What Is a Quality Journal?

At the Journal of Food Science (JFS), we think of ourselves as a high-quality, professional journal. Modern quality indicators like Impact Factor (IF) would suggest otherwise, putting JFS at the midpoint of the second quartile of journals. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety (CRFSFS), our sister journal, has a much higher IF and is rated among the top three journals in the category. Does that indicate that CRFSFS is a “better” journal than JFS? In some respects, this argument is the same as we apply to our students. Those with a higher Grade Point Average (GPA) are smarter than those with a lower GPA. Is that really true? I've always struggled with that concept. Maybe it's true in general, but not always. We all know that really smart student who, for whatever reason, doesn't do well on traditional exams. In the spirit of letting AI think for me, I asked Microsoft Copilot. Specifically, I typed in “how to assess the quality of a scholarly journal.” Within seconds, I got back two pages of bullet-pointed response, with a top 10 list, a “systematic, discipline-agnostic framework, with notes where practices vary by field.” Here is what was provided, in the order listed, although there was no indication this was a ranking by Copilot. I've made a few interpretations and commentaries. Quality of the peer review and editorial process. Copilot said this was “foundational.” The peer review process needed to be clearly laid out with the type of peer review (single- or double-anonymized, or open), the number of reviewers required, and documentation of timelines. Quality of the editorial board. Editors should be established in the field. It also suggested that a diverse (countries, institutions, and fields) editorial board was important. Indexing and abstracting services. A good journal should be visible in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, or some other field-specific abstract service. Journal metrics, like IF, CiteScore, and h-index. Is this the fourth priority? Copilot stipulated that these should be used carefully and never as the sole criterion. I'm glad this statement reflects current thought throughout the publishing industry. Even if scores like IF are still used for faculty decisions (promotions, hiring, etc.) or as the basis of journal quartile ranking, many recognize the limitations. Going back to the GPA analogy, is there a better way to assess student quality/learning? Publisher reputation. Copilot considers this to be an important aspect of journal quality. I guess I agree, to some extent. For JFS and CRFSFS, our publisher, Wiley, plays several key roles, not the least of which is providing oversight for issues (e.g., maintaining publishing integrity) and marketing our journals. Transparency and ethics. Under this bullet point, Copilot listed having a clearly visible publication ethics statement, plagiarism screening, clear conflict-of-interest policies (like Editors being unable to view their own submissions in the system), and retraction and correction procedures. Quality of the articles published. At this point, I was convinced this list was not in order of priority since it seems to me this would stand much higher than some previous bullet points. To me, it goes without saying that the quality of the articles published in a journal reflects the quality of that journal. Defining quality, however, is still the main challenge, which is why people fall back on the number of citations, or IF. To me, quality is much more than citations, but it's always challenging to define. Has anyone read the book Zen and Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig? Interesting discussion about quality, related through a cross-country motorcycle trip. One of my favorite books. Acceptance rates and selectivity. Is having a rejection rate of 75%–80% (currently our figure) a sign of a high-quality journal? Copilot seemed to think so. I'm not sure. Rejection rate also depends on the quality of manuscripts being submitted. We reject a lot of papers for being out of scope or being of low quality—authors don't always read our instructions carefully. Open Access: Distinguish quality from predatory. Here, the concern was related to journals that publish anything as long as the fees have been paid. The point was that a quality journal ensures peer review is separated from page charges. I'm not sure I completely understand this concern or why it should be in a top 10 list, maybe because the idea of taking payment for publication with subpar peer review is such a foreign concept for JFS. Community reputation. Copilot said this was often the “Best Test,” to rely on disciplinary knowledge. Do colleagues respect this journal? Is it valued in tenure/promotion reviews? Is it cited by journals you trust? The main problem with this, again, is how to assess it. One thing not on this list but high on our radar is the usefulness of our publications to the food industry. We've argued that the high number of downloads suggests our articles are being read by the industry we serve. And hopefully helping their work. Unfortunately, there is no way to quantitatively evaluate this either, along with Copilot's Points 7 and 10. What did we learn from this? Honestly, I didn't come away with any great new insights. Does anyone have thoughts on evaluating journal quality? Please feel free to contact me at email protected. Sincerely, Rich Hartel, PhD Editor in Chief, Journal of Food Science Professor, University of Wisconsin–Madison