Dean Whitehead's answer is on target, but I would like to add a few additional criteria that may be important depending on the stage of the researcher's career:

1. Timeliness of the review-to-publication process. Prior to consideration for tenure, a timely decision on a manuscript may be of greater value than the impact factor for a journal. As electronic access for publications becomes more important, the stature of the journal recedes in importance. Junior scholars in many fields might find value in focusing on quantity of output over quality of output. It does little good to earn an acceptance in a high quality journal if that acceptance comes a year after one's tenure and promotion is decided.

2. The quality of reviewer feedback. Sadly, every discipline and every journal do not provide high quality feedback. Depending on the degree of mentoring available to a researcher at his/her own institution, consideration of this point may become essential to one's development as a researcher.

3. Suitability of the manuscript's subject/findings for a specific publication. Some journals are more willing to consider new or edgy perspectives than others. Getting published in any venue is more valuable than not getting published. I have had manuscripts rejected multiple times that were eventually published without revision - one must simply find a suitable venue.

Mashud - the attached chapter and it's sections on choosing/targeting a journal may assist. Personally, I select a 'top 5' list of journals - starting with the most 'desirable' i.e. Impact Factor, citation rates, previous experience/reputation/, quality reviewer feedback etc. If rejected, I amend according to any appropriate feedback and then send to the next journal on my list.

Dean Whitehead's answer is on target, but I would like to add a few additional criteria that may be important depending on the stage of the researcher's career:

1. Timeliness of the review-to-publication process. Prior to consideration for tenure, a timely decision on a manuscript may be of greater value than the impact factor for a journal. As electronic access for publications becomes more important, the stature of the journal recedes in importance. Junior scholars in many fields might find value in focusing on quantity of output over quality of output. It does little good to earn an acceptance in a high quality journal if that acceptance comes a year after one's tenure and promotion is decided.

2. The quality of reviewer feedback. Sadly, every discipline and every journal do not provide high quality feedback. Depending on the degree of mentoring available to a researcher at his/her own institution, consideration of this point may become essential to one's development as a researcher.

3. Suitability of the manuscript's subject/findings for a specific publication. Some journals are more willing to consider new or edgy perspectives than others. Getting published in any venue is more valuable than not getting published. I have had manuscripts rejected multiple times that were eventually published without revision - one must simply find a suitable venue.

Mashud

Most of the publishers provide a tool that allowa you to find the journal that fits well to your paper.

Secondly, look on journals that you have on your references list.

Regards

GB

Two things are always important while choosing a journal: the impact factor and article processing charge.

More factors to cinsider....

Well indexing, citation rate per document of last few years.

Journal listed in -

scopus

SCImagojr(SJR) with high h index value

My advice is to first know your work's place in the literature. Next, you need to also consider what you need from the publication for your career.

However, don't be afraid to publish in a journal with lower impact factor i.e. 3-6; I oftentimes find the best little kernels or research seeds, if you will, within those papers, rather than the high impact journals. Sometimes publishing a paper to a high impact is not worth it, sometimes it is necessary, it depends on your situation.

To me, the best and most well-rounded scientists publish in a variety of journals, from low to high impact factor. I also believe that the best scientists read all types of journals, and consider the quality of work in a vacuum, independent of journal reputation.