no

I agree with Dr. Gupta. However, I would like to add that the impact factor usually depends in its calculation on the number of citations, and the number of citations is affected by the fact that if the journal is open-accessed (the possibility of viewing its research from a large number of researchers) or not. Therefore, in my opinion, the impact factor alone is not enough to measure the quality of the journal. Maybe journal has a low impact factor but the quality of its research is higher than those with a higher impact factor.

I am completely agreed with my colleague answers Dr.Vishnu Kumar Gupta.

Hi

I see an alternative.

It is not about the indexes themselves, but about the publication habits.

We can create Journals as "Projects" of Research Gate, and ask for submissions from colleagues to this "Journal", then follow the regular reviewing process that a group of colleagues can handle.

Eventually we publish papers in RG after RG deliver a DOI for each paper.

Thus no need to be assessed through the Big Publishers' reviews.

If a paper is cited (with its DOI), ResearchGate will recognize it and increase the citations count for this paper.

Thus the number of citations through RG will help calculate a h index.

No but it could be used for the same publisher and topics

I recommend the great idea of Gil mahe👏👏👏👏👏

no

Dear Kasban and Bala

Kindly develop your answer "No" ?!....

What do you mean?

I wonder if you read my comment....

And Thanks To Doaa for Her support

Evaluating scientific quality is a notoriously difficult problem which has no standard solution. Ideally, published scientific results should be scrutinised by true experts in the field and given scores for quality and quantity according to established rules. In practice, however, what is called peer review is usually performed by committees with general competence rather than with the specialist's insight that is needed to assess primary research data. Committees tend, therefore, to resort to secondary criteria like crude publication counts, journal prestige, the reputation of authors and institutions.

https://www.bmj.com/content/314/7079/497.1

yes of course

Thank you very much for all the answers above!

Hope to receive more advice.

for same area, IF is okay.

I agree with the opinion of Dr. Jianjian Wang. There is no comparability between the journals involved in different areas, such as engineering, material, medical science and so on. But it is ok using the Impact Factor (IF) to evaluate the journal in the same fields. However, I thinlk IF cannot absolutely determine the quality of the journal and the peer-review insights on the journals will play an important role in the future.

I can't agree with Dr. Jiaqiang Dang more. Reputations based on peer review in our own research area would come first in the near future.

There are some acadmic initiatives to create collaborative platform for free exchange of data and publications, with the difference with RG, Academia and other like platforms, that these academic platforms do not request the free use of all material posted on their site.

This is an interesting alternative, but with one main drawback, that they are mostly unknowned and they do not offer all the capabilities of RG for instance to exchange any other material, put people in contact, offer a forum platform etc...

Hello. I don't think because some of these parameters seem to me sufficient

Which ones ?

No

Impact factor is not the most important thing to me.

The interest of a paper is given by the number of citations

as you said the first one is IF