Mentioning the names of the journals I publish is not useful or practical. Plz refer to my profile. We all have priority and specific topical research discipline (medicine, civil, agriculture, nano, Bio..., etc.). So the selection is field/topic oriented.The general answer was given by Dear Kamal already.

P.S. I made a similar question some times ago. Answers there are useful too.

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

Here is a possible answer, dear Shankhadeep.

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

Please have a look at the  List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by Jeffrey Beall (in the attached link). If these publishers are avoided, then others are more probably fine. However, it is better to ask other experts in a certain field about reliable journals & to write an e-mail to the editor of a targeted journal. The sort of reply will help in judgment.

http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/

Nizar

I looked at the predatory publishers list and was alarmed at how many of these journals purport to be in the discipline of pharmacology.  

Dear Barry, I am also alarmed since these profit-seeking  journals will publish anything even if it meant harming the health of human beings or causing more dire effects.

Preferred Journals are which follow - Stipulated guidelines of merit for publishing.

Avoid "style" based critiques. "Style" based critiques are such comments as "the article was well written," or "the author used too much jargon." While these things may be true, these critiques do not add much in the way of a substantive response.

Address Potential Additions and/or Concerns. Instead of "style" based critiques, focus your critiques on the ways the author does (or does not) support his/her argument or on alternative explanations and/or counter-evidence from other course materials

Consider the following questions

• Do you agree or disagree with the author's argument? Be able to support your opinion.

Is the author's argument sociological? Why or why not?

Is there anything about the author's logic that makes their argument questionable? Is there anything about the author's methods that makes their argument questionable?

Does the author base their arguments on facts or generalizations? If the author makes generalizations, do you feel these generalizations are justified? What groups or individuals might this argument not apply to based on these generalizations?

Does the author present counterevidence? How does the author's treatment of counterevidence aid or limit their effectiveness?

Does the author overstate their argument? Does the author stay within the scope of the paper? Do they avoid grandiose claims?

What questions are left unanswered? Do the unanswered questions limit the impact of the author's argument?

How did this article impact your understanding of sociology?

Thank you dear Marcelo. I have got a lot of information from your answer.

Dear Kamal are all specialized, indexed, and refereed journals really good choice? The reason I am asking this question is: I have found some journals which used fake information in their home page in spite of getting indexed in reputed authority and refereed by scholars.

Dear Mahmood and Behrouz, your replies were really practical.

It should cover broad aspect of the subject concerned and have good impact factor. But most importantly, it should take very less time in completing the review process.

No journal is good or bad, each journal exists on their earlier reputations. In the internet era, which ever journal host the publication online stands equal position. 

I would be very happy to agree with you dear Krishnan, but do you know that there are some journals which published fake information. Even the Thomson-Reuter is not ready to accept all journals into their site.  Thank you for reply first.

Regards,

Shankhadeep

Sorry, Thomson-Reuter is no sanctum to be followed, they work as a old mill following the 1961 impact factor scale; which is a highly inappropriate scale of measure in today's fast communication world.

In a research reality, Today's researcher does not wait to get a hard copy to do literature review; their productivity is affected.

A journal that:

• is operating for a respectable number of years
• has small editorial times
• helps you to improve your articles and does not break your nerves!

I agree with Kamal and Berhouz answers. 

I agree with Krishnan Umachandran in the reason of publication on line and the article is reached to their researcher ?

But it does not depend on me and you Krishnan. It is quite OK that you hold this good idea like me. But the matter of the fact is the whole world takes this old mill as an effective impact calculation criteria, otherwise why would the highest rated journals show their impact factor based on Thomson-Reuters?

Hello Shankhadeep and friends, I must ask you what you think about this journal?  The editor wrote:

The research is methodologically rigorous and the writing is clear. My main concern is that I do not think that the research is different enough from Yeoh (2013; 2014) to warrant publication. I realise that the topic of the intervention is different. I am concerned that because these studies are very similar, there is no reason for someone to cite the most recent. (My papers on RG may be cited and not the one in JOURNAL X even if they publish it.  Friends, is putting our research on RG something to be avoided?  Let me know.)

Dear Miranda, very interesting situation that you have raised. I am astonished to know from you this type of comment from an editor.

Now I can understand why many researchers do not publish full texts. But these editors are not at all doing good for modern science progress.