Should crop scientists consider a journal's impact factor in deciding where to publish?

To publish papers that have impact is indispensable for good scientists. It is frequently accepted that the impact factor (IF) of a journal reflects the likelihood of a paper to have impact. Many scientists may then attempt publishing their papers in journals with the highest possible IF. This is relevant for crop scientists as in many cases our hypotheses may be relevant to agronomy/agriculture but the product of our work may be published in the more basic plant science journals, which in general have higher IF than agronomic journals. To test whether agronomic journals may be better vehicles than plant science journals for crop physiological work, I did an analysis of my own publications (only “standard” papers, disregarding reviews) relating their annual citation rates against the IF of the journal in which they were published. The relationship was virtually inexistent, and my most frequently quoted papers were published in agronomic rather than in plant sciences journals. Conversely, restricting the analysis to the papers published within agronomic journals there was a relationship between the record of citations of the papers and the IF of the journals, particularly if the analysis is restricted to the most quoted papers in each journal. I then analyzed the cases of three other well-recognized crop scientists, to check whether the findings with my results were exceptional, and in the three cases results were remarkably similar. Therefore, it seems that the journal IF might be a valuable criterion for choosing the best journal in which to publish our best contributions only when comparing within agronomic journals, but not within combinations of agronomy and plant science journals. This should be also taken into account in evaluation processes when comparing scientists working in related but not identical fields.