Journal submissions and impact factor

[Suraj_S]

For those of you who don't (yet, at least) know what IF is (from Wikipedia's page on the subject):

In any given year, the impact factor of a journal is the average number of citations received per paper published in that journal during the two preceding years.^[1] For example, if a journal has an impact factor of 3 in 2008, then its papers published in 2006 and 2007 received 3 citations each on average in 2008.

I'm about to enter a humanistic psych PhD program (research-based), and I was most strongly considering submitting manuscripts to two APA journals: The Humanistic Psychologist*, and the Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. Faculty at my soon-to-be school contribute regularly to and serve as editors for these journals, and from what I've researched about them, contributors seem to publish similarly to how I intend to (in terms of chosen topics, methodologies, and so on). The well-known researchers within humanistic psych outside of this university also publish to and are on the editorial boards for these journals. The former journal had a low impact factor for 2013 (0.358; ranking within psychology: 106/129), and I couldn't even find one for the latter.

I've just now found out about impact factor, and I'm wondering how big of a deal it is. I've seen people say it's sometimes easier to obtain more grant money for publications to higher-IF journals. Is this true--and if so, to what extent? How much does publishing to higher-IF journals matter in terms of post-graduation tenure-track position prospects? Lastly: If one feels a low-IF journal is perfect for the type of research/publication they have in mind, and wants to at least keep the option of becoming an academic respectably open, would you recommend they choose a different journal?

*Just FWIW, I plan to submit an empirical/mixed-methods manuscript to this journal. I understand empirical work is very important for psych academic jobs. My submission to the other journal would (obviously) be more theoretical and philosophical in nature.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Zinnia_SS

[spunky]

in my experience it is becoming a HUGE deal for everything. because academic positions and post-docs are becoming very competitive, hiring committees are assessing a lot of scholarly work based on things like impact factors of the journals you publish in or your H-index as a scholar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index). 

 

from conferences and friends who are pounding the pavement to get hired i've heard... well, somewhat weird comments. stuff like if you publish in journals with impact factors below 1, those publications are essentially ignored by hiring committees/grant reviewers.

 

now, if you look at how impact factors are calculated you'll notice that one of their implications is the demarcation of your area of research. for instance, if i see an impact factor of 0.358 the easiest conclusion to jump to is that it is not a very prestigious journal. HOWEVER, if i know you're in Humanistic Psychology and Humanistic Psychology is not an area as big as, say, mainstream Social Psychology then i would interpret it as "well, it's not like the journal is not prestigious. it is just like the area is small". however, the bias of low impact factor = crappy journal is far too common nowadays so i always aim for journals with at least an impact factor more than 1.  

 

if you have a lookie-look at the IS Web of Knowledge they provide a good break-down of journals by area, their impact factors and other interesting statistics. one that is becoming popular is a type of cross-area citation index. like say if you publish in a very prestigious journal (like the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) and articles in said journal are cited in other journals from areas not directly related to Social Psych (like Psychiatry or Counselling, etc.) then it makes the journal look better as opposed to journals that are only citied within the same area of knowledge. as you can imagine, the worst case scenario is when a journal derives most of its citations from itself. 

 

 

yeah... it's all becoming a numbers game nowadays!

Edited April 27, 2015 by spunky

[lewin]

Lastly: If one feels a low-IF journal is perfect for the type of research/publication they have in mind, and wants to at least keep the option of becoming an academic respectably open, would you recommend they choose a different journal?

 

Just out of curiousity, what makes this journal 'perfect'? We can talk about the criteria for what makes a good or bad outlet.

 

 

I've just now found out about impact factor, and I'm wondering how big of a deal it is. I've seen people say it's sometimes easier to obtain more grant money for publications to higher-IF journals. Is this true--and if so, to what extent? How much does publishing to higher-IF journals matter in terms of post-graduation tenure-track position prospects?

 

Impact factor is only one aspect of journal prestige, and prestige is everything. Other things that matter are the audience of the journal (do people who matter read it, or does it reach wide audiences? does its research get media attention?) and rejection rates (as a proxy for quality, i.e., novelty, experimental rigor, and theoretical contribution). If you know the rejection rate at JPSP is 85-90%, that says something about the papers that get accepted. In contrast, at PLOS One the rejection rate is only 30%, so it's not especially difficult to get in, but lots of people read it because it's open access, and I see it mentioned in the media a lot.

 

Publishing in prestigious journals is, frankly, everything for an academic. My strategy is always submit to the best journal you can, even if there's only a tiny chance of acceptance. This is especially important early career because you want to look like somebody who is capable of publishing in top journals. Conventional wisdom in social psych is that you haven't 'made it' until you have a first-author JPSP. (I don't know what the equivalent would be for humanistic psych, but you could talk to grad students or profs in your program.)   If you graduate with a bunch of third tier publications but no big ones then it suggests that you might be incapable of producing work that can get in at the best journals.

 

A peer review that says, "This manuscript might be more appropriate for a specialized journal," is politely conveying, "This paper is so flawed or boring that nobody but people who really care about this topic will want to read it."

 

 

tldr: Impact factor is important but it's only one facet of prestige. Ask somebody in the field about those specific journals you mentioned and they can tell you whether it's a good idea.

Edited April 27, 2015 by lewin

[lewin]

^^ I came across this article today that argues these things need to change.

 

Few scientists, or indeed Editors of journals, will argue that Impact Factor is the best indicator of research quality and rigor; there are other available measures such as citation half-life that are perhaps more informative. Let us try to change the dominant influence of Impact Factor and realign the motivation it generates among scientists to publish only in a restricted group of journals. [We should promote] the inclusivity, rather than the selectivity, of neuroscience publishing.

 

[spunky]

^^ I came across this article today that argues these things need to change.

 

this suggestion is WAY too rational and sensible to be implemented.

 

we recommend rejection