[morsch]

There are a number of metrics[1] for journal ranking. The journal in question[2] claims to have (or have had) an impact factor[3] of 0.593 (2017-18); "the ratio between the number of citations received in that year [...] and the total number of "citable items" published in that journal[...]". That's not a very good score. Nature has an impact factor of ~42 (2019), or to pick another example, because I recently referred to it here on HN, Eurosurveillance has an impact factor of ~6.

I don't think blindly following these metrics is a good idea, but it's not as a bad first approximation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_ranking

[2] https://juniperpublishers.com/ofoaj/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor

[jonnycomputer]

Impact factor works if you just to minimize the number of "bad" publications you look at. But if you rely on it too much, you are going to exclude lots of good publications too. Specialist journals tend to have lower impact factors, for one. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation is a good journal, but its impact factor has never been especially high.