JRSM > Volume 100, Number 3 > Pp. 142-150

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Send a Quick Comment Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Quick Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JRSM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chew, M. Articles by Van Der Weyden, M. B Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994-2005) and their Editors' views

Mabel Chew¹ Elmer V Villanueva²   Martin B Van Der Weyden³

¹ Clinical Lecturer, Discipline of General Practice, University of Sydney, and Associate Editor, British Medical Journal
² Epidemiologist, National Breast Cancer Centre, Australia and Associate Professor, Monash University Department of Rural and Indigenous Health, Moe, Victoria, Australia
³ Editor, Medical Journal of Australia

Correspondence to: Mabel Chew E-mail: mch3004{at}gmail.com

Objective (1) To analyse trends in the journal impact factor (IF) of seven general medical journals (Ann Intern Med, BMJ, CMAJ, JAMA, Lancet, Med J Aust and N Engl J Med) over 12 years; and (2) to ascertain the views of these journals' past and present Editors on factors that had affected their journals' IFs during their tenure, including direct editorial policies.

Design Retrospective analysis of IF data from ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports—Science Edition, 1994 to 2005, and interviews with Editors-in-Chief.

Setting Medical journal publishing.

Participants Ten Editors-in-Chief of the journals, except Med J Aust, who served between 1999 and 2004.

Main outcome measures IFs and component numerator and denominator data for the seven general medical journals (1994 to 2005) were collected. IFs are calculated using the formula: (Citations in year z to articles published in years x and y)/(Number of citable articles published in years x and y), where z is the current year and x and y are the previous two years. Editors' views on factors that had affected their journals' IFs were also obtained.

Results IFs generally rose over the 12-year period, with the N Engl J Med having the highest IF throughout. However, percentage rises in IF relative to the baseline year of 1994 were greatest for CMAJ (about 500%) and JAMA (260%). Numerators for most journals tended to rise over this period, while denominators tended to be stable or to fall, although not always in a linear fashion. Nine of ten eligible editors were interviewed. Possible reasons given for rises in citation counts included: active recruitment of high-impact articles by courting researchers; offering authors better services; boosting the journal's media profile; more careful article selection; and increases in article citations. Most felt that going online had not affected citations. Most had no deliberate policy to publish fewer articles (lowering the IF denominator), which was sometimes the unintended result of other editorial policies. The two Editors who deliberately published fewer articles did so as they realized IFs were important to authors. Concerns about the accuracy of ISI counting for the IF denominator prompted some to routinely check their IF data with ISI. All Editors had mixed feelings about using IFs to evaluate journals and academics, and mentioned the tension between aiming to improve IFs and ‘keeping their constituents [clinicians] happy.’

Conclusions IFs of the journals studied rose in the 12-year period due to rising numerators and/or falling denominators, to varying extents. Journal Editors perceived that this occurred for various reasons, including deliberate editorial practices. The vulnerability of the IF to editorial manipulation and Editors' dissatisfaction with it as the sole measure of journal quality lend weight to the need for complementary measures.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related articles in JRSM:

The vulnerability and limitations of impact factor in evaluating quality

Anil Agarwal and Rachna Agarwal
JRSM 2007 100: 354-355. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. A. Dempsey Impact factor and its role in academic promotion: A statement adopted by the International Respiratory Journal Editors Roundtable J Appl Physiol, October 1, 2009; 107(4): 1005 - 1005. [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. B. Adler Impact Factor and its Role in Academic Promotion Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol., August 1, 2009; 41(2): 127 - 127. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. R. Leff Impact Factor and its Role in Academic Promotion Proceedings of the ATS, August 1, 2009; 6(4): 337 - 337. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. A. Brumback Impact Factor Wars: Episode V--The Empire Strikes Back J Child Neurol, March 1, 2009; 24(3): 260 - 262. [PDF]

				M. E. Falagas, V. D. Kouranos, R. Arencibia-Jorge, and D. E. Karageorgopoulos Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor FASEB J, August 1, 2008; 22(8): 2623 - 2628. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. A. Brumback Worshiping False Idols: The Impact Factor Dilemma J Child Neurol, April 1, 2008; 23(4): 365 - 367. [PDF]

				R. Smith Beware the tyranny of impact factors J Bone Joint Surg Br, February 1, 2008; 90-B(2): 125 - 126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Lameire Editorial Note Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., January 1, 2008; 23(1): 1 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. Thompson How To Choose the Right Journal for Your Manuscript Chest, September 1, 2007; 132(3): 1073 - 1076. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Agarwal and R. Agarwal The vulnerability and limitations of impact factor in evaluating quality J R Soc Med, August 1, 2007; 100(8): 354 - 355. [Full Text] [PDF]