Evaluation of journal impact is common today. The intention is to assess the quality and prestige of journals and the results are usually a guiding factor when deciding to which journal a manuscript might be submitted.
Measures to quantify journal impact may be one among several instruments in order to identify important journals as well as a help in choosing between a number of potential journals to submit one's research results to for review and possible publishing. Evaluation of journals has, for somewhat doubtful reasons, sometimes been used to assess an individual article. But of course, it doesn't follow that an article, published in a journal with high impact, should be more cited than an article published in a journal with a lower citation rate. One must be cautioned as the indicators below are not normalized, i.e. a journal cannot be compared with another one if they are not publishing articles within the same field. Furthermore, the measures are designed in such a way that a similar distribution is presupposed between original articles and review articles (see section Evaluative bibliometrics). Another common objection, however not limited to this type of analyzed units, is that different measures can create different ranking orders of the same set of journals. In those cases, one must consider whether the measures are non-robust or measure different aspects of impact.
Nonetheless, with these reservations considered, it is still interesting to see how the journals you usually read and is published in turn out in this kind of studies. Presented below are five resources that provide evaluative measures of journals - three citation based and two based on expert panels.
Indicators of journal quality, based on citations:
Indicators of journal quality, based on expert panels:
Content updated 2017-12-18