How close they really are
The boundary sits at exactly 25% of the category. A journal ranked just inside that line and one ranked just outside it may differ by a single rank position and a negligible difference in the underlying metric — yet they carry different quartile labels, and in many evaluation systems, different weight.
In small categories the effect is sharper still: with few journals in the category, one position can move a title across a boundary. Ties make it blurrier again, since journals sharing a metric value share a rank and therefore a quartile.
When Q2 is the better target
Scope fit beats quartile more often than authors expect. A paper that sits squarely in a Q2 journal’s stated scope has a better chance, a faster review and a more useful readership than the same paper sent to a Q1 title that publishes adjacent work. Desk rejection for scope mismatch is the most common outcome we see from over-reaching, and it costs months.
It is also worth checking which category the Q1 badge comes from. A journal that is Q1 in a general category and Q3 in your specialism may be a worse home for your paper than a journal that is Q2 in your specialism — the readers who cite you are in the second one.
A desk rejection for scope mismatch costs months and teaches you nothing. A well-matched Q2 acceptance is usually the better trade.
When Q1 is worth the attempt
Where the work genuinely warrants it — a result the field will argue about, a dataset nobody else can produce, a method others will adopt — Q1 is worth the longer cycle, and the reviewer feedback tends to be more useful even when the answer is no.
What makes the difference is honest self-assessment before submission rather than after. We will tell you which category the manuscript is competitive in, and what would have to change to move it up one.