ennui Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Hey all, I have a quick question regarding scientific journals. It's geared towards Biology/Biochemistry/Genetics, but not completely. I've heard that being published in Nature is pretty prestigious. But what about the other Nature journals? E.g. Nature Cell Biology, Nature Methods, Nature Genetics, etc. Is it still good to get published in these? What kind of impact factor is regarded as decent for a journal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 AFAIK, all of the 'Nature' spinoffs are considered excellent and high visibility. However, I'd caution against overly relying on impact factor: if you have a choice of two journals, one clearly in your field and widely read, the other on the margin of your field but with an even higher impact factor, go for the former rather than trying to shoehorn your paper into the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 In addition to what Mokele said I just wanted to add that the Nature journals overall have an impact of around 10-29. So in specific areas there are higher ranked journals. And as always review journals tend to get a higher impact, however, often they will be treated as a special case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Nature is not at all prestigious for my field (particle physics). In my field the high impact journals are Physical Review Letters, Physical Review D, Nuclear Physics B, Physics Letters B, the Journal of High Energy Physics and the European Journal of Physics C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ennui Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 I was browsing Wikipedia the other day to look at impact factors. One of the highest was Annual reviews in Immunology - I couldn't understand why immunology was higher than other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 It's a journal of nothing but review papers, which tend to get cited highly as they synthesize large amounts of research. The same thing goes for other journals - more review papers = higher impact factor. It's just one of the many deep flaws in the concept of 'impact factor'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 That was what I mentioned before. Reviews are a special case. But yeah, impact factors are overall a lousy measure. Unfortunately it is one of the few one really has. Otherwise people of a specific field can rank according to their own measure of prestigious journals (as Severian did), but for certain fields it is not easily applicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkchilde Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 How about astronomy? What are the best journals in this area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 How about astronomy? What are the best journals in this area? Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now