines; and the once most ‘Highly Cited Paper’ as per Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science (meaning it was ranked in the top one percent of all papers in its subject field in the last 10 years) published in 2011 on cancer which was retracted by Nature! The latter was cited 670 times before it was retracted! Recent retractions of the flood of papers on COVID-19 are another example. One meets professors with high h-index and 100 or more IF papers but their publications have never moved the needle in terms of solving real world problems. We are in the era of bit twiddling research which has big data sets using data analytics but in reality how useful are such papers to the general masses? In conclusion both the Impact Factor (IF) and the h -index are a Fetish , but for want of a better more efficacious alternative relating to promotions, awards, scholarships and similar other accolades , the Science Administrative Bodies the world over , abide by them . Regards--

I think publishing in high impact journals is a very good challenge which also will reflect on the citations number and hence the h index.

A good researcher should always aim to publish his / her work in international journals with a good impact factor. Of course one should stay realistic. If the work is somewhat routine, it makes no sense to submit it to a high-IF journal.

In my opinion, H index is more important.

Both are important.

BOTH!

Thanks to all for your valuable information.

Dear Ragad M Tawafak you're very welcome! 🙂

Of course the Impact Factor is more important for better visibility and better citing probability of your article.

In my opinion H index cannot be manipulated ; it is fixed depending on the # of citations a publication has garnered, while an Impact Factor can be artificially raised , increased. In my country where the emphasis is more on the # of publications than on their quality , and a whole edifice of an academic career depends vitally on it , we find researchers publishing profusely in international journals ranging b/w 0.1--1.0 . These are IFs of journals that are in currency and NOT fake , so if a researchers publishes hundreds of sub standard publications in these journals , his /her IF will rise automatically. There are several physicists, mathematicians and chemists with international publications in excess of 500 , a very high numbered IF , but when it comes to the H index these same researchers have shallow H indices. That may be so but all awards, recognition ( national & international) awaits those with high IFs viz a very high # of publications. So in order to move with the Zeitgeist the IF without doubt is MORE important. BTW very few even know what H in H index stands for!!

All are important and IF will get, the more priority compare others

Dear Ragad M Tawafak when it comes to publish your valuable research work, you should always go for a journal with an impact factor. Even a low impact factor is much better than no impact factor! It means that your work will be read worldwide and eventually cited by other researchers.

Impact factors hold only for journals, whereas the h-index can be calculated for both journals and individual academics.

The SJR is the best scale to evaluate journal stongless

Let me qualify my statement in the trail above. For ordinary run of the mill researchers IF is more important, as their academic career depends on it. For those top notch scientists who have reached the pinnacle ( via the IF rung) the H index becomes dominant as these brilliant people are sighting the top most positions and prizes, so you'll find Nobel Laureates ( including wannabes ) leveling off after sudden spikes . The quality , the citations of their publications and the recognition garnered thereof is paramount . So therefore, in conclusion , the IF and the accumulation of large IFs is the motivation where the quality may initially be sacrificed, to burgeon off a budding career. Once a semblance of respectability is reached , in order to sift the wheat from the chaff, the H index plays a pivotal role . Consequently both these gauges are equally important the IF to kick off and the H index to score the goal!!

Dear Ragad M Tawafak "H index or Impact Factor is more important?": The question is: Important for what? After all, both are just numbers on the internet. As such, they are not suitable as measures of the quality of your research work. Moreover, both are two different pairs of shoes. The h-index gives you an idea of how often your articles are cited, while the IF (which can change over time) tells you how often articles published in a certain journal are cited on average.

P.S. Michael John McAleer I wasn't aware of a h-index for journals. Do you have any reference about this?

"A Hirsch-type index for journals"

• Tibor Braun,
• Wolfgang Glänzel &
• András Schubert

Scientometrics volume 69, pages169–173(2006)

Article A Hirsch-Type Index for Journals

I think your work is more important than a journal's impact factor because high impact factor journals sometimes publish weak papers but low impact factor journals have some good papers. Citations and recommendations not only depend on the journal's quality but also mostly depend on your paper quality.

H index The h index is a country's number of articles (h) that have received at least h citations. It quantifies both country scientific productivity and scientific impact and it is also applicable to scientists, journals, etc. While a reputable scientific/ non scientific journal carries as its caption the Journal Impact Factor >0 the H index does not appear on a journal in the same way it has to be calculated !!

"h index corresponds to a scientist's h of his/her N papers that have been cited at least h times each, while the rest of the N papers have less than h citations each.

i10 index refers to the number of paper with 10 or more citations.

For the citations received and given a number of papers ranked in a decreasing order according to the citations received till now, the G-index is the biggest number such that the top G articles received (altogether) at least G2 (G square) citations. This index assists the h-index and gives more weight to the highly-cited papers." RG https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_between_H-index_i10-index_and_G-index

In summary the JIF is a peculiarity/ characteristic of the journal itself , while the h index, i10 index & the G index are the characteristic / talent of the researcher him/her/self All are important in their own inimitable way. Siffice it to say that while JIF is cognate /germane to the Journal the remaining three indices are germane to the scientist!! Regards--

In our work, the impact factor of a journal was always one of the criteria when it came to publishing a new manuscript, but not the only criterium. We always try to go for the journal with the highest "realistic" impact factor. With "realistic" I mean that it doesn't make sense to send a manuscript of very special interest to a top journal with a very broad readership. In such cases specialized journals with a lower impact factor are more appropriate.

agree with Nobuyuki

Both are important.

Both the impact factor and h-index for journals depend directly on arbitrary functions of Citations, so the choice depends on which arbitrary function might be preferred.

Dear Ragad M Tawafak Impact Factor is the most important criteria. It is better to select the journal with the highest Impact factor.

Both of them are important, but Impact Factor is better for the quality of the paper.

In my opinion, both of them are very important

Both.

Dear Ragad M Tawafak personally we always considered the impact factor of the respective journal when submitting a manuscript. It should be ambitious but not unrealistic. I also occasionally check my h-index on Scopus.

For more information on both please see this useful article entitled

"Comparing the Google Scholar h-index with the ISI Journal Impact Factor"

https://harzing.com/publications/white-papers/google-scholar-h-index-versus-isi-journal-impact-factor

The impact factor of a journal can be used to rank journal in a particular discipline, but should not be used across disciplines.

The two impact factors for the Web of Science / Clarivate Analytics / Publons are calculated over 2 and 5 year periods.

CiteScore is an Elsevier Scopus impact factor that is calculated over a 4 year period (it was originally calculated over 3 years).

Dear Michael John McAleer "The impact factor of a journal can be used to rank journal in a particular discipline, but should not be used across disciplines.": Yes, that's a very important point which must not be forgotten. In this context please see this article entitled "Comparing journals from different fields of Science and Social Science through a JCR Subject Categories Normalized Impact Factor"

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.5107.pdf

In this paper it is clearly stated that "The journal Impact Factor (IF) is not comparable among fields of Science and Social Science because of systematic differences in publication and citation behaviour across disciplines."

H-index is a function of your personal research impact while Impact Factor deals directly with the Journal based on the performances of all publications in that Journal. So, which is better depends on a personal or non-personal level. Sincerely, both are important to the extent of personal or non-personal impact.

Both of them are useful.

To Frank T. Edelmann :

It is always useful to have a suitable reference, for which many thanks.

The impact factor and h-index should not be compared across any disciplines as some fields have many more citations through having a far greater number of authors, all of whom can self cite should they feel so disposed.

The Journal Impact Factor dominates research assessment in many disciplines and in many countries. While research assessment will always have to rely to some extent on quantitative, standardized metrics, the focus on this single measure has gone so far as to hamper and distort scientific research. The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), signed by influential journals, funders, academic institutions and individuals across the natural sciences, aims to raise awareness and to redress the use of non-objective research assessment practices.

When Eugene Garfield was considering which scientific journals to include in the Science Citation Index (SCI) more than half a century ago, he rightly noted that the importance of a journal does not necessarily relate to its size. Citations to articles in a journal appeared to provide a quantitative means to assess the interest of the scientific community in a journal. To obtain up to date information, Garfield considered only citations made in the last full year, and, to control for publication volumes, he simply divided by the number of articles. At the time, changing the assessment window did not appear to matter too much (Garfield, 2006) and Garfield settled on considering citations to papers from the preceding 2 years for his new bibliometric tool: the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) was born. The aim of the JIF was to select appropriate journals for SCI, although it soon led to the first ‘Journal Citation Reports' (JCR) in 1969.

The JIF quickly became a tool favoured by librarians to ensure their collections contained all the key journals, not merely large journals. As the number of journals grew, authors increasingly referred to the JCR to find an appropriate home for their papers beyond the few journals in their immediate area that they were well acquainted with. Molecular biology expanded rapidly in those years and journal ranking became an apparently useful tool to filter out the relevant literature to read. As journal numbers skyrocketed, the JIF was published to three decimal places, according to Garfield a move to avoid listing journals with identical JIFs (Garfield, 2006). Garfield himself considers this practice questionable, realizing that it suggests a misleading level of objectivity. JIF is more fictional than factual. Comparing researchers in different fields via the IF is fallacious. For more on this please take a look at:Article Impact fact-or fiction?

The impact factor is the most popular measure of research influence. ... The journal impact factor and h index are different in their fundamental design: The former is used to measure journal prestige, while the latter is used to measure researcher impact. Therefore, the two cannot be compared. AS such h index is a better indicator than the IF---for more elaboration have a look at:

https://www.editage.com/insights/is-the-h-index-better-than-the-impact-factor

Dear Ragad M Tawafak in my personal opinion and experience you should always try your best to publish your valuable research results in journals with an impact factor. This is the best way to assure that your research papers are read worldwide and eventually cited. In this context please see this useful link entitled

"How will you judge me if not by impact factor?"

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05467-5

"According to my rule, I will target the journal of the highest cite score or impact factor to increase the possibility of citing my work. If this failed, I will try with the next journal in the order of the specialty."

Yasser Fakri Mustafa

Well, it is a common practice among many scholars to aim high. If missed, they could get lucky with another high-ranking journal. It is as the saying goes, "Aim for the moon. If you miss, you may hit a star" (Les Brown).

However, a scholar should bear in mind that such aiming could consume time and may result in several disappointing rejections!

The journal impact factor measures the average number of citations received by articles published within a journal over a two-year period.

the h index is designed to measure the scientific output of a researcher by considering a combination of the number of papers the researcher has published and the number of citations those papers have received. Thus it measures both your publication record and its impact.

the impact factor and h index cannot be compared because they serve different purposes.