Academic reputation ‘still driven by journal prestige’ – survey

How was ‘journal prestige’ defined in this survey? For over 25 years survey after survey of authors (such as conducted by ALPSP, as one example) have shown that the most important factor in an author’s choice of publishing venue is whether the journal has the most appropriate ‘targeted readership’ for the author’s own research interests. Citation counts, impact factors and other prestige measures - while not insignificant - are secondary factors. Journals represent a specific ‘community of scholars’, so publishers’ ‘marketing for content’ tends to focus on the questions, ‘Does my work belong in this journal?’, and ‘Is this the right place for research communication with my peers?’.

Weighing a pig does not make it heavier. Achieving high numbers of citations seems as useful as getting more "likes" and retweets on Twitter and says nothing about the quality (rather than popularity / awareness ) of the research. We need a better / more tangible way of measuring the value of a piece of research.

Problem with this is a journal like the Cambridge Law Journal sometimes has 80 percent of its papers from staff in Cambridge and that is statistically impossible if it really is a full open contest.

‘journal prestige’ defined by classim and whether the journal is hosted by big old brand name university

The practice that should be considered very carefully is multi-author publications where author contributions cannot be verified and are in some cases dubious. When prestigious journals have hundreds of authors or in some cases thousands of 'contributors' how can both the individual and the Institution claim a reputational benefit? This needs to be strongly reconsidered from an ethical perspective.