See these related discussions:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Publishing_in_a_journal_without_impact_factor2

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_worth_publishing_in_a_journal_that_has_no_impact_factor

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scopus_or_ISI_do_you_agree_the_indexed_journal_always_better_than_other_or_non-indexed

Mohsina Patwekar

It is unfortunate, journals with high APC has easy to publish your paper without much delay in the review process but journals with no APC can take up to 2 to 6 months or even a year for peer-reviewed. However, Labs with high impact factor publications frequently attract more outstanding and ambitious individuals. Finally, scientific prizes are usually, if not always, presented to scholars who have published high-impact papers.

Whenever possible, strive to publish in the journal with the greatest impact factor in your discipline. When considering grant proposals, funding entities take such factors into account. People who do not read the work before judging it will be more impressed if it is published in a well-known publication.

I completely agree with ur point mam..but the thing is India being a developing country,there are no much funding sources available, nor does the individual has any other financial source to pay the APC.. but will definitely remember ur points..thank u Fatimah mam

I think, it doesn't matter where you publish.

Your citation matters and that's why we have "Top cited Researcher" analytics by the Stanford. They don't see journals, they see your number of citations.

Impact factor is being misused and researchers are nowadays judged based on the impact factor of journals in which they have published their papers.

Facing the same problem!

Thanks

As long as the journal is well peer-reviewed and not predatory, "very good impact score" doesn't matter as most of those demand high quality, high price and are not open access if free for authors. I agree most researchers in developing countries may not have high income, or credit cards to buy memberships, or access to good labs that might keep them from making their papers "high quality", like getting neat and high resolution images of insect genitalia, DNA sequencing and et cetera. Just make sure that your data is correct and relevant.

The publications only in very good impact score journal are more important than the number of publications.

When one faces financial restrictions, the impact factor of the journal should not be bothered for but should publish in a reasonable journal. At the same time, care must be taken not to publish in a predatory journal.

Publishing a paper in good impact factor journal is more important comparing to the number of publication. Meanwhile citation of the research will be much more important

In comparison to the number of publications, publishing work in a high-impact journal is more crucial. Meanwhile, research citation will be much more significant.

For academics seeking tenure, publication in high-ranking journals seems to be desirable, but if you are more interested in making the information available then any respectable journal will do. Authors are judged on what they publish, not where or how often, but dodgy, internet-only journals should be avoided.

Mendel was ignored for long because he published in the (monastery) house journal. Bert Orr is quite correct in his reply. As a long time editor, no good paper has ever been rejected because an author is from a small country and/or cannot pay page charges. The plan should be to write specifically for an identified target journal, well chosen for editorial policy, with care to follow the house style. And if English is not your first language, have someone competent to advise. And write the Abstract after you have completed the paper, not before .. Sell your major conclusions in the title and abstract.

You need both of them. Nowadays both of them are important. But the papers should publish in peer-review journals.

Publication in high-impact factor journals is much more desirable than the number of publications due to their rigorous peer-review process. This will increase the citation of your work which in turn gives you recognition among the scientific community. Try to avoid paying, online local journals at all costs. I hope this will help Mohsina Patwekar

Because of their rigorous peer-review process, publishing in high-impact factor journals is far more desirable than the quantity of publications. This will boost the number of citations for your work, which will earn you recognition in the scientific community. On the other hand, the number of publications is also desirable in some situations.

Unfortunately I was never in the position to make this decision, all I have is numbers. Speaking for others, I think this question is important when your employer has no idea what you working with and needs a proxy for the quality of your work. Otherwise, and this is what keeps me going, the most important thing is that you like what you are doing. I dont want to be driven by the possible illusion that anybody cares about my work and that it contributes anything to the cause. Of course it would be great if so.

Definitely, to publish in high score impact journals, indexed at Scimago or Clarivate

https://www.scimagojr.com/

https://mjl.clarivate.com/home

Hello Mohsina Patwekar

My additional thought is based on my own experience. I think that when I was getting established in my employment, I needed a lot of numbers quickly, so to speak.

My situation now is quite different. If I want to work towards publication of my work, I inevitably want it to be in a high-ranked journal and I often have the thoughts similar to Robert Perger that I will only engage in what I like.

Both things are important. But the science, if we refer to Natural History and especially to taxonomy and faunistics, is not only practiced at a professional level. In this field of knowledge (I don't know if in any other as well) what is relevant has never been who publishes, or where they do it, but only how it is published. The taxonomy is based on a very high percentage of publications made in humble bulletins and local or regional magazines. On the other hand, it is only in these journals that it is possible to publish, for example, new records of species at a local or regional level, fundamental data to knowing the distribution of animals and plants. What is valuable is publishing with a high ethical sense and doing it as well as possible from a technical and scientific point of view, without fooling oneself and without fooling others. Even the best peer-reviewed journals are full of nonsense!

tengo unas 200 publicaciones y solo un tramo de investigación asi que no lo dudes: con una bueana al año mejor que 10 en revistas sin impacto. Felicidades por lo de la cochinilla de mar

Contributing with quality research and having a good impact keeps us more purposeful than having lots without a realistic approach.

I agree with most of the answers above. There are two sides of the same coin:

For grants and some funding sources, numbers may matter the most (as long as your papers are in indexed journals). However, for recognition inside academia, the IF of the journal will matter the most.

I understand you (as a Brazilian researcher in an early career, with almost no funding for research) that it's not possible always aim for high-impact journals. They usually charge a lot for publication and, besides that, we also spend a lot of money on "English reviews" (English is not our native language, so this is one more expense to add up).

I believe that the best option is to avoid general scope journals and to focus on journals specific to your research because it'll be easier for people who are interested in your subject to find them.

Collabs with other research groups also help, once you can gather funds from each lab to pay for a publication and make it possible.

It's sad. It's not the way it would be, but we must try to do the best we can while demanding better conditions.

Quality of research output in a reputable journal.