For academic researchers, getting their study published in a Q1 journal—those in the top 25% of their field by impact factor—is often the goal.
However, Q2 journals (those in the top 25-50% range) just might be the better option for studies in niche topics such as highly-specialized sciences, emerging technologies, or underexplored socio-cultural studies.
While Q1 journals offer unparalleled visibility and prestige, Q2 journals can sometimes offer a better balance of acceptance chance, relevance, and engagement with a niche study’s target audience. Let’s discuss why.
Table of Contents
Lower Barriers, Similar Engagement
Q1 journals, due to the competition, have the lowest acceptance rates. They can be as low as 1-5%, depending on the field. Researchers who only aim for Q1 journals may experience repeated rejection, which not only delays publication but can also demoralize those still early in their careers. After all, it is still better to get a study published in an albeit less prestigious journal than it is to never get it published at all.
While Q2 journals have higher average acceptance rates, this does not always mean they have much less visibility. In fact, a study of different quartile journals across 25 research areas found Q2 journals are sometimes cited just as often as Q1 journals.
More specifically, while Q1 journals were cited 2.07 times more often than Q2 journals on average, this ratio can be as low as 0.9.
So while it depends on the research area (and, of course, the quality of the study), studies published in Q2 journals can still be cited just as much and therefore be just as impactful. In fact, some Q2 journals are even outperforming lower-tier Q1 journals.
This is especially true in rapidly evolving fields where being first matters more than being in the “top” journal.
Less Visibility, Similar Relevance
However, it is not only the competition that makes it difficult for niche research to get published in a Q1 journal. It is also the fact that Q1 journals are often more heavily subjected to editorial preferences—preferences that, generally speaking, lean towards high-impact, general-interest studies.
After all, Q1 journals seek to maintain their prestige and will often prioritize those that will get the most citations.
In contrast, it is more common for Q2 journals to serve dedicated academic communities working in these more narrowly defined or emerging research fields.
As such, niche research papers, when published in the right journal, may be more likely to be read, cited, and appreciated by those who truly understand their significance, perhaps even more so than if they were published in a Q1 journal.
In other words, while Q1 journals cast a wide net, Q2 journals may offer a tighter, more relevant academic ecosystem.
Either way, Q2 Journals having less widespread visibility may not necessarily be a problem, since people in that niche research who are looking for relevant studies will likely look it up regardless.
This also means that any engagement—comments, citations, opportunities for future collaboration—received from published in Q2 journals are more likely to be meaningful. This is because they will come from those actually working in that same niche research field.
Editorial Transparency
Q2 journals having more focused communities may also result in the study getting better editing. They often have more humanized, interactive peer review processes, which can lead to richer feedback and better final manuscripts.
Communication will be faster, review feedback will be more detailed, and there will be a stronger emphasis on developing the work.
This is particularly important for the development of these niche papers, as they tend to be more experimental or unconventional and may therefore have more holes in them.
This also fits in well with the broader trend of science becoming more open, where transparency and accessibility are becoming just as valued as the journal impact factor. As such, Q2 journals often serve as a more inclusive platform for high-quality dissemination.
This is particularly true for researchers early in their career or those from developing countries who have to use VPNs, having to choose between Nord VPN vs Surfshark, to bypass paywalls. (Further reading: Nord vs. Surfshark: Aren’t the two VPNs owned by the same company?)
Better Fit for Interdisciplinary and Emerging Fields
Lastly, it is important to note that Q1 journals tend to be the oldest journals, which means that they value traditional disciplinary structures.
The experimentation or unconventionalness of niche papers may sometimes be too experimental for the strongly established preferences of Q1 journals. Q2 journals may be more accommodating in this regard.
For instance, take a hypothetical interdisciplinary study blending computational neuroscience with ethnographic methods. The unconventional methodology may struggle to find a home in a Q1 journal.
On the other hand, a Q2 journal focused on interdisciplinary methods will not only be more receptive. It would also provide an audience better suited to engage with and build upon such work.
Conclusion
While Q1 journals will always have the most sway in the academic hierarchy, they are neither the most feasible nor even the most ideal destination for niche research.
Q2 journals, while often casting a smaller net, may provide a deeper one instead, offering greater flexibility, more relevant engagement, and a better editorial experience.
See submitting to a Q2 journal as a strategy, not a compromise—one that will still get researchers recognition, citation, and crucial scholarly conversations.
