How to know the reputation of a journal

[Alfred001]

From time to time, I'm in a position of having to read studies or review articles from various fields to figure out what science says on a particular issue. One obstacle I encounter is not knowing how reputable the journal the paper was published in is, the reputation of a journal being a useful heuristic for a non-expert for having some sense of how credible the information is.

Is there some way to determine this?

Edited February 27, 2023 by Alfred001

[exchemist]

11 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

From time to time, I'm in a position of having to read studies or review articles from various fields to figure out what science says on a particular issue. One obstacle I encounter is not knowing how reputable the journal the paper was published in is, the reputation of a journal being a useful heuristic for a non-expert for having some sense of how credible the information is.

Is there some way to determine this?

There is something called the journal impact factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor

It's far from perfect but it's a lot better than nothing. But I wouldn't have thought you would get a view of what science, collectively, says on a topic from reading research papers. I'd have thought they would be too narrowly focused. 

How is it that you are in a position where you need to review these articles? Are you a journalist or something? 

[Sensei]

To paraphrase: "how to know the reputation of a scientist?"

Because you and many others have repeated the experiments, measurements, equations of the said scientist..

When a scientist discovers something, he/she has to share information on how to repeat his/her observation by others.

The observation is repeated over and over again, and therefore generally accepted.

A scientist who refuses to explain the methodology is likely to be rejected outright.

 

Like on this site. If you write nonsense you get down-voted, if you write good stuff you get up-voted.

But unfortunately there are sections on this forum like Lounge, Politics, Religion, Psychology, etc. where also someone gets up-voted/down-voted that have nothing to do with science..

Edited February 27, 2023 by Sensei

[Alfred001]

On 2/27/2023 at 3:29 PM, exchemist said:

There is something called the journal impact factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor

It's far from perfect but it's a lot better than nothing. But I wouldn't have thought you would get a view of what science, collectively, says on a topic from reading research papers. I'd have thought they would be too narrowly focused.

How is it that you are in a position where you need to review these articles? Are you a journalist or something? 

I generally look at review articles to get a broader view, occasionally individual articles.

No, for personal matters. Nutritional choices, things I want to get educated on, stuff like that.

[exchemist]

8 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

I generally look at review articles to get a broader view, occasionally individual articles.

No, for personal matters. Nutritional choices, things I want to get educated on, stuff like that.

OK. What I would do then is to look up the journal on Wikipedia or something. You can quite quickly tell from that which ones are prestigious or at least well-recognised.

It can also sometimes be worth looking up the authors, especially when there is only a single author saying something eccentric, just to make sure he or she is not a well-known crank or charlatan.

For suspicious journals you can check Beall"s List of potentially predatory journals: https://beallslist.net

For suspected cranks there there is the Encyclopedia of American Loons: https://americanloons.blogspot.com/2022/ , though sadly this is very incomplete and only deals with one country.  

[CharonY]

Regular journals are listed in citation databases (e.g. web of science), which are also the foundation of impact factors. It can also help to check how frequently an article has been cited. Neither is perfect, but it is at least something.

[WilliamCliff]

On 2/27/2023 at 4:11 PM, Alfred001 said:

From time to time, I'm in a position of having to read studies or review articles from various fields to figure out what science says on a particular issue. One obstacle I encounter is not knowing how reputable the journal the paper was published in is, the reputation of a journal being a useful heuristic for a non-expert for having some sense of how credible the information is.

Is there some way to determine this?

Unfortunately, no single metric can provide a definitive answer to the reputation of a journal. The easiest option is you can find the impact factor of a journal on its website or by searching for it on the web. It will be useful to check the editorial board. A reputable journal should have a distinguished editorial board comprising recognized experts in the field. You can check the names and affiliations of the editorial board members on the journal's website.
Well, in the end, ask people's opinions on forums and social networks. You should not trust the reviews found on special sites, most of them are written to order.

[exchemist]

29 minutes ago, DanikaWalters said:

I totally get what you mean, it can be tough to determine the reputation of a journal when you're not an expert in the field. I usually look for the impact factor and editorial board as well, but I also like to ask for opinions on forums and social media.

On forums, watch out in particular for bogus posts made to promote journals from the SCIRP family. SCIRP does this a lot. Perhaps you have noticed the same thing.

Posts made by new members, on the subject of journal reliability, are always worth treating with a degree of circumspection.

Edited May 1, 2023 by exchemist