¿Cómo puede clasificar las revistas y los investigadores de manera efectiva?

I agree that rankings should be used with caution and critical thinking! There are researchers from areas where funding and grants come from external donors. In such case, their publications and their team depend on their sources of funding. That plays a critical role on where and whom you publish with! Publications and acceptance of papers in some journals depends on whom the authors are and what they have done previously! These are challenges most emerging researchers from resource limited settings face! It is never the question of scientific qualities in the article sometimes!

Ranking of journals is only a guide and not an assessment of the quality of their content. We have to remember that not all research can be published in all the "top ranked" journals. Many journals rank high on the speed of publication, many journals rank high on the detailed content published, many journals are top tier in their specific subject area only and there won't be many options in that subject area etc. etc. So the content of your paper, your subject area, willing to pay APC for open access or not, the preferred peer review model, the overall speed of publication and several other factors which together filter out the best journal for your publication.

I agree that ranking journals is important to decide where to publish. I find Journal Author Name Estimator(JANE) as a useful tool that ranks journals. The tool does not only rank journals but it also shows article influence,the confidence leves of those article in relation to what you intend to publish.You can also view the articles published in that journal which help you to decide if the articles cited are of quality.

I agreed, It is important where to publish the journal paper. One can also view the articles published in that journal which helps you to decide if the articles cited are of quality

I think ranking should be used as a tool for information and assessment, not as the sole determinant of quality. Context matters, and researchers and journals can have significant contributions beyond what ranking metrics can capture. It's important to critically assess rankings and consider multiple sources of information.

Impact Factor is not the sole journal metrics. The IF would be greatly skewed for journals which cater to only a niche subject area. Also, it is affected by the quality and no. of relevant citations. It is always advisable to look for the overall content published in the journal and other metrics such as 5-year IF (which averages out the IF and is a relatively stable metric), Altmetric score (which determines the actual reach of the journal and the discussion of the research in public spheres), Eigenfactor score etc.

I agree and needs debates to reach to consensus on making all knowledge produced in a scientifically sound methods should be published anywhere and be openly and equally accessible for everyone!

One of the most disturbing abuses of impact factor is how groups of people tendentiously cite people who they have worked with, studied under, or simply that belong to a specific network.... It is very disturbing because I see no way to overcome it.... Even the antidote which suggests that content should drive citation is tainted by the abuse of the value of impact factor.... Perhaps the only way is to have an empirical study that shows how impact factor elevates and amplifies superficial research. Only have personal examples which are unfortunately bias... but if anyone does a proper study will be happy to share my personal take.

Impact factor – a compass in the academic world. 🧭📖 It gauges a journal's citations, hinting at influence. But it's not the whole map. Impact factor favors giants, ignores context, and can be swayed by editorial choices. Diversify your navigation: consider SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) – prestige and citing diversity, or Eigenfactor Score – a journal's scholarly network role. Rankings guide, but your critical eye guides smarter

I agree and also would like to mention that number of publications should be counted in a way that considers the contribution of the researchers in the article such as being the first or soul author etc. plus researchers working on innovative research methods might face challenges in getting the number of citations in the same time period as the others.

In addition, it has to be noted that young researchers such as PhD students and early post docs, highly rely on the group they are working in. Large labs may end up with more publications just because more people are involved and can split the work among more people. Smaller groups, instead, often require that the researcher has to work on every phase of the experiment. This is useful to learn many different skills, but it also slows down the publications, because the same person cannot be in 2 places simultaneously.

I agree with the limitations of h-index but it is still a better metrics than Impact Factor. The alternatives suggested are great. Additionally, publishers also use Altmetrics Score to understand the actual impact the research published in that journal is having in the social sphere. It looks into mentions in social media, discussion in scholarly sites such as Research Gate etc. Citescore is also an additional metrics to look into the citation profile of a journal.

The number of publications is a fallacious criterion. Because Academia evolved into an industry based on numbers and rankings, scholars are pushed to publish on a very intensive rhythm. When one knows the time needed to produce a research, It's obvious that all these papers cannot have the same quality and originality.

The h-index – a beacon for researchers. 📜🔦 It counts cited publications, hinting at impact. Yet, it's not the full story. H-index overlooks citation quality, age bias, and misses highly cited gems. Diversify your toolkit: g-index – giving weight to power citations, or i10-index – tallying 10+ cited papers. Rankings offer a map, but it's your discernment that charts the course. 📊🗺️

I've found the tools mentioned here very effective.It important that you do not rely on one tool but use multiple tools.Again i will recommend the Journal Author Name Estimator for ranking of journals,finding highly cited authors and finding articles.

I agree! We need to bring researchers to using those online tools to avoid missing the full information about a research and avoid misjudgement!

The development of methodologies and digital tools for automated journal ranking is an intriguing research area that has garnered significant attention in various publications. In this era, where information can be processed almost instantly by language AI, I am eagerly anticipating the emergence of AI-driven online tools that can deliver highly accurate rankings and recommendations for authors seeking suitable journals.

Online tools, like guiding stars, aid in ranking journals and researchers. 🌟🔍 Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, ResearchGate – they unveil metrics: impact factor, SJR, h-index, g-index, i10-index, and more. Yet, the path isn't seamless. Tools differ in scope, data, and methods. They're a puzzle, not the whole picture. Verify across tools, and remember: they're a toolset, not a replacement for your own discernment. Trust data, but also trust your judgment. 🧩🔬 #ResearchTools #DataWisdom

Well, it may sound obvious, but I also look at the impact factor of the journals while ranking it! I also pay attention to the geography where I am based! Meaning if the journal is being widely read in my country I might consider it on priority for publication or any other consideration!

Looking into the previously published content is the best way to judge the quality of the journal. Also, are the published studies relevant to our study which we want to publish, are they getting the citations as expected, what's the profile of the researchers who have published those studies, all these factors should be taken into account while ranking any journal for suitability of the publication.

Beyond numbers, embrace the art of depth in journal and researcher rankings. 📖💡 Qualities like relevance, originality, rigor, and impact are gems. Dive into articles, reviews, and discussions. Peer insight is a compass. Seek opinions from field experts. Social media, like Twitter, LinkedIn, ResearchGate, can be bridges to peers, discussions, and fresh knowledge. Yet, tread with caution. Verify online info, challenge biases. Facts first. Judgment after. Balance quant with qual; it's a symphony of insight. 🎵🔬 #ResearchExcellence #QualitativeWisdom

Ranking journals and researchers isn't just a journey of numbers; it's a path of ethics and respect. 🌍🤝 Uphold diversity, integrity, autonomy. Avoid manipulation, discrimination, or self-interest. Cite sources, honor authors – it's a tapestry woven with collaboration. Transparency is your lantern, lighting honest paths. Embrace feedback; it's the compass for growth. Let ethics be your guide; rankings are a reflection of values. 🌟📚 #EthicalRanking #ResearchIntegrity

The decoding element of this problem is to understand why publishing exists at all and why one would need such a great variety of journals, and why the review process is welcome even despite its many flaws.