Is it objectively right judging the papers based on the journals in which they have been published?
Moaz - whether it is 'right or wrong' (most likely something in-between) - the objective and subjective debate on the validity of judging/ranking publications on the basis of metrics is known to be flawed. However, it is generally agreed that at least some form of metric is required. If we did not have at least some system that attempts to measure the quality of research and journals - then it would most likely result in a 'chaotic - free for all' international academic environment. Many government bodies base their funding allocation to higher education institutions on the basis of such metrics as well.
In this business age: scientists slog, supervisors enjoy, referees serve, editors take pride and the PUBLISHERS eat the cream. Promotions depend on impact of journal and not on quality and novelty of work because peers avoid citing low-impact journals. This is called TEAM-WORK, in this weird world.
Journals ranking is essential to determine the quality of papers published. Although the metrics it uses can be flawed e. g., Impact Factor Ranking, Journal Quality List (JQL), yet there must be some system in place to check the quality.
Journal Quality List determines the quality of the article. Journals are ranked in the Journal Quality List (JQL). Higher the rank in the JQL, it is assumed higher is the quality of the article and the journal.
I think, papers talk about themselves.
Even though you have to choose the journal that is scientifically sound and has good reputation, still, your paper talks about itself. The topic you publish may attract more researchers if published in higher journals, but it is not the only factor to consider.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers