Analysis of the Impact Factor and JCR Rankings in Conservation Science Journals: Why JCR Should Have a Heritage Category

ABSTRACT The scientific research output of individuals and institutions is commonly evaluated by the number of publications in journals with high impact factor and their corresponding citations. However, the interdisciplinary character of journals reporting advances in conservation science favors their spread over different categories of the Journal Citation Report (JCR). Here we report an analysis of the evolution of the impact factor, the percentile, and the citations on the JCR indexed conservation journals over the last ten years. Our analysis shows that of the 57 conservation journals indexed in the JCR, only eight of them have an impact factor. These journals are distributed across different categories in the Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and these categories are sometimes not suitable and decrease their metric impact. This analysis was complemented by a worldwide survey of conservation professionals on their opinions about publishing in these journals. The survey showed two different perspectives about conservation science journals in relation to the background and work of the responders. Conservators and restorers prefer conservation journals with case studies; while researchers prefer high-impact journals, even if they lie outside of the conservation area, so the overall impact factor of conservation journals remains low (low JIF, low Q values). This dichotomy could be fixed with the creation of a new category for heritage science journals in JCR.


Introduction
Conservation science applies diverse scientific knowledge and methodologies to understand, characterize, and preserve not only the component materials but also the value of cultural heritage (Golfomitsou 2015).In other words, conservation science aims to preserve both the material aspects of heritage and its intangible values (Heritage and Golfomitsou 2015;Bell 2015).Sometimes the term 'heritage science' is used in substitution for the term 'conservation science'; however, they are not synonymous terms, although they are intrinsically connected.Heritage science is not solely limited to preservation issues and represents a larger domain of which conservation science is a part (Heritage and Golfomitsou 2015).This manuscript is focused on the aspects related to publications in conservation science of applied to cultural heritage.
The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) proposes various strategies to expand scientific knowledge related to the conservation and preservation of cultural heritage (Brokerhof 2015).Two of them are the promotion of interdisciplinary understanding to provide solutions for conservation problems, and the scientific assessment of traditional knowledge (craftsmanship, ancient techniques) to better understand and optimize its use as an alternative in conservation practice.Together with these practical recommendations, there are other suggestions focused on conservation science dissemination such as to tailor new approaches in scientific documentation that guarantees open access, to assure open and credible information using common language and terminology accessible for as many end-users as possible, and to use impact assessments to evaluate the effectiveness and influence of science in support of conservation practice (Brokerhof 2015).
The impact of conservation science should be evaluated in regard to its influence on society and public engagement as well as enhanced preservation of and understanding of cultural heritage; however, the metrics related to this area are commonly assessed by the number of high impact publications in journals with high impact factor and subsequent citations, the same as most other scientific areas.The most common journal rankings for scientific papers are the Journal Citation Report (JCR), from Clarivate Analytics, and Scimago Journal Rank (ScimagoJR), powered by Scopus.These resources are linked to the two main international abstract and citation databases of peerreviewed literature (Web of Science and Scopus, respectively).Google has also developed the Google Scholar Metrics (GSM), which evaluate the impact of scientific publications using scientific journals, conference proceedings, reports, dissertations, theses, and any non-peer-reviewed document with bibliographic references hosted on academic or publisher websites, and repositories (arXiv, SSRN, NBER, RePEC) (Delgado-López-Cózar and Cabezas-Clavijo 2013).For this reason, JCR and ScimagoJR are commonly used in the evaluation of the scientific career of researchers instead of GSM.
The JCR has different indices to classify journals: Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), part of the Web of Science Core Collection (Web of Science Group n.d.).Each index compiles a collection of journals classified into categories.Inside each category, the journals are classified by Journal Impact Factor (JIF), which measures the professional quality of the journals depending on the number of citations that their scientific articles received in the two previous years (Biblioteca de la Universidad de Huelva 2019).ScimagoJR also classifies documents in different categories; however, the journals are classified by Scientific Journal Prestige (SJR), based on the idea that the scientific influence of journals depends on both the number of citations received by a journal in the three previous years and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations appear (Scimago Lab, Scimago Journal & Country Rank 2019).GSM also classify the journals into categories; however, only the top 20 publications per area or discipline in function of H-index for English publications are published, and indexed sources are not stated (Delgado-López-Cózar and Cabezas-Clavijo 2013).
Due to the interdisciplinarity of the area and its practical character, these rankings do not reflect the reality of conservation science.To identify the reasons and provide possible solutions, the evolution and widespread use of the JIF, percentile, and citations on the indexed conservation journals in the last ten years have been analyzed.This work is complemented by a worldwide survey to gather the opinions of conservation science professionals about journals in the field.

Methodology
In this study, the data were obtained from the Scimago Journal & Country Rank (https://www.scimagojr.com), the Master Journal List of the Web of Science Group (https://mjl.clarivate.com/home), and the InCites Journal Citation Reports (https://jcr.clarivate.com/).It was drawn from the information on journals in the category of Conservation (2019) from ScimagoJR, and the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) (2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018)(2019) and JIF Percentile (2010Percentile ( -2019) ) from InCites Journal Citation Reports.In order to calculate the distribution of the citations, the Cited Journal Data (2015-2019) from all journals indexed in each category were downloaded.The citations were compiled in a table and displayed by the origin (journals from the same category, journals from the Conservation category in ScimagoJR, journals from both categories, and journals indexed in other categories).Due to the lack of transparency of GSM, it was not considered for the present study.
The opinions about the journals on conservation science were compiled by an online survey to worldwide professionals (Supplementary Document 1).The link to the survey was sent through mailing lists and posted on social media such as LinkedIn or Facebook, in conservation-related groups and webpages.The list of journals evaluated corresponds to the Q1 journals (2017) in the conservation category in ScimagoJR.

Results and discussion
Conservation journals in bibliometric rankings JCR and ScimagoJR are the most common rankings for scientific works.ScimagoJR has a specific category of Conservation that compiles 82 journals (2019) from different countries (Scimago Lab, Scimago Journal & Country Rank 2019).In function of their SJR, the journals are classified into four quartiles (Q1-Q4).Journals in the Q1 quartile are those with higher SJR, in other words, those journals with the highest citation impact; in contrast to Q4 journals, which have the lowest number of citations.A special group is formed by the most recent journals in each category that still have not yet received SJR and are therefore not classified in quartiles.
On the contrary, JCR does not have a specific Conservation category and the journals in that field are spread across different indexes and categories (Supplementary Table 1).Around 90% of the journals in the Conservation category in ScimagoJR do not have quantitative impact in the JCR index because they are indexed in the AHCI (32%) or the ESCI (30%), or even because they are not indexed (28%) (Figure 1 (a)).These journals belong predominantly to journals from the second, third, and fourth quartile (Figure 1 (b)).The AHCI does not calculate the JIF because most of the citations in this area come from books rather than journals, which are commonly excluded from the JCR metrics (Clarivate Analytics 2018).The ESCI compiles high-quality peer-reviewed journals out of the three main indexes from the Web of Science (SCI, SSCI, and AHCI) but recommended by a scholarly audience of Web of Science users (Taylor and Francis Group n.d.).
Only eight journals from the Conservation category in ScimagoJR have JIF (Supplementary Table 1), corresponding to those indexed in SCI or SSCI.

Conservation journals in the JCR categories
The JIF of journals listed in the JCR database is one of the most prominent tools used for evaluating the scientific production of individual researchers and institutions; however, only 10% of the journals indexed in the Conservation category of ScimagoJR have JIF and have values between 0.172 and 2.553 (Supplementary Table 1).
Of the eight journals with impact factor, only two of them (Journal of Cultural Heritage and Surface Engineering) have values of JIF > 2, being the journals with the higher number of citations per article.2).Consequently, the stagnation or negative tendency of the percentile, even with the increase of the JIF, confirms that these journals are being compared in very competitive categories.
As seen before, each category classifies their journals in percentiles on basis of the JIF, which depends directly on the number of citations received from the JCR journals.More citations and higher JIF results in an increased possibility of being in the first quartile.In addition, the JIF of the other journals directly affects the order and, therefore, the percentile.
In order to assess how the journals match to their JCR categories, the citations of both journals and categories were compared (Figure 3).The citations were classified by origin: journals of the same JCR category, journals from the Conservation category in ScimagoJR, journals indexed in both categories (Conservation + same JCR category), and journals indexed in JCR but in a different category.As result, from the 82 journals indexed in the ScimagoJR Conservation category, 57 are indexed in JCR, but only 8 were analyzed because they appear in SCI or SSCI categories.
The citation behavior in JCR categories is similar between them.Each category has a significant percentage (17-50%) of citations from their own journals and less than 1.5% from the conservation journals (Figure 3), showing that none of the categories is near to heritage.
Regarding the journals, their distribution depends on their scope and suitability for the category.the evolution of the JIF.And Heritage Science, from SpringerOpen, is a journal focused on conservation science, technical art history, and archaeometry of historical heritage.Both journals are indexed in the same three categories: 'Chemistry, Analytical', 'Materials Science, Multidisciplinary', and 'Spectroscopy' (Figure 2), which show the scientific character of these journals.The multidisciplinary approach of both journals favors their relatively high JIF, where both are Q2 journals in their categories.They have a high number of citations from Scimago Conservation journals, but predominantly from themselves and from Studies in Conservation (Figure 3).Nevertheless, it is also indexed in 'Chemistry, Applied', with less than 1% of citations from articles from that category (Figure 3).This distribution could be related to the scope of the journal, which publishes scientific studies on heritage conservation, but also practical case studies, so the category of 'Chemistry, Applied' is not suitable for conservation journals.It is significant that the number of citations from conservation journals out of the area is the highest one (> 20%).
A similar distribution is observed in Restaurator, which is an international periodical specialized in the conservation of library and archive materials.Their articles examine many important aspects of this subject area, such as technology, practical experience, and organization, but also deal with the development of new preservation techniques and the improvement and better understanding of established methods.It is indexed in the category 'Information Science & Library Science', which appears suitable, but the number of citations from other journals in the area is minimum with the main contribution coming from self-citations.
The International Journal of Architectural Heritage is focused on the study and repair of historic buildings and other structures, including survey techniques, seismic behavior, and non-destructive testing.This journal is indexed in the categories of 'Engineering, Civil' and 'Construction and Building Technology' and the good agreement of its scope with the categories favored the high number of citations from the other journals in their categories (Figure 3).
The Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage publishes articles about the application of information and communication technologies (ICT) for the preservation, reconstruction and creation of new cultural experiences or digital artifacts.Despite being indexed in the category of 'Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications', the number of citations from the journals of the area is ∼1%, with auto-citations as main contribution (Figure 3).
The International Journal of Heritage Studies encourages debate over the nature and meaning of heritage, as well as its links to memory, identities, and place.This sociological approach means this journal is indexed in the category 'Social Science, Interdisciplinary' from the SSCI.This journal presents the highest contribution of conservation journals out of the category, in a similar way to Studies in Conservation and Restaurator.
The most different journal is Surface Engineering, which is focused on any aspect of the use of surface engineering to produce surface-substrate systems having mechanical, tribological, chemical, and/or functional properties.This journal has the second highest JIF (2.433); nevertheless, it is a Q3 journal in the category of 'Material Science, Coatings and Films' (Figure 2).In addition, it does not have any citations from the conservation journals other than self-citations because the majority of their articles are focused on the area of materials science and only a few articles about heritage are published (Figure 3).
The citation distribution shows that in most of the categories, the contribution of the journals in each category to heritage is minimal (< 1.5%).This behavior is also observed in the journal's citations, where most journals do not correspond with the category.As a result, very few citations from journals from the same category were identified, beyond auto-citations.Only the International Journal of Architectural Heritage has a good agreement with the categories 'Engineering, Civil' and 'Construction and Building Technology'.The low number of citations from conservation journals and their poor agreement with their categories leads to them not being in the Q1 percentile in SCI/ SSCI rankings, which promotes the spread of scientists' work in journals out of the conservation category seeking high-impact journals.

Specialists' opinions
Rankings based on publication citations provide a rather incomplete picture of the impact, especially in the humanities (Katrakazis et al. 2018).For this reason, the professionals surveyed were asked to identify what are the most renowned journals in conservation science, regardless of whether they are indexed or not.
A total of 120 people from 34 countries answered the survey.51% of the responders were researchers, and 43% were conservators and restorers.The majority of the conservators were from Spain (29%) and the USA (15%); nevertheless, conservators from Portugal, Italy, Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, UK, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Romania, Switzerland, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Croatia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Estonia, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, and Georgia also participated in the study.
Most of the people that answered the survey possessed a doctoral degree (41%) or masters degree (38%) (Figure 4(a)), but there was also an important number of bachelor students (17%).Just 1% of the responders identified as engineers and 3% indicated that they had completed other studies.More than half of the responses corresponded to people with a background in conservation and restoration of cultural heritage (52%) (Figure 4(b)).Regarding people with other backgrounds, the responses came from people with studies in chemistry (18%), architecture (5%), art history (4%), fine arts (3%), history (3%), physics (2%), documentation (1%), and geology (1%) (Figure 4(b)).The majority of responders with scientific careers (chemistry, architecture, physics, documentation, and geology) also had completed doctorate studies, whereas those from humanities backgrounds (art history and fine arts) tended to have masters degrees.In history, around half of the responders had doctorate degrees.
Regarding the occupational category, the responses are well differentiated.51% of the responders were researchers and 43% were conservators and restorers.Researchers belonged primarily to public or private institutions (58%); 39% identified as university professors, mainly in the conservation and restoration of cultural heritage and chemistry, and 3% were laboratory technicians.Of those that identified as conservators, 40% worked in public institutions such as museums, foundations, or other cultural institutions, and 60% were classified as independent professionals (Figure 4(c)).
Finally, the professionals surveyed worked on a great variety of heritage (Figure 4(d)).Most of them work on scientific research applied to the preservation of historical objects (∼21%) (Figure 4(d)), such as material degradation studies, non-invasive analysis and characterization, portable instrumentation, sensors and dosimeters, scientific methods for dating, provenance and authentication, and statistics, modeling, and chemometrics for cultural heritage (ICOM-CC Scientific Research Working Group 2020).Regarding people focused on a specific material, the most common ones are paintings (14%), architectural structures (11%), graphic documents (9%), and archaeological materials (9%).In less quantity, there are responders working on sculpture and polychrome (5%), preventive conservation (4%), stone (4%), glass (3%), metal (3%), photography (3%), textiles (3%), contemporary materials (1%), ceramics (1%), and wood (1%).The apparent lower number of responders working in these areas could reflect the lower percentage of such heritage found in museums and collections.There were also responders working on the development of new materials and techniques for the improvement of conservation procedures (2%), and history of conservation (2%), which provides knowledge about the evolution of treatments through history.This scientific area is very interesting for treatment applications because it permits conservators to know which procedures could be applied on an object or building (Oddy 2002;Dávila Buitrón 2018) or if their current aspect is due to a previous incorrect procedure (McQueen et al. 2017;de Ferri et al. 2013;Palomar, Ramírez Barat, and Cano 2018).
It is interesting that the responses depend on the occupation of the interviewees (Figure 6(a,b)).For conservation professionals, the most important journal was Studies in Conservation (35%), followed by the Journal of the American Institute for Conservation (14%) (Figure 5(a)).In a lower percentage, it is the International Journal of Conservation Science (6%), Boletín científico del Centro de Museos (3%), Restaurator (3%), Heritage Science (3%), and Journal of Cultural Heritage (3%) (Figure 6(a)).Most of these journals present case studies on different materials that could be useful for their work.
Regarding researchers and university professors, they selected Studies in Conservation (29%), but also Journal of Cultural Heritage (22%) and Heritage Science (13%) (Figure 6(b)).In lower percentages, it is the Journal of the American Institute for Conservation (5%), Journal of Archaeological Science (3%), Restaurator (3%), International Journal of Architectural Heritage (3%), Ge-Conservacion (2%), Analytical Chemistry (2%), and International Journal of Conservation Science (2%) that were chosen (Figure 6(b)).These journals normally publish scientific reports about artworks or articles about the development of new techniques to be applied to cultural heritage.
All these renowned publications are indexed in the ScimagoJR Conservation category, unlike the Journal of Archaeological Science (indexed in the categories Archaeology (arts and humanities), History and Archaeology) and Analytical Chemistry (indexed in the category Analytical Chemistry).This confirms that the journals selected by ScimagoJR for the Conservation category are suitable; however, the absence of a specific category of Conservation Science in JCR means that these journals were indexed in other categories, sometimes not suitable, as seen in the previous section.For example, Studies in Conservation is the most renowned journal for conservation professionals but is in the Q4 percentile in 'Spectroscopy', 'Chemistry, Analytical', and 'Chemistry, Applied' categories.
In the survey, professionals that published 1-2 articles in the last two years were also asked about how they choose the journal to publish their works, and most of them (55%) take into account if the journal is in the conservation science area (Figure 6(a)); however, they publish most of the time (10%) and sometimes (29%) in journals out of the field of conservation science because of a higher impact factor.Most of the responders of this group were researchers and university professors from conservation and restoration of cultural heritage.Just 12% of the responders, mainly from humanities areas, answered that they never choose the journal because of its impact.There was another group of researchers that sometimes choose journals in the conservation science area to publish their work (40%) (Figure 6(a)), and they choose most of the time (7%) or sometimes (24%) the journal because of its impact factor (Figure 6(b)).This group is mainly formed by researchers and university professors from scientific areas (chemistry, physics, etc.).5% of the responders, with a background generally in chemistry, stated that they do not take into account whether the journal is in the conservation science area or not (Figure 6(a)).
It is interesting that there are two different behaviors for choosing the journals for depositing research results, directly related to the background and area of work of the responders.Professionals with a background in conservation and restoration of cultural heritage try to publish in journals in that specific area; however, researchers from scientific areas prioritize journals with higher impact factor than publishing in one from the Conservation category.In the end, this increasing tendency of the latter could be counterproductive for the preservation of cultural heritage because innovative studies and advances in the field become spread out over a variety of different journals outside of the conservation science area and thus receive poorer dissemination amongst conservators and restorers, who represent key stakeholders of such advances.Furthermore, the specific terminology of the papers submitted to these categories could result in their low comprehension of the study by the end-users (Katrakazis et al. 2018).
Conservation professionals had a similar opinion about the difficulties and importance of being updated (Figure 7).Less than 50% of the responders have easy access to conservation science journals; this percentage is higher for researchers because they usually have access through their institutions.For nonresearchers, access tended to be 'sometimes', probably depending on the journal because most conservators in private practice do not have access to subscription-based publications through a university or research institution (Golfomitsou 2015).This situation is changing because since Horizon 2020 the European Union has adopted a new policy whereby research made with European funds must be made fully openaccess (European Commission n.d.; European Science Foundation n.d.).This policy will guarantee easier access to publications and data that currently are in subscription-based journals.Good access to information is very important for professional development.For this reason, researchers with institutional access to subscription-based journals can look up the latest publications in their area more frequently than conservators (Figure 7).Despite this barrier to information, both conservators and researchers think that it is necessary to be updated to develop their professional duties.The policy of open access of the European Union will enable easy access to the information and an increase in the impact of the studies (Golfomitsou 2015).
Besides the difference in accessibility to publications, conservators and researchers have different opinions about the articles published in indexed journals (Figure 7).Most non-researchers think that indexed articles have a better quality than other publications, but it is not guaranteed; however, around 50% of the responses from researchers support the idea that an indexed publication guarantees the quality of the article (Figure 7).This different thinking is due to the pressure on researchers to publish their work in high-impact journals that are always indexed (Katrakazis et al. 2018); instead of conservators who prefer face-to-face hands-on practical workshops and practical guides and databases, especially if accompanied by training (Katrakazis et al. 2018).

Conclusions
Throughout the heritage science community, it is widely acknowledged that traditional conservation journals are the best places to report advances in conservation science because the innovations will reach the core target audience.However, many such journals have low impact factors and poor citations, compared with other research areas; a factor which is complicated further because many conservation journals are evaluated in scientific areas such as chemistry, engineering, and materials science, which have much higher JIFs and citations.
From the 82 conservation science journals indexed in the ScimagoJR Conservation category, 57 are indexed in JCR, but only eight are indexed in SCI/ SSCI and have JIF.Most of them have increased their JIF in recent years, showing the interest of the scientific public, but six of them have plateaued or shown negative trends in their JIF percentile.These general trends could be due to the poor match of heritage studies to their current JCR categories, which leads to poor metrics that effectively reduce the impact of research in conservation science, compared with other areas.
One of the reasons for this behavior is that scientists are commonly evaluated by their impact on the JCR index.However, most of the journals in the ScimagoJR Conservation category do not calculate JIF or they do not have Q1 percentiles, diminishing the impact on the metrics in comparison with research in other scientific areas.The absence of a specific category of conservation science or heritage science in JCR promotes the publication of conservation studies out of the area seeking high-impact journals.
Overall, our survey indicated that the conservation science journal rankings do not match with professional opinion.Responders to our survey indicated that Studies in Conservation, which publishes both case studies and scientific research applied to cultural heritage, is the most renowned journal, but it is classed as a Q4 journal in its category.Professionals have different perspectives about conservation journals depending on their background and work.Importantly, as a collective, conservators and restorers prefer journals with case studies whereas scientists prefer to publish their studies in high-impact journals, even outside of the conservation science area, because they are pressured to publish articles in journals with a high impact factor in the Q1 category.
It is our opinion, and proposal, that creating a new category for conservation science or heritage science journals could help to avoid the dispersion (and dilution) of the conservation science publications into other scientific areas, and would thus make traditional conservation science journals simultaneously more suitable for both the scientific community and conservation-restoration professionals.
Five of them (Heritage Science, Journal of Cultural Heritage, International Journal of Architectural Heritage, Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage, and Studies in Conservation), from the first quartile in ScimagoJR (Figure 1 (b)), are indexed both in SCI and AHCI in the JCR.The remaining three indexed journals are Surface Engineering (indexed in SCI), Restaurator (in SSCI), and International Journal of Heritage Studies (included in both SSCI and AHCI).
Heritage Science, International Journal of Architectural Heritage, Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, and International Journal of Heritage Studies have values 1 < JIF < 2. And, finally, Studies in Conservation and Restaurator have values JIF < 1, with the lowest number of citations per article.In most of the journals, the JIF has increased during the last years (Figure2).Nevertheless, a comparison of the JIF in each category places conservation journals into the Q2, Q3, or even Q4 percentile in the SCI/SSCI rankings.The percentile depends directly on the journals in each category and, for this reason, some journals such as the International Journal of Architectural Heritage appears in the second percentile (Q2) in the category of 'Engineering, Civil', but in the third one (Q3) in Construction & Building Technology (Figure 2).The evolution of the percentile of journals such as Journal of Cultural Heritage, International Journal of Architectural Heritage, and Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage have shown positive trends; but Surface Engineering, Heritage Science, International Journal of Heritage Studies, and Studies in Conservation have maintained their positions.Others, such as Restaurator have witnessed a negative trend (Figure

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Journals from the category 'Conservation' (ScimagoJR) (a) classified in the different indexes from the JCR, (b) distributed according to their quartile in the JCR indexes.
Journal of Cultural Heritage is a multidisciplinary journal of science and technology that studies problems concerning conservation and awareness of cultural heritage.Research published in this journal has received more attention in recent years as shown by
Studies in Conservation is a journal published by Taylor and Francis on behalf of the International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (IIC), one of the most renowned institutions in the field of conservation.It publishes articles in the areas of arts, archaeology, built heritage, materials history, art technological research, and material culture (Heritage et al. 2014).This journal is indexed in the categories of 'Spectroscopy' and 'Chemistry, Analytical', showing a similar behavior to the Journal of Cultural Heritage or Heritage Science.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Classification of the category and journals in function of the citing journal.The number of journals in each category appears in parentheses.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Personal information of the survey respondents: (a) education, (b) degree field, (c) occupational categories, (d) main interest area.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5.The most renowned journals to publish in conservation science for (a) conservators and restorers, and (b) researchers, university professors, and lab technicians.

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.Personal opinion of professionals that publish articles about how they choose the journals to publish.Responses to (a) When you want to publish work, do you take into account whether the journal is in the conservation science area or not?, and (b) Have you published in journals out of the conservation science field because of a higher impact factor?