Different people rate scientific journals differently. Some of them rate journals on the basis of impact factor while some other put stress on the quality of research works the journal publishes in reality..... still some other people love some other methods to rate journals. What are your personal rating points?
I think there are may metrics methods to rate the journals e.g. impact factors
Impact factor is a poor way to test a Journals 'goodness'. A good way is to look at papers in your field or subject and see where they are published.
Mind You Journal with High Impact factor will only publish high quality article
Libraries have different ways of evaluating the quality of journals, e.g. http://libguides.auburn.edu/content.php?pid=236566. Assessing the quality of individual articles is mentioned as a good measure but very difficult to carry out. Citation analysis can be done automatically, IF as well. Acceptance vs. rejection rates are also a way to analyse the reputation of a journal.
From my point of view, the average time to publish is a factor I'd take into account. It shouldn't be less than 6 weeks (which indicates flawed review process) and not more than around 6 months (which shows inappropriate publication management).
Based on the impact factor even it may not be 100% accurate. However, I would not read all articles of every journal to rate its quality.
I can judge research journal via its quality articles publishing. But an impact factor, based on frequency with which journal's articles cited in scientific publications as putative marker of its quality. Imperic studies on impact factor's validity as an indicator of quality lacking. Authors assessed validity of impact factor as a measure of quality for general journals by testing its association with journal quality as rated by clinical practitioners and researchers.
This an impact factor can be reasonable indicator of quality for general research journals.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. This theory is plausible for journals whose audiences are primarily researchers, most of whom write manuscripts for publication. By citing articles from a given journal in their own manuscripts, researchers are in essence casting votes for that journal. Impact factor serves as a tally of those votes.
It is not only about metrics! I do suggest some fine discussions about this issue! I have attached a fine and relevant reading about metrics! Of course, as @Kamal have stated, quality of previously published articles should be considered!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_would_be_the_indicators_you_would_take_into_account_to_consider_publishing_in_a_scientific_journal
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_influence_of_Impact_Factor_IF_when_choosing_a_journal_to_send_a_manuscript
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_know_whether_a_journal_is_good_to_publish_with
http://www.harzing.com/data_metrics_comparison.htm
Readership of the journal and subtlety of the research it publishes!
I judge a journal the way I judge a publication, usefulness, relevance, accuracy, content, understandable, organization, and honesty. A good journal requires each article to be a good article. Several high impact journals have abandoned one or more of these qualities to be more socially relevant and politically correct.
I would rate a journal based on the quality of article it publishes, timeliness and the time taken in responding to the contributing authors. It should not demand money as page charges and should carry a good Impact Factor too.
The high quality peer-review process, relevance of the journal, waiting time to publish in print (once accepted) and liberal copyrights are important. To be honest, publication fees for authors is also a crucial factor.
Impact factor is a good criteria but not a perfect one. As Impact Factor is calculated from citations of the articles published in last two years, the number of citations varies across different disciplines. Furthermore, some disciplines are more common across globe than others. Therefore, it is important to look at impact factor within one's core area.
I agree with Kamal. Sometimes the impact factors are misleading..
Yes sometimes the impact factor is misleading. Then how to find a metric method without derangement ?
It depends upon the type of audience, all permutation and combination works in Publications
- Experienced and proven - Seek Quality Journals
- Academics for Promotion and Performance - Seek Impact factors and familiar Journals
- Young researchers - New and willing to Publish Journals
- Demand is high (Sad part) even paid journals
I ignore all the above and for me its one and only RG
I believe Impact Factor can be one way for judging or rating a journal as a good one.
Yes Mahfuz it is the most widely used one, however some other metric are a available
Significance and the quality of published paper should prevail over the impact factor! In my previous comment I have given different metrics available and their significance, as well as citations over disciplines!
Anonymous journals (even if claiming high impact factors) ought to be avoided. In every field, there are well-known journals that established themselves with the quality articles they published; these ought to be approached unless they charge lot of money for publishing.
Dear Dr. Nizar Matar you touched a very important point the fees for publication. This is should be part of your budgets from the start or paid by your institution. believe you can not published or have good research in good journal without fund
Before rating a journal every researcher should be very clear of their own intend , ie.., what they expect out of their work. That decides the type of journal and its reach, time for publication to be completed etc.,
I would rate a journal on the grounds of the quality of the research it publishes, its editorial board members, its scope of scholarly specialization, the frequency and regularity of its publication, its reviewing process and procedures, its academic status, the place of its publication--as examples!
Maybe this contribution would give some answers on good journal for publishing! It is a good HELP TOOL!
http://www.elsevier.com/connect/whats-the-best-journal-for-my-paper-new-tool-can-help
I agree with Abderrahmane Kadri ؟
the journals online have impact factor increasing greater than journals not online (with purchase) this is very important point?
H have seen journal online with 31 impact factor? how did calculate this rate?
Dear all,
good day,
I think that, seniority and readership of the journal are also important.
Best regards
Dear Fateh Mebarek-Oudina I think readership can now be measured by the metric
Most of the time following criteria is considered for the journals to be best one
1. Impact factor
2. Relevance of article to the subject
3. Peer Review system
4. Rapid response towards publication
5. Article publication charges (mostly there should be no charges and if its is there it should be nominal)
6. Apperance of article (most of the time it is also taken into consideration)
Yes sir, the rate of rejection is also an important point to be taken into consideration.
Dear Bhavesh Tiwari
I think we have to remember that there is an inherent bias e.g.
The Journal from the Famous University in a big country will be far better that one from new University in small town
The Journal Quality List is published primarily to assist academics to target papers at journals of an appropriate standard. We would be concerned if the list were used for staff evaluation purposes in a mechanistic way. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the Journal Quality List, we recommend that it be checked before used extensively for evaluation purposes.
It is valid for the most of scientific disciplines.
Another good reading! Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals!
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Impact Factor