Hi one of our dear friends sent this comment in my private page:

A judicious batsman sees the ball, not the bowler. Consider contents not the container. Idea of good journal is vague. There is no good journal, but their is good paper. A good journal may publish a bad paper. Conversely, a bad journal may publish a revolutionary theory. In fact the reviewers and editors select paper. But in many cases their mood and motif are gloriously so uncertain.

Why I disagree with Nobel Laureates when it comes to career advice for scientists

https://article.wn.com/view-lemonde/2017/06/27/Why_I_disagree_with_Nobel_Laureates_when_it_comes_to_career_/#/video

The Nobel laureate who said so has already gained recognition. The young generation without sufficient recognition should not swim against the tide. 

good greeting

I agree with you. The number of researches and their scientific and applied value is the most important

The measures by which we judge scientists are always under intense scrutiny. For those who hit the peak of their field, there’s the Nobel Prize. But across all levels of career progression, we publish research papers in journals whose importance or rank can be communicated via a number known as the Journal Impact Factor.

The much respected Nobel Prize Twitter site @NobelPrize recently tweeted an impressive video with four Nobel Laureates speaking out against Journal Impact Factors.

My view is that the Nobel Laureates are right in theory. But I cannot advise the junior researchers I mentor to ignore Impact Factors.

Although imperfect, Impact Factors retain some validity. But more importantly, deep down, I know that as the world of research expands and as people become increasingly specialised, the use of proxy metrics, like Journal Impact Factors and citations, will increase not decrease.

Criticism of Journal Impact Factors

Nobel Laureates Peter Doherty, Bruce Beutler, Joseph Goldstein and Paul Nurse aren’t alone in their criticism of Journal Impact Factors.

The widely supported San Francisco Declaration makes the same point – you can’t judge the quality of research by just looking at the Journal Impact Factor.

Australia’s major medical research funding body, the National Health and Medical Research Council is also officially opposed to Impact Factors and has essentially outlawed reporting them in grant applications.

The Australian Research Council once had a list of A star, A, B and C ratings for journals in its Excellence in Research Australia research assessment exercise but has now abandoned that list and recommends against institutions continuing to use it.

In theory all these august bodies are correct. Impact Factors represent the average number of citations for each paper in the journal over a two year period. They are unreliable. They can be gamed in various ways, such as including a lot of reviews in a journal, and they can be heavily influenced by one or two “jackpot” papers.

In summary, Journal Impact Factors are a crude short cut to the proper job of estimating quality – they are a type of Pre-judgemen, a prejudice.

You don’t have to be tall to be good at basketball. But it certainly helps. – Photo: http://www.shutterstock.com

Picking a researcher or a grant application on the basis of Impact Factors is like selecting a basketball team on the basis of one single metric – like the height of the players.

It’s ridiculous.

i agree impact factor is not always important in all cases.

I agree with all of you. High Impact Research is more important than High Impact Factor (IF).

good greeting:

A very important question, and I think you have experience in asking such questions, yes, the issue of the impact laboratory affected the work of researchers a lot, a degree of measurement problem, agreed with you in your proposal.

I agree with the Nobel Laurate, of  course, not because he has already gained recognition but because it is true. "The media es is the message" - very much along what in a different context M. MacLuhan said, once.

Many times, the focus lies on the media, not on the mesage. There are very valuable papers that can be published elsewhere, and yet, no one pays attention to them. Why? Because of the journals.

Not to mention the business around it all...

Impact factors are not true indicators. It's like trp of TV channels. Of course everyone want to publish in good journal but finally the research should be read by large population. Most important is circulation of journals. If journal is widely circulated thend impact factor do not mean much. Many times few journal has high impact factors but scientific information is not upto that Mark. 

Hi one of our dear friends sent this comment in my private page:

A judicious batsman sees the ball, not the bowler. Consider contents not the container. Idea of good journal is vague. There is no good journal, but their is good paper. A good journal may publish a bad paper. Conversely, a bad journal may publish a revolutionary theory. In fact the reviewers and editors select paper. But in many cases their mood and motif are gloriously so uncertain.

They have their won views.

Dear Parisa,

You mention these words by "The Nobel Prize" on twitter: "The research counts, not the journal!" Nobel Laureates speak out against impact factors. (https://twitter.com/NobelPrize/status/877804020345262080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournosdiary.com%2F2017%2F07%2F01%2Fnobel-laureate-impact-factor%2F)

I think that the Nobel Laureates have said the important truth. Summing the impact factors of the journals in which a researcher has published papers, the employer or the would-be employer of the researcher can get a simple measure of the researcher's performance. So, nowadays too much attention is payed for the impact factor by employers and researchers. However, the sum of the impact factors does not necessarily give the correct estimate of the researcher's own performance. The article at the link below well explains the reason for this.

Best regards,

Tatsuo

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/05/scientists-join-journal-editors-to-fight-impact-factor-abuse.html

Agree with the ideas of hon'ble noble laureate. Many journals are professional for money only.

Dear Dr Mohannad Husain Al-Sherrawi 

First of all thank you for being the first in reponding my questions and then thank you twice then for telling us your idea in this  way !

Best regards

Parisa

 Dear Dr Lewis Kausel 

That is completely right, not only in the architecture field but also inb many other disciplines.

I think the worth of evry research based on the research not the impact factor or the name of journal.

Best regards

Parisa

Dear Dr MUNISH KUMAR

Thank you so much for sharing your idea with the group, yes you mentioned the base words:

finally the research should be read by large population!

Sometimes we focused on the other points instead of aour research and finding and our main goals!

Best regards

Parisa

 Dear Dr Anirbid Sircar ·

Thanks for sharing your point of view. I appreciate it.

Best regards

Parisa

 Dear Prof.Tatsuo Tabata

yes exactly, you are 100% right. I think that the Nobel Laureates have said the important truth too and it worth to rethink and reconsideration about correcting and  estimating  of the researcher's own performance.  You always answer the questions expertly and nothing more to add.

I really appreciate you.

please accept my best regards, Parisa

 Dear Dr Ajit Roy

You mentioned a very importantant point!

Thank you so much for your brief and wise answer.

Best regards, Parisa

 Dear Prof. Subir Bandyopadhyay 

many thanks for sharing your valuable idea with us. I appreciate it!

Best regards, Parisa

Dear Dr Azhar Abdulameer Sosa 

Good Greeting dear

Many thanks for sharing your valuable idea with us, as you mentioned " The number of researches and their scientific and applied value is the most important" but the novelty and depth and imapct of research are important too.

Best regards and warm wishes to you, Parisa 

Dear Dr Ali hadi Ghawi

Very very interesting comments and answer! I impressed by your statements:

In theory all these august bodies are correct. Impact Factors represent the average number of citations for each paper in the journal over a two year period. They are unreliable. They can be gamed in various ways, such as including a lot of reviews in a journal, and they can be heavily influenced by one or two “jackpot” papers.

Hope not  put all the journals under question but some cases you are 100% right.

Thank you so much.

Best regards, Parisa

Dear Dr Syed Amir Gilani 

many thanks for your brief and frank answer. I appreciate you.

Best regards, Parisa

Dear Dr Zahir Hussain 

How nice you answered: High Impact Research is more important than High Impact Factor (IF).

Exactly, many thanks and appreciate you

Best regards, Parisa

Dear Prof. Barbara Sawicka 

Many many thanks for your answer, and as you lovely and nice mentioned that truth points about Nature journal.

A great example are two articles withdrawn in recent weeks from Nature, which appear to have caused a real storm among stem cell researchers. Many scientists have reported the inability to replicate these surprising results.

Yes exactely!

I deeply appreciate you and your PRECISE answer.

Warm regards and best wishes

Parisa

Dear Dr Asim Hakim Abbas 

Many thanks for sharing with me and answering my question, I really appreciate your valuable comment!

Best regards, Parisa

 Being a research scholar I would like to say that the research work which is applicable for welfare has its own importance rather than the journal brand where it is published.Only concern is that sometime in lower impact journal some of the data and their analysis not represented in a clear way that's why we doubt and we follow the information of our own interested area in high impact journal.

in one line I would like to add:-

"Scientific work should not be appreciated based upon its impact factor, it is only worthy when it has some application or base for future research work"

Dear Prof. Carlos Eduardo Maldonado 

How nice and logical is your answer and I want to highlighter your statement: 

There are very valuable papers that can be published elsewhere, and yet, no one pays attention to them. Why? Because of the journals.

I appreciate your valuable answer.

Best regards, Parisa

Dear Dr Amber Gupta ·

Many thanks for your nice answer, yes I have the same opinion: "Scientific work should not be appreciated based upon its impact factor, it is only worthy when it has some application or base for future research work"

 Best regards, parisa

absolutely right

Impact Factor is a citation based matrix for ranking of journals which may vary depending on the exact formula used, and also on the source data which is used. Different measures may have different journals at the top of the ranking. Also, there are flaws of using journal metrics, particularly in relation to specific discipline. Journal Impact Factors are a crude short cut to the proper job of estimating quality which can be gamed in various ways, such as including a lot of reviews in a journal, and they can be heavily influenced by few top rated papers. However, despite all odds, impact factors hold some validity as far as scoring and ranking of one's research accomplishments by a number (i.e. Impact Factor) across all levels of career progression is concerned.

Dear Prof. Yogesh

You know how much I respect you in scientific bases, yes you are right and I really appreciate and thank you for your answer and sharing you idea with the group.

Best regards

Parisa

I agree too, “The research counts, not the journal”. Unfortunately, this statement does not hold true especially for young and new researchers. They have to publish in some good reputed general with IF.  The dilemma is, such journals are usually over occupied by some big guys who demand the same sort of research manuscript from new and young researchers which they themselves learned and mastered after decades. Anyhow, no other way except to battle for publishing in  good and high IF journals if we want to be recognized and acknowledged. Others have right to disagree.

Dear Dr Asmat Ali

You mentioned the truth behind some journals, simply and frankly and in nice words, I really appreciate it and thank you foe sharing your respected and valuable idea with the group.

Best regards'

Parisa

Welcome

The quality of published work this is the question, that can be welcomed in many journals. If you ask me which journal I would say impact factor ones.

Best regards

Dear Dr Aly R Abdel-Moemin

Many thanks for sharing valuable answer.

Best regards

Parisa Ziarati

Dear Parisa Ziarati

In addition to what has been seriously discussed by the wonderful scientific team and good ideas

Some countries or universities do not cover the cost of publishing and often rests with the researcher to cover the cost of publishing other than other aspects, this is an additional obstacle to not try to published in high impact factors good reputed Journals. Besides, many researchers have taken their scientific ability but overshadowed the investment side in science by scientific publishing what negatively impacted reputation even those journals who are in publishing global lists.

Best regards

Houda Kawas

In the absence of a consensus yardstick for measurement of academic output, the current impact factor benchmark should be appreciated and accepted. With time, younger academic will have overcome their initial handicaps. There is a suggestion, however, that the range of high impact factor journals should be widened a little more to ease the decongestion in their  waiting queues. 

Dear Dr Harold Chike

Many thanks for your answer and sharing your idea with us. I really appreciate it.

Best regards

Parisa

Dear Houda Kawas

Many thanks for explaning your great idea and sharing it with the group, I really appreciate it.

Please accept my best regards, Parisa

I agree with you!

Dear Dr Vipan Kakkar

Many thanks for sharing your valuable answer, in brief and crystal clear!

Best regards

 Dear Dr Tariq H. Y. Al-Maliky

Many thanks for your answer, yes exactly!

Best regards

Impact factor is not the only important factor to consider. You need to consider what is important to you? In some cases your paper may be communicating a message to a certain targeted audience. Now you need to ask yourself whether you are reaching to the TARGETED audience when selecting a journal. Open access is one of the methods that is being used to increase your audience. Good publishers such as PLOS ONE are getting much higher citations than before due to open access because their work is accessible. I foresee, not far into the future, open access journals will surpass most high end journals on impact factor due to accessibility of their work. Also in some cases your paper could be addressing a regional research question, and such a paper may be best placed in a regional journal. In short, the impact factor might look enticing but it is important to consider other factors like your desired audience and accessibility. Remember an impact factor is just a measure of average citations a paper in the journal receives. However your own impact is sometimes more important; and it is measured by how many citations you receive. Therefore if your paper is reaching the right audience, it will likely receive more citations. More-so if it is open access!

Dear prof. Barbara Sawicka

I agree with you totally as you perfectly mentioned:

must remember that the quality of work is important rather than the place of publication !

Dear Dr Carlos Eduardo Maldonado

Thank you so much for your comment .

yes according to journals they would be read not the quality of research

Yes the research counts, but published in what journal? Predatory surrounding us!

Discussions so far have indicated that Nobel prize winning articles have come from both high impact factor and non-high impact factor journals. So what is the issue at stake? Let authors make their choices. Every game has its rules. Every organisation also has its statutes. If an author cannot get an article published in a high impact factor journal, let him or her try the alternative. It is the research itself that is crucial and valuable to the research community.

Dear Prof. Aly R Abdel-Moemin

Yes nowadays, it is very difficult to distinguish them.

Dear Prof. Harold Chike

You are logical scientist and get the right point !

Thank you so much for wise advice.

Your state is held in high regard.

Best regards, Parisa

Thank to you dear Dr Monyer Abd Al-Fatlawi and also dear Dr C. Lewis Kausel !

Best regards

many thanks for recommending my answer@

• Parisa Ziarati
• Karim Abbasian

The Nobel laureate has already gained allot. The young researchers need recognition..... one can not secure a job/post doc with 1 or 2 impact factor paper. you need big papers to get a good position.

If you publish article in low impact factor journal.... Its not cited my many......

Everyone has its own opinion.

But its a craze to publish in high impact factor journals.

Dear prof Mutasem Z. Bani-Fwaz

Many thanks for your wonderful answer, I definitely agree with you!

Best regards

Dear Dr Muhammad Umair

Many thanks for sharing your answer, yes you are right! but not all scientists think in this way

Madam has asked the question very timely. What are impact factors , perhaps >90% from us do not know how it is decide by various agencies . If a researcher publishes a very good quality of research in a j

contdd........journal of low impact factor or not having any impact factor at all , would scientists will not give any importance to that vary research . If after few years scientific community finds that the work is very important and has the potential to change the dimensions of particular subject then what will happen to that impact factor. Noble laurates who are against today's impact factor doctrine are absolutely right. Regards , JCT

I totally agree with the statement of Nobel laureate. In fact the quality of work that matters, not the journal. Gregor Johann Mendel chose annual proceedings of Brunn Natural History Society to publish his outstanding work instead of a reputed journal.

fully agree and i´m submitting a paper about it next week

here it is:

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

A hundred percent agree with the Nobel laureate. In fact, we use the impact of the journal for the article. While we need the article impact!

Research is the ONLY important factor.

All others are just ORNAMENTAL.

Thanks.

Following answers

I agree with Dr. Pattanayak. Quality and impact of research on the common man and the society at large is important. There are so many publications published in journal with very high impact factor but have no applied value.

Truly it is the research that counts, not the journal.

The only difference between publishing in a high impact factor journal and publishing in a low impact factor journal is that the former requires fewer publications to expose its authors to the global community of readers and authors.

But on the long run, the impacts of their researches will level up. Their outputs will still make impacts.

That is why some Novel prize winners have also published in non-high impact factor journals. They probably have had to put in more time by making use of more non-high impact factor journals. In effect. it is not the journals that do the researches and discoveries, but the researchers. So prizes should go to researchers irrespective of the impact factors of the journals they publish in.