Look at your list of references. Submit to the journal you quote most.

Impact is more important.

Thank you Berg and Soebandrija for your valuable answers.

take a look at the attached. I hope they help

Thank you so much Dr. DiGabriele for the articles.

you're welcome. best of luck.

Quality and impact frequently go hand in hand. I would look even, and especially, the scientific authoritativeness of the members of the editorial board.

Thank you for your valuable inputs, Fabrizio.

Short answer: Balance (unless you are the super gifted, top 1%).

There are many ways to play this game. Early career might talk to other faculty (or peers) about what they look for in a job applicant. If given a choice between three publications in journals with impact factors of 0.95 versus a single publication in a journal with an impact factor of 4, which person will be hired -- everything else equal?

Ultimately it is a random walk. You submit to a high impact factor journal and your chance of rejection improves. This takes more time as you have to start the review process over at another journal. The review process itself is a random walk. If you get reviewer 1, 6, and 15 you will be accepted with no revision. If you get reviewer 3, 17, and 21 your manuscript will be rejected. If you get some mix, then it is up to the editor and how they are feeling that day.

It also depends on the research you are doing. Cutting edge research may yield some rewards or just cuts. Plodding research may get you a large number of publications, but eventually everyone will be asleep.

And how adept you are in cashing in. Can you build a single publication in Science into a directorship at NSF? If the answer is "probably not," then maybe the right answer is just get things published. Don't go for a journal with an impact factor of 0.002, but anything that is close to the average for your discipline is fine.

I look at impact factor. I try for higher impact factor journals because I have been told that is something that is important. Yet, my reward for publishing in a journal of impact factor 4 seems very much the same as if the journal as an impact factor of 1. Of course I can't do this as a replicated experiment, so I will never know for sure.

Thank you Timothy for a very detailed explanation.

Is there a difference between a top tier journal and an elite journal? Which one should an average author choose for publishing?

Thanks for your additional questions, Erick.

I don't understand the additional question. One could use the impact factor, make a frequency histogram, and define cut-off points that will make as many categories as you like. But somehow that does not seem helpful ????

I think Erick is talking about perceived difference.

The quest for journal quality has always been the scholarly grail. I think the attached article presents a changing perspective.

Thanks Sam and James again for contribution and discussion on the topic. I think readership, contribution, and quality of the work are very important factors. 

A Quality Journal to have a look at:

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