Hi,

The indexed journal is more visible to more audience worldwide. The index producers are setting standards for  inclusion in the database so that when you are using a journal indexed in Science Citation index of the World of science, for instance, you know that this journal is refereed and cited , and appears regularly and passed the threshold conditions for inclusion in this database, what makes it a sure source for citations.

Nevertheless, with the existence of the Google Scholar,  the less visible journals acquire some visibility too, so this solves ,to some extent, the visibility problem of the non-indexed journals.

Dear Sudeep:

I agree that innovative work can often be found outside of the established, commercial journal establishment. Sites like ResearchGate and Academia make research published in lesser-known venues more visible, and are surely having a positive effect on the advancement of knowledge in general.

Best regards,

David

Dear David,

Thank you much for the response, what you have mentioned is upright meaningful indeed.

Regards

That is a brilliant answer Mr David Taffel. Amen to that!! 

Regards 

Well this question might raise a lot of eyebrows, but still going through lot of free open access journals indexed to lesser known databases i found a lot more innovative and informative articles than those published in journals indexed to highly rated databases such as pubmed or scopus, isn't it impartial to those researches belonging to low income nations / developing nations who cannot afford to pay the high publications charges for such journals, who often resort  to other lesser known journals being compared just on the basis of to which indexed journal their publication are present. I would like to know the opinions regarding the same from the experts

Regards

Dear Sudeep: That is because those articles have been judged by referees and corrected any mistake in methodology, conclusion,results, or recommendations,  since no researcher in general has the ability to do an error free article !So, those referred articles could be used in literature of any suitable related new article.

Dear Dr Medhat Elsahookie, totally agree with you, but any peer reviewed journal with a good set of  reputed and members in editorial as well as review board does a good job in judging such mistakes right? why is indexation made a criteria to judge.?

Regards

Hi,

The indexed journal is more visible to more audience worldwide. The index producers are setting standards for  inclusion in the database so that when you are using a journal indexed in Science Citation index of the World of science, for instance, you know that this journal is refereed and cited , and appears regularly and passed the threshold conditions for inclusion in this database, what makes it a sure source for citations.

Nevertheless, with the existence of the Google Scholar,  the less visible journals acquire some visibility too, so this solves ,to some extent, the visibility problem of the non-indexed journals.

Dear Sundeep: You are again right ! , but I believe that there is a commercial reason for that !    Thanks 

Good day,

Rightly or wrongly, journal indexation has come to be considered as an indicator of quality, and material published in indexed journals is often considered to be of higher scientific quality. The indexation of journals, the calculation of impact factor (IF) and author-level metrics like h-index that attempt to measure the readership (popularity) of the journal, the impact of a publication itself, and the productivity and citation impact of the author are useful but debatable tools as more indexation services - both commercial and open-source - develop.

The IF [Thomson Reuters Impact Factor] can be subject to bias, manipulation, and/or misapplication. [See Singh Balhara's NCIB article (link below) for a lengthy list of factors].

Furthermore, IF is not available for all indexed journals and not all indexed journals have an IF calculated.

The importance of publications has long been recognized by the academic institutions, and more often than not the it is the indexed journals that institutions recommend for their researchers. The issue becomes a spiral, as more and more authors seek to be published in only the most popular journals so that their work will be regarded as having higher quality.

In addition, there are several existing discussions on these topics at ResearchGate worth looking at [links below]

Indexed journal: What does it mean?

Yatan Pal Singh Balhara

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3354504/

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_your_opinion_on_journal_indexing_impact_factor_h-factor_and_some_others

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

Cheers,

Leo

Thank you Atwood for your fair words,  but can we do something better ?  

I am interested in this from an editorial stance, the statistical analysis is beyond me, but some steps to do something better have been taken, which include:

[rephrased from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor]

2007 - European Association of Science Editors (EASE)  recommended "that journal impact factors are used only—and cautiously—for measuring and comparing the influence of entire journals, but not for the assessment of single papers, and certainly not for the assessment of researchers or research programmes".[11]

2008 - International Council for Science (ICSU) Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of Science (CFRS) issued in "statement on publication practices and indices and the role of peer review in research assessment", suggested a limit on the number of publications per year to be taken into consideration for each scientist

2010, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) the National Science Foundation (US) and the Research Assessment Exercise (UK) implemented changes to reduce the use of bibliometric authorial data in some of their decision processes.

"In response to growing concerns over the inappropriate use of journal impact factors in evaluating scientific outputs and scientists themselves, the American Society for Cell Biology together with a group of editors and publishers of scholarly journals created the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Released in May 2013, DORA has garnered support from thousands of individuals and hundreds of institutions,[46] including in March 2015 the League of European Research Universities (a consortium of 21 of the most renowned research universities in Europe),[47] who have endorsed the document on the DORA website. The Université de Montréal, Imperial College London, PLOS, eLife, EMBO Journal, The Royal Society, Nature (journal) and Science (journal) proposed citation distributions metrics as alternative to impact factors.[48][49][50]"

Cheers,

Leo

Hello Avishag Gordon, no disagreement here, indexing, DOI, ISSN definitely provide more visibility for our work , but is indexing neing used more for commercial purpose than for scientific reasons as suggested by dr. Medhat Elsahookie here ?

What is your take on that.?

Regards

Dear Dr. Medhat Elsahookie , My name is spelled and read as Sudeep not Sundeep (Joking) , and sir I agree, there is a commercial reason associated with most of the significantly indexed journals, no doubt, and this is also a reason for researchers who are not being externally funded finding it difficult to afford the publication and processing charges.

Regards

Dear Dr. Leo Atwood Thank you much for the wise words, useful links and suggestions. This explains as to why the current scenario regarding indexation and impact factor being given higher value compared to research quality is prevalent. Bottom line for this issue seems to point towards commercial gains than scientific excellence.

Regards 

Dear Sudeep : I do apologize for that error, and I knew a friend in India with that name ! Your question just gave us very good idea about the ranking of scientific Journals!  It really created excellent discussion and enough information , especially that  given by Prof. Atwood, since he explained the situation in detail . 

Thank you dear Dr. Medhat Elsahookie, and word, such discussions only help us to better ourselves at the same time provide a knowledge base for anyone else looking to find an answer on such common topics of interest. Thank you for your valuable inputs as well.

Regards

Thank you so much Prof Sudeep, and what mentioned is really correct.Thank you again

Thank you for posting Prof Taffel.

Regards

Dear colleagues: I see the dates of comments  in March 4 and 5 ! Can we really communicate ? Is it the problem in the Facebook System? 

Dear Prof Medhat, True this discussion is not getting the reach it deserves i guess, hence the responses have been diluted after the initial few days of putting up the question. And i dont know how to get it going either.

Regards

Dear Sudeep C B,

Sometimes discussions get stuck... maybe my answer will help to improve the question's visibility since all my followers are informed (in their Home Feed). Maybe some of them notice it.

Back to the original question: There are many measures which are aimed to show the 'quality' of a paper/journal but they fail. (see also: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_higher_rejection_rate_improves_the_quality_of_journal). So we must do the job for ourselves, and check many publications to find the 'good' ones. Of course, it is more time consuming, but good work needs (lots of) time.

Best Regards

Andreas

Hello Andreas Mämpel, thank you much, yes it has became pertinent that maximum visibility is there so that more people can share their views and only then posting such questions and answer given by experts for the same really meets the purpose.

Thank you again and Good day!

Regards

Sudeep