When listing the journals in which you are a member of its editorial board, is it necessary or useful (maybe overdoing) to include the publisher, impact factor or any further information?

We had a debate among colleagues and there were two opposite opinions:

  1. Any further information is superfluous, as the audience should know the journals, as the publishers are not mentioned in the list of publications too.

  2. Because of numerous new journals, the audience may not understand the journal's reputation if not mentioning some further information.

WHat do you think? What is the most professional/standard/acceptable approach?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Enthusiastic Engineer, Buzz, user3209815, Florian D'Souza, Massimo Ortolano Nov 1 '17 at 14:17

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Who is the audience? Is this your tenure file? – Dawn Oct 31 '17 at 20:34

Unless you work in exactly the same area as someone else, you likely have no idea how good a journal is. For example, I know that the SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis is good -- but is the Journal of Number Theory good? the Journal of Mathematical Sciences? But if I know that one of these is published by a professional society located in the US or Western Europe, then I can infer that it is likely a good journal; whereas if the journal is published by a company I've never heard of and that is located in Egypt or India, then I may have my doubts.

So, yes, I think it is useful to add the publisher.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.