A biocurator ranking for Journals

There has been a lot of focus on impact factors for journals, and there are some interesting issues with how publishers can try to game the system.  I wonder, however, if it would be useful to publish some alternative rankings of journals based on other criteria.

Specifically, I’d love to see a ranking of journals based on the usability of their papers for biocuration. Do they have strong editorial practices to get authors to include

  • Accessions to data deposition
  • Metadata for topic classification
  • Use of nonstandard nomenclature

Of course, this is a rating I would only take credit for if I never wanted to publish in journals that might come out low in the rankings.  In my fantasy world, a virtuous cycle would cause the journals with biocurator-friendly practices to rise in impact factor.