Editing Academic journal (section)

==Prestige and ranking==
{{main|Journal ranking|Academic authorship}}

An [[academic]] journal's prestige is established over time, and can reflect many factors, some but not all of which are expressible quantitatively. In many fields, a formal or informal hierarchy of scientific journals exists; the most prestigious journal in a field tends to be the most selective in terms of the articles it will select for publication, and usually will also have the highest [[impact factor]]. In some countries, journal rankings can be utilized for funding decisions<ref>{{cite web |title=Background - julkaisufoorumi.fi |url=http://julkaisufoorumi.fi/en/publication-forum/background |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170930090021/http://www.julkaisufoorumi.fi/en/publication-forum/background |archive-date=30 September 2017 |access-date=6 May 2018 |website=julkaisufoorumi.fi}}</ref> and even evaluation of individual researchers, although they are poorly suited for that purpose.<ref>{{cite web |title=FAQ - julkaisufoorumi.fi |url=http://julkaisufoorumi.fi/en/evaluations/faq |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171127065227/http://www.julkaisufoorumi.fi/en/evaluations/faq |archive-date=27 November 2017 |access-date=6 May 2018 |website=julkaisufoorumi.fi}}</ref>

In each [[academic discipline]], some journals receive a high number of submissions and opt to restrict how many they publish, keeping the [[journal acceptance rate|acceptance rate]] low.<ref name="DDD">
{{cite book
 |author=Rowena Murray
 |year=2009
 |title=Writing for Academic Journals
 |publisher=[[McGraw-Hill Education]]
 |edition=2nd |pages=42–45
 |isbn=978-0-335-23458-5
}}</ref> Size or prestige are not a guarantee of reliability.<ref name="Brembs 2018">{{cite journal |vauthors=Brembs B |title=Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability |journal=Frontiers in Human Neuroscience |volume=12 |page=37 |year=2018 |pmid=29515380 |pmc=5826185 |doi=10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

In the [[natural sciences]] and in the [[social sciences]], the [[impact factor]] is an established proxy, measuring the number of later articles citing articles already published in the journal. There are other quantitative measures of prestige, such as the overall number of citations, how quickly articles are cited, and the average "[[half-life]]" of articles. [[Clarivate Analytics]]' ''[[Journal Citation Reports]]'', which among other features, computes an [[impact factor]] for academic journals, draws data for computation from the [[Science Citation Index Expanded]] (for natural science journals), and from the [[Social Sciences Citation Index]] (for social science journals).<ref name=DDD /> Several other metrics are also used, including the [[SCImago Journal Rank]], [[CiteScore]], [[Eigenfactor]], and [[Altmetrics]].

In the [[Anglosphere|Anglo-American]] [[humanities]], there is no tradition (as there is in the sciences) of giving impact-factors that could be used in establishing a journal's prestige. Recent moves have been made by the European Science Foundation (ESF) to change the situation, resulting in the publication of preliminary lists for the [[ranking]] of academic journals in the humanities.<ref name=DDD /> These rankings have been severely criticized, notably by history and sociology of science British journals that have published a common editorial entitled "Journals under Threat".<ref>{{Cite journal |pmc=2629173 |year=2009 |title=Journals under Threat: A Joint Response from History of Science, Technology and Medicine Editors |journal=Medical History |volume=53 |issue=1 |pages=1–4 |pmid=19190746 |doi=10.1017/s0025727300003288}}</ref> Though it did not prevent ESF and some national organizations from proposing [[journal ranking]]s, it largely prevented their use as evaluation tools.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.3152/095820210X12809191250889 |title=The controversial policies of journal ratings: Evaluating social sciences and humanities |journal=Research Evaluation |volume=19 |issue=5 |page=347 |year=2010 |last1=Pontille |first1=David |last2=Torny |first2=Didier |s2cid=53387400 |url=https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00568746v2/document |access-date=2019-07-05 |archive-date=2022-06-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220614111340/https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00568746v2/document |url-status=live }}</ref>

In some disciplines such as [[knowledge management]]/[[intellectual capital]], the lack of a well-established journal ranking system is perceived by academics as "a major obstacle on the way to tenure, promotion and achievement recognition".<ref name=CCC>
{{cite journal
 |author1=Nick Bontis
 |author2=Alexander Serenko
 |year=2009
 |title=A follow-up ranking of academic journals
 |citeseerx = 10.1.1.178.6943
 |journal=[[Journal of Knowledge Management]]
 |volume=13 |issue=1 |page=17
 |doi=10.1108/13673270910931134
}}</ref>  Conversely, a significant number of scientists and organizations consider the pursuit of [[impact factor]] calculations as inimical to the goals of science, and have signed the [[San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment]] to limit its use.<ref name=Alberts>
{{cite journal 
|last=Alberts 
|first=Bruce 
|author-link=Bruce Alberts
|title=Impact Factor Distortions 
|journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] 
|volume=340 
|issue=6134 
|pages=787 
|date=May 17, 2013 
|doi=10.1126/science.1240319|pmid=23687012 
|bibcode=2013Sci...340..787A 
|doi-access=free 
}}
</ref>

Three categories of techniques have developed to assess journal quality and create journal rankings:<ref>
{{cite journal |author1=Paul Benjamin Lowry |author2=Sean LaMarc Humpherys |author3=Jason Malwitz |author4=Joshua Nix |year=2007 |title=A scientometric study of the perceived quality of business and technical communication journals |journal=[[IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication]] |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=352–378 |doi=10.1109/TPC.2007.908733 |s2cid=40366182 |ssrn=1021608}}</ref>
* stated preference;
* revealed preference; and
* publication power approaches<ref>{{cite journal
 |author1=Alexander Serenko
 |author2=Changquan Jiao
 |year=2011
 |title=Investigating Information Systems Research in Canada
 |url=https://www.aserenko.com/papers/Serenko_Jiao_IS_Research_Canada.pdf
 |journal=[[Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences]]
 |volume=29
 |issue=1
 |pages=3–24
 |doi=10.1002/cjas.214
 |access-date=2013-08-16
 |archive-date=2016-07-12
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160712074646/http://www.aserenko.com/papers/Serenko_Jiao_IS_Research_Canada.pdf
 |url-status=live
 }}</ref>