Thank you very much for the answer and advice.

Difficult question. The answer will depend where you are

As an Editor-in-Chief for an ecological journal it is easy to recognize differences in quality between countries. However, the key point for me has always beeen whether or not the paper contains new ideas. It is in fact difficult to be an ecologist - it is something of many thing - and that has many times created difficulties for me when receiving referee's evaluations.

Youngh fellow: GOOD LUCK

Tore

Hi

your quastion is very indecisive, but according to my idea when we have enough published article, we could prooved yourself in scientist society.

In my opinion, definitely is important the country, impact factor of the journal and also if you are the first author or corresponding author. In terms of quality between countries, I'm not sure if I would call quality. Rather, I think there are different levels, it is a matter of budget and definitely is not the same do science in a developing country than in a developed. But, in a globalized world these "little" differences do not matter.

"Where should we publish or how many publications should we have? Which is better for young ecologists?"

the best is, if someone (ecologist or not) is publishing when he/she has something to say

p.s. otherwise will just be a running after ISIs (the God of Science in the last few decades), necessary for promotion to the next hierarchy-level inside the university or other type of academic institution...

As Tore Midtvedt and Zsolt Török very correctly noted, there are many 'numerical factors' deciding on the 'quality' of a researcher's work, but still these are just numbers... Anyway, some of them, maybe the most important, are the number of peer-reviewed published original articles, the journals in which they are published, the number of citations they have got, of course the order of the author in the author list and others. However, there are exceptions: if you publish in a 'lower-level' journal but it is really a good work of yours you could literally increase the journal's impact factor by 'collecting' many citations. Even the citation thing is a sheer number: because after all what it counts is why you are cited for (for praise or opposition). And as Zsolt Török very eloquently said, let's stop worrying about numbers and as Carlisle the philosopher advised: "work and do not have doubts". Time is the best factor deciding our quality...

The way science works right now, first-author papers in high-impact journals is what gets you the jobs. I truly wish that more focus was on the actual quality and quantity of the work, but this is not the case. I know of postdocs who got a job based on 1 or 2 high-impact papers, whereas those with 5-10 papers in low-medium impact journals are struggling to stay in the game. There are emerging alternatives, where each paper bears its own weight, so lets hope change is swift.

Thanks all for the fruitful discussion.

I hope all of your ideas and suggestions will help in changing the selection criteria in some institutions or funding providers.

I do understand that most of people including me believe in scientific values rather than citations indices or impact factors. This is the case why some technical reports or even conference papers may got cited more than a published paper in a reputable or high impact factor journal. Yet, there is still an ugly side of the truth that we may not accept but we were forced to.

I tried to open such discussion as I had several and negative experiences about that point and would like to have the personal point of view of the senior researchers around the world.

Although we are working very hard to get our knowledge disseminated and being shared with others as this is the true value of science, emergence of all these indices (e.g. ISI or scopus) makes it rather difficult.

Meanwhile, I still feel optimistic as many scientists and institutions care about quality of the work regardless where it was published.

Thus, we still can say that science is not merely numbers, it is an impact.

Thanks again for your ideas and suggestions

A major determinant of accepting ecological research by prominent journals in ecology is the experimental design, how current the methodology is and the packaging of the work. If these are in place high impact journals can be targeted.

I think the best way to measure your own impact is through how many times you are cited. However having said that, you don't know if what you have to say is, in a way, 'worth' saying. I think as young ecologists we don't really have much to lose. What works for me is to keep writing, keep informed and work with a close bunch of really driven friends. What you have to say may not always be published at the first go, but take into account the reviewer comments. Early-stage ecologists like us may not have the breadth/depth of the reviewers, who may be much more experienced.

I am also a little baby ecologist and I think it's maybe a mixture of both. Impact factors are just one way of measuring impact. They measure the impact of the journal you published in, but not the impact of your own work. Other measures that take into account the number of times you were cited are probably a better indicator. If you publish in a journal with IF 30 and get 2 citations and then publish in a journal with IF 2 and get 30 citations, your impact was much greater on the lower-impact journal. I also think the number of papers is important, because they are the proof of your working capabilities. If you are a scientist, your goal is to publish science. As far as journals are concerned, publish in respected and peer reviewed journals in your study area. Sometimes narrowing down to a specific audience (e.g. Journal of visual pigments of tiny yellow fish instead of Nature) may get your work to be known and cited more often by your colleagues.

to cite a colleague of mine: " What you do not publish, you have never done." - so the most important thing is, to make your results (including negative ones and according struggles) public and accessible. It is as important to publish in "small" journals as it is to try in the "big" ones - after all there has to be space for small scale studies and specific topics; otherwise an important baseline of science in general is jeopardized.