Hi Dear Lau

I think the impact factor is very important to other index

Dear Lau,

Neither journal impact factor nor the journal reputation should be a factor, but the real potential of the research, how it could be beneficial to the society determine the quality of a work.

Your satisfaction! Satisfaction that you have contributed something new though at the very minimal level or satisfaction that you have analysed a problem that has been repeatedly analysed from a new point of view giving the problem a new dimension or angle of analysis. That is all that count most to a true researcher.

I agree with Lijo.

Impact factor is important but more important is your citations.

Repute journal means, a journal, known for the publication of quality work only. Usually such journal has high impact factor. Impact factor is directly related to citations. Large number of researchers referred the work in their scientific activities. Thus every things are interrelated.

I think that journal impact factor and its reputation are two faces for the same coin

The impact factor metric is highly flawed, it doesn't determine one's research quality. Personally, I would prefer a full assessment of the work done by a scientist, including their ethics in conducting research. But, if you strictly want me to chose one of the given options, I would look more on citation (H index: exclude self-citation and citations from people who work closely with you. e.g. students, colleagues, friends) > journal's reputation > impact factor.

If you are asking, where should you publish your work, then short answer is - there, where the most articles about your subject is written! High IF is not a indicator! I will give example from my experience!

First of all I need to know, which journals write about my subject, so I use advanced searched in Scopus:

TITLE(phosphat*) AND TITLE(biosorbent) OR TITLE(biosorption) OR TITLE(removal) OR TITLE(sorption) OR TITLE(uptake) OR TITLE(binding) OR TITLE(sorbent) OR TITLE(adsorbent) OR TITLE(adsorption)

Here are the results: Water Science and Technology (90 / 1.102) ; Water Research (87 / 4.655) ; Journal of Hazardous Materials (81 / 3.925) ; Plant and Soil (61 / 2.638); Soil Science Society of America Journal (58 / 1.820); Environmental Science and Technology (48 / 5.257) ; Chemical Engineering Journal (44 / 3.473); (Desalination and Water Treatment 38 / 0.852).

One may think that he should look for a journal with a high IF. For example, he takes Environmental Science and Technology, as he knows that there are publications about similar topic. But maybe he publish in Water Science and Technology, as number of articles almost twice as high!? Of course, the best option would be Water Research, but standards are very high!

I agree with what was said, but it is necessary to publish in newspapers with high IF in order to have funds necessary to conduct research.

I agree with many of the answers here in that the metrics for determining scientific competence and quality are highly flawed. I think IF is nice to shoot for, but should not be the be-all, end-all of measuring scientific quality. For example, Nature and Science have high impact factors, but they don't necessarily publish the best science, but often the most sexy science.

In my opinion, the H-index is probably the best current metric, but there are ways that the number of citations may be influenced regardless of the quality of work. The type of journal is often very important - journals most applicable to your field or the type of work you've done may increase the number of citations you receive and give your science more publicity. In addition, writing a review of a field that has no current review will likely inflate citations regardless of the journal and quality of the review, since it will be the only review of the field and the ONE paper that all scientists in that field refer to. Additionally, regardless of the quality of their work, scientists publishing and working in fields that are just getting off the ground may have inflated H-indicies because there will be a very limited number of papers on that type of work.

Ultimately, the measurement of scientific adequacy and quality is very complex and there is still much work to do in order to represent this adequately.

I agree with Lijo, a research with high possibility of implementation is a quality research. Impact factor or the reputation of the journal is not a parameter for a quality research. you can easily find a low quality research in a high impact journal.

both and the that is the way it is in the scientific community

Hi Dear Lau

I think the impact factor is very important to other index

I think this is correlated, because a high impact factor will automatically correspond to a good reputation, you must search a journal which is related to your topic.

For the quality of research work ,impact factor and reputation of journal ,both are equally important. In general both parameters are interrelated. Some cases may be exceptional but that should be maintained.

Journals' reputation depends on a suit of parameters like quality of research work published (most important), impact factor, citation of publications, type and nature of journals, interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary  approach, scope, range, reach and coverage, acceptability, publisher's reputation, etc. The most reputed journals haven't achieved their reputation and impact factor overnight but by abovestated endowment and attainments.

Impact factor and reputation of journal both are interdependent, interrelated. and should be considered equally important.  It is clearly reflected in the Thomson Reuter's databse including list of journals with all important information. Although some 'cheap' journals not included in the said database allure the researchers by showing their inflated IFs and vague information. But IF is not always the 'Be all and end all", the quality of the work is the crux of the matter and how it is embodied and presented ultimately  leaves the impact and scientific footprint on the research fraternity.