A Comparative Analysis of Journal Quartiles (Q1–Q4): Data Sources, Volume, and Quality Considerations

Journal quartile rankings have become a prominent instrument in contemporary research evaluation, shaping academic behavior, institutional strategies, and higher education policy. Derived from citation-based bibliometric indicators, quartiles classify journals into hierarchical tiers (Q1–Q4) within disciplinary categories. Despite their widespread use, the methodological assumptions and interpretive validity of quartile-based evaluation remain contested. This study critically examines journal quartile rankings through a comparative analysis of Q1–Q4 journals, focusing on data sources, data volume, and data quality considerations. Grounded in the literature on bibliometrics and research evaluation, the study conceptualizes journal quartiles as socio-technical constructs embedded within global systems of scholarly communication. Using longitudinal bibliometric data from major citation databases, the analysis reveals systematic stratification across quartiles, with Q1 journals occupying central positions in citation networks and benefiting from cumulative advantages in visibility and international collaboration. These patterns, however, are shown to reflect structural positioning rather than inherent differences in research quality. The findings further highlight the essential roles of lower-quartile journals in supporting disciplinary diversity, regional scholarship, and early-career researchers. The study argues that meaningful quartile-based comparison requires methodological rigor, transparent data selection, and contextual interpretation. Ultimately, this research contributes to debates on responsible research evaluation by advocating for the integration of quantitative indicators with qualitative judgment to promote equitable and context-sensitive assessment practices.Keyword: Journal Quartiles; Bibliometric Analysis; Research Evaluation; Citation Metrics; Higher Education Governance