Both strategies: High Impact Factor or established journal - have different functions, other positive aspects and other limitations are not fully comparable.
Which strategies are considered to be more appropriate depends on the privities who the researcher writing the scientific papers deems more important. In the context of this issue an important question arises: Do you publish in scientific journals with a high Impact Factor but representing related or other fields of knowledge against the scientific specialty of the researcher who sends his scientific texts for publication?
Do you, however, publish in journals with a lower Impact Factor, which represent the field of knowledge in which the researcher specializes and writes his scientific texts? Which strategy is chosen by individual researchers, scientists and research and teaching staff of the university depends on whether the prime points are collected IF for the institution, which the researcher affirms, or more important is the citation of written texts in a given field, but more important is the issue of publishing in magazines whose titles are closely correlated with the problems of scientific texts written by the researcher.
Do you agree with me on the above matter?
In the context of the above issues, the following question is valid:
What are the key priorities for you when choosing a scientific journal for publishing scientific texts?
Please reply
I invite you to the discussion
Thank you very much
Best wishes
In my area, Scopus is irrelevant, only ISI counts. Some people around insist on publishing in high-IF journals; for me personally other things are more important - e.g. knowing that the journal is serious (for which an IF is not really a proof; I have made experiences with a few journals with not so low IF which nobody would believe), just liking the contents and the style of a journal, knowing that it carefully proofreads manuscripts (important for non-native speakers), etc.
One very important point for me is also the time necessary for review and publication. A few of my manuscripts needed two years from submission to publication - this is not promoting research, but completely blocking it. In addition, I often work with students - which sense does it make to publish in a journal of which you can be sure that publication will only happen after the students have long left our university?
It merely depends on legal requirements for academic career development. In Croatia, you need to have your articles published in either SCOPUS or ISI, all the rest is irrelevsnt, no matter how good/ suitable for you specialization the journal is. Impact fator is welcomed, but not crucial. And mAjority of us are focused on these legal requirements, not having too much time to bother with other issues.
In my area, Scopus is irrelevant, only ISI counts. Some people around insist on publishing in high-IF journals; for me personally other things are more important - e.g. knowing that the journal is serious (for which an IF is not really a proof; I have made experiences with a few journals with not so low IF which nobody would believe), just liking the contents and the style of a journal, knowing that it carefully proofreads manuscripts (important for non-native speakers), etc.
One very important point for me is also the time necessary for review and publication. A few of my manuscripts needed two years from submission to publication - this is not promoting research, but completely blocking it. In addition, I often work with students - which sense does it make to publish in a journal of which you can be sure that publication will only happen after the students have long left our university?
There are many journals in every scientific field and authors need to select a proper one for their own work. Selection process is affected by many criteria and authors should not consider only one criterion for decision. . There are several criteria which make the journal important for authors. Readership, time to publish, reputation, copyright restrictions, recommendation, online submission, online journal, open access, impact factor, editorial board, society, non-for-profit publication, publisher name, design, rejection rate, price and previous experience were respectively main criteria utilized by authors to value the journals.
I am afraid I fail to see a dichotomy here because, to the best of my knowledge, the typical situation is that BOTH is required, i.e. the publications in established journals with high impact factor are strongly preferred.
In the context of the progressive warming of the Earth's climate, the following question is of particular importance:
Both strategies: High Impact Factor or established journal - have different functions, other positive aspects and other limitations are not fully comparable. Which strategies are considered to be more appropriate depends on the privities who the researcher writing the scientific papers deems more important. In the context of this issue an important question arises: Do you publish in scientific journals with a high Impact Factor but representing related or other fields of knowledge against the scientific specialty of the researcher who sends his scientific texts for publication? Do you, however, publish in journals with a lower Impact Factor, which represent the field of knowledge in which the researcher specializes and writes his scientific texts? Which strategy is chosen by individual researchers, scientists and research and teaching staff of the university depends on whether the prime points are collected IF for the institution, which the researcher affirms, or more important is the citation of written texts in a given field, but more important is the issue of publishing in magazines whose titles are closely correlated with the problems of scientific texts written by the researcher.
Do you agree with me on the above matter?
Please reply I invite you to the discussion Thank you very much Best wishes
This is a very good discussion. I think the most important thing is to seek the journal which is more alighed with your research scope. Besides that, you also have to consider the impact factor in order to generate high visibility to your research results
I take the followings into consideration:
•Make sure your paper fits within the scope of the journal.
•Assess the credentials of the journal or publisher.
•Browse the content they publish for quality and relevance to your field.
•Check the quality of their website.
•Check what tools and services they offer to authors.
Thanks for having this discussion,
From perspective of a young researcher, I believe, the quality of review is very crucial. As an author, sometimes it can be tiring to encounter a strong reviewer, but end of the day this improves the quality of the work in a great deal. In my opinion, high impact factor (its always plus if its a high impact journal) should not be only parameter yet scope of the journal is very important to attract the right readers. If work does not find the right readers, then its just useless.
Other things, like, frequency, fees, publisher´s credibility and time for the publication process also need to be considered - especially for grad students work, since we often have limitation in respect to time and funding.
Impact factor, article publication charges (APC), acceptance rate, number of issues per year and frequency of publication, indexing/archiving, and finally now considering if it's indexed in RG and its score there.
In principle, the above discussion shows almost full agreement of opinions, with the most important factor in choosing a scientific journal apart from profiling on specific issues is the issue of indexing the journal in various indexing databases of scientific journals and having a high Impact Factor by a particular journal.
What do you think about this topic?
Please reply
Dear I consider the reliability of the journal, the frequency of Publication, degree of deseminate not of the paper.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Composition Studies
- Articles