Hi Folks

I have a few questions to raise here.

I am currently attempting to write a paper from my recently completed PhD work. Basically it's not the best bits of the PhD (that's all going into collaborative papers which i'm not first author on, and have distanced myself from entirely, a long story but not the basis of this thread). So anyway, I'm trying to write this paper, when I asked my boss for a suggested target journal, she came out with the best one in my field, which isn't particularly high (impact factor: about 3 or 4). Although the paper is coming along quite well, the results are only half positive, and I suspect it will get rejected from this journal and go into one of the lesser journals in the field.

My first question is, at what point is it not worth publishing this stuff?, I don't particularly want to publish in something really obscure with a very low impact factor, I think it looks a bit bad in a way if you know what I mean. What impact factor would you guys consider to be basically pointless?.

A second question I have regards references. Obviously I am very familiar with how to do text references, but I wish to reference one website. This is an official website (for those who are interested it's a single nucleotide polymorphism database, part of the pubmed website) where I have got comprehensive information that adds to the level of detail in the paper, therefore I want to reference this website. At the moment i have the website adress that showed me the info posted into the paper, does this suffice, or is there another way I should do this.

All opinions welcome, as I think this is something most academic fields can contribute to

Hi Cakeman,
I am no expert on this, but I think that all publishing is good publishing! Impact Factors are not everything - have a look around and you might find another journal that is appropirate and with a high if. I guess depending on what you where you want to work, you will need publications, so as you have already done the PhD work, you might as well get a publication out of it.
Not sure about the reference question - my advice is check with the journal that you are hoping to submit to.
Best of luck, FM

I agree with the previous repsonse. Impact factors vary tremendously between disciplines - the very best journal in my subject (A Social Science) has an impact factor of around 2 (just under for 3 year, just over for 5 year) which I know would shock anyone in medical and biochemical etc research.

Most publishing is good. Even if the impact factor isn't high, or the journal itself isn't highly regarded, it's good to get the papers out there. The more you write the more likely you are to be read, and it gives you valuable experience of the writing and submission process. It also means you have papers you can refer to in subsequent papers which is better than referencing unpublished work.

Impact factors can change as well can't they? Your papers could be the ones to help do that :-D
I don't look at the impact factor when I'm looking for papers to read. If it looks relevant I'll give it a read and judge it on that really rather than anything else. I might trust the standards of certain journals more than others but it doesn't mean you can't find gems elsewhere or that the bigger journals won't publish absolute rubbish from time to time.

The only time I'd be hesitant to publish is if it looks like a vanity exercise.

For website reference I think you've got it right, so long as it's included in the main reference list with 'last retrieved/accessed on....' tagged on it.

I would aim high! If it doesn't get accepted, you can just send it elsewhere. For my first paper my sup suggested the best journal in the field, which had an impact factor of 7. I didn't think it had a chance in hell of getting accepted, but after a revise and resubmit, it did! But aside from that journal, many of the journals in my field (aging/dementia) only have an impact factor of 1 or 2, a few in the 3-4 range. I think the more specific you get, the lower the impact factor. My papers following the first were submitted to journals with much lower impact factors, i.e. 1-3, but all the top people in the field (including my sup) publish in them, so if it's good enough for them it's more than good enough for me! I wouldn't worry too much about the impact factor- any publication looks good on the CV, so I would just go for it! My first publication will probably end up being the highlight of my career lol, but I wouldn't get too caught up on the impact factor thing! Best, KB

ref depends maybe on the style you are using. Mine go Name of the author of the material, (or the company or whatever), date - (this is usually on the site somewhere and is the date the material was uploaded), title in italics, then you put: [Online] Available from http://www. etc. [Accessed and the date of access}.