I have seen that there are some journal having high impact factor does not have a good reputation in the scientific community. On the other hand there are some journals having good reputation with lesser impact factor. What will you prefer ?
It might depend on discipline and personal experience and exposure. In my field of clinical health and health services research - there is a strong correlation between the quality, tradition and reputation of journals and their resultant Impact Factor. There will always be a few exceptions - but that is not the norm in my experience.
It might depend on discipline and personal experience and exposure. In my field of clinical health and health services research - there is a strong correlation between the quality, tradition and reputation of journals and their resultant Impact Factor. There will always be a few exceptions - but that is not the norm in my experience.
Yes, the reputation of a journal, in large part, depends on its impact factor. It is difficult to separate the two. Who assigns the impact factor? The reputability of the body assigning the impact factor is critical whatever reputation a journal has. The quality of editorial board of a journal is of primary concern, which I am sure Thomson Reuters, for instance, considers for indexing and assignment of impact factors.
While the prestige/reputation of a journal could influence more in one subject domain than other factors, Impact Factor could make more impact in another subject domain than the reputation. For example, medicine authors concern impact factor more seriously than reputation, while social sciences researchers consider journals' reputation more importantly than the numerical ranking measures like impact factor (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.1113). Perhaps, the subject domains that concern impact factor importantly could demonstrate a correlation between the two factors, but I doubt whether the same is true for all domains.