If popoularity is the basis for a journal reputation, then it is based on some kind of objective bibliometric indicator such as impact factor. The higher the impact factor, the higher the reputation of the journal. But this also translates to a higher difficulty to publish in such a journal. This is because reputation and impact factor set the standard very high, quite rightly so, thus increasing the scientific rigour with which articles in these journals are assessed prior to publication.

I think it is a relative scale and discriminative. For example, the Journal of Geological Society of India is too popular to be missed by the Indian Geologists, but it is yet to cross the magical figure of IF 1. For a general science, the Indian Journal Current Science is far the more popular and this journal is also waiting to cross the IF 1. I am sure, there are many journals in different parts of the World. The rigor of initial screening, review, editing, journal quality, etc, of these journals are not less than many "high impact factor and Hugely Popular" journals. In fact, I have my own experience(s) of many of my papers rejected by these journals only to be accepted/published by high IF journals.

There is yet another problem related to the question.

There are many journals that are highly respected, followed and have their own reputation, but not yet included in the IF list. Who has to be blamed for this?

Solution to this could be found through inclusion of ALL THE JOURNALS selected based on objective criteria and removal of publisher/regional/language bias in the list of journals for IF computation.

Unless this is implemented, and the IF list includes broad-based, all inclusive journals in its inventory, the IF would remain to be viewed with a pinch of salt and remain to be a relative scale not a realistic and absolute scale.

I believe there are reasons why IF of a given journal does not increase. I do not see why journals IF fail to increase if scientists do cite the articles of these journals in their research.

Popularity is an indirect measure of the quality of your journal. Popularity doesn't come from nothing. It comes only when you publish some thing worthwhile. You won't very often see people citing silly references. Better the quality, more are the citations. Hence i believe popularity forms a genuine base for the reputation of a journal.

@ Mr. Ramkumar, In any given year, the impact factor of a journal is the average number of citations received per paper published in that journal during the two preceding years.

For example, if a journal has an IF of 3 in 2014, then its papers published in 2012 and 2013 received 3 citations each on average in 2014. The 2014 IF of a journal would be calculated as follows:

IF = A/B,

Where, A = the number of times that articles published in that journal in 2012 and 2014, were cited by articles in indexed journals during 2014.

B = the total number of "citable items" published by that journal in 2012 and 2013. ("Citable items" are usually articles, reviews, proceedings, or notes; excluding editorials or letters to the editor). [wikipedia]

So it is just a mathematical calculation and hence have no room for bias.In my opinion it is dead impossible that a journal won't be able to cross the magical figure 1 if it is popular with respect to this criterion. Hence as per this criterion the journals like Geological society of India, current science can't be dubbed as popular.

If we look into reality then current science etc. are a very good journals but with low IF. We often also see that IF and the quality of a some journals are to a great extent positively correlated.

However in my opinion, experts of a particular subject should rate a journal of their subject. Finally a journal should be rated by combining the expert view and the impact factor of that journal.

@ Ramkumar, Aabid, Mohammad. Sir you are yet to comment on my opinion

Quality is more important.. Vist this link:

http://ijaridea.com/Directory-Of-Research