Transcript MEDICAL JOURNALS WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT FACTOR (1999)

Slide de resumo
THE IMPACT FACTOR OF MEDICAL
JOURNALS:
ITS USE AND MISUSE
THE IMPACT FACTOR OF
MEDICAL JOURNALS:
ITS USE AND MISUSE
Luis Benítez-Bribiesca
Editor-in-Chief
Archives of Medical Research
(México)
IMPACT FACTOR
 Counting references to rank the use of scientific
journals was reported as early as 1927 by Gross
and Gross. The term “impact factor” was not
used until the publication of the 1961 in Science
Citation Index (SCI) in 1963. This led to a
byproduct, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), and
a burgeoning literature using bibliometric
measures.
Source: Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved? BMJ 1966;
313:413-5.
IMPACT FACTOR
 The most used data in the JCR are impact
factors-ratios obtained from dividing citations
received in 1 year (numerator) by papers
published during the two previous years
(denominator). JCR’s impact calculations are
based on original research and review articles, as
well as on notes. Letters of the type published in
the BMJ and the Lancet are not included in the
publication count, but all references are counted
in the numerator.
IMPACT FACTOR
The scope of bibliometric studies is
the treatment and quantitative
analysis of scientific publications.
They belong to the so-called “social
studies of science” and science
policy constitutes one of its main
applied fields.
JOURNALS WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT FACTOR IN 1969
Source: Farfield E. Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation.
Science 1972; 178:471
ITEM
#
0001
0002
0003
0004
0005
0006
0007
0008
0009
0010
0011
0012
0013
0014
0015
CITED JOURNAL
ACCOUNTS CHEM RES
ADV PROTEIN CHEM
PHARMACOL REV
BACTERIOL REV
ANNU REV BIOCHEM
PHYSIOL REV
SOLID STATE PHYS
ADV ENZYMOL
INT REV CYTOL
J MOL BIOL
REC PROG HORMONE RES
P NAT ACAD SCI USA
J EXP MED
Q REV
CHEM REV
1969 CITATION TO
1967 AND 1968
ARTICLES
820
184
448
804
932
572
228
192
144
7340
232
11548
2700
452
408
ARTICLES
PUBLISHED IN
1967 AND 1968
28
8
20
39
53
33
14
20
16
833
27
1348
325
55
50
IMPACT
FACTOR
29.285
23.000
23.400
20.615
17,584.
17.333
16.285
9.600
9.000
8.811
8.592
8.566
8.307
8.218
8.160
JOURNALS WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT FACTOR IN 1999
Source: Journal Citation Reports (JCR) on CD-ROM 1999 Science Edition Journal
RankingsSorted by Impact Factor
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
JOURNAL
TOTAL
CITES
IMPACT
FACTOR
ARTICLES
ANNU REV IMMUNOL
ANNU REV BIOCHEM
CELL
NAT GENET
NATURE
NEW ENGL J MED
NAT MED
ANNU REV CELL DEV BI
CURR OPIN CELL BIOL
SCIENCE
PHYSIOL REV
ANNU REV NEUROSCI
CA-CANCER J CLIN
CHEM REV
ANNU REV PHARMACOL
11865
16683
159955
34030
303563
134065
20043
6170
11992
265921
11061
6824
2564
25361
4360
47.564
37.111
36.242
30.693
29.491
28.857
26.584
26.263
25.631
24.595
23.953
22.605
22.327
21.244
21.175
29
30
346
210
1016
380
165
24
91
971
32
21
18
113
18
JOURNALS PUBLISHING REVIEW ARTICLES WITHIN
THE 50 MOST CITED IN 1969
Source: Garfield E. Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation.
Science 1972; 178:471
ITEM #
0001
0002
0003
0004
0005
0006
0007
0008
0009
JOURNAL
PHARMACOL REV
BACTERIOL REV
PHYSIOL REV
SOLID STATE PHYS
Q REV
CHEM REV
ANNU REV PL PHYSIOL
ANNU REV MICROBIOL
BIOL REV
1969 CITATION
TO 1967 AND
1968 ARTICLES
ARTICLES
PUBLISHED IN
1967 AND 1968
IMPACT
FACTOR
448
804
572
228
452
408
296
288
176
20
39
33
14
55
50
42
44
34
22.400
20.615
17.333
16.285
8.218
8.160
7.047
6.545
5.176
JOURNALS PUBLISHING REVIEW ARTICLES WITHIN THE 50 MOST CITED IN
1999
Source: Journal of Citation Reports (JCR) on CD-ROM 1999 Science Edition Journal Rankings Sorted
by Impact Factor.
RANK
JOURNAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ANNU REV IMMUNOL
ANNU REV BIOCHEM
ANNU REV CELL DEV BI
CURR OPIN CELL BIOL
PHYSIOL REV
ANNU REV NEUROSCI
CHEM REV
ANNU REV PHARMACOL
ENDOCR REV
TRENDS NEUROSCI
ANNU REV PHYSIOL
ANNU REV PLANT PHYS
PHARMACOL REV
ANNU REV ASTRON ASTR
CURR OPIN GENET DEV
ANNU REV BIOPH BIOM
CURR OPIN IMMUNOL
TOTAL CITES
IMPACT FACTOR
ARTICLES
11865
16683
6170
11992
11061
6824
25361
4360
8308
14518
6416
6482
6512
3969
5893
3152
6264
47.564
37.111
26.263
25.631
23.953
22.605
21.244
21.175
20.250
19.925
19.797
17.000
15.421
15.067
12.665
12.026
11.887
29
30
24
91
32
21
113
18
32
64
35
25
18
14
91
14
92
BIOMEDICAL JOURNALS WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT FACTOR (1999)
Source: Journal Citation Reports (JCR) on CD-ROM 1999 Science Edition Journal Rankings Sorted by
Impact Factor
RANK
JOURNAL
TOTAL
CITES
IMPACT
FACTOR
ARTICLES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
NAT MED
J EXP MED
J CLIN INVEST
HUM GENE THER
GENE THER
LAB INVEST
MOL MED TODAY
CANCER GENE THER
MOL MED
J MOL MED-JMM
P SOC EXP BIOL MED
ANTISENSE NUCLEI A
EXP HEMATOL
VACCINE
J HEMATOTH STEM CELL
20043
68208
81251
6449
4249
12017
929
866
1557
1572
7227
934
4227
6341
1035
26.584
15.651
10.921
6.403
5.237
4.530
4.411
4.188
4.155
3.748
3.559
3.441
3.258
3.173
3.116
165
132
374
253
237
171
61
62
68
123
121
65
196
544
31
MEDICAL JOURNALS WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT FACTOR (1999)
Source: Journal Citation Reports (JCR) on CD-ROM 1999 Science Edition Journal Rankings Sorted by
Impact Factor
RANK
JOURNAL
TOTAL
CITES
IMPACT
FACTOR
ARTICLES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
NEW ENG J MED
JAMA- J AM MED ASSOC
LANCET
ANN INTERN MED
ANNU REV MED
ARCH INTERN MED
BRIT MED J
AM J MED
MEDICINE
BRIT MED BULL
J INVEST MED
ANN MED
AMYLOID
CAN MED ASSOC J
MED CLIN N AM
134065
64762
112952
36492
2426
20067
50603
21241
4425
2465
741
1811
358
4873
2149
28.857
11.435
10.197
10.097
7.219
6.705
5.143
4.977
4.723
3.381
2.922
2.566
2.371
2.356
2.277
380
364
1108
221
33
266
761
168
29
49
47
77
38
176
83
THE USE OF IMPACT FACTOR
 The impact factor is being used with increasing
frequency to evaluate the quality of a journal and
the relevance of individual scientific output despite
a number of articles and claims that challenge the
use of this index as a sound criterion for judging
the quality of both research and journals. It is
frequently overlooked that Garfield himself, the
inventor of the IF, emphasized that its potential
value would be primarily in the management of
library journal collections to determine their
optimum makeup, providing solid basis for costbenefit analysis of subscription budgets.
THE USE OF IMPACT FACTOR
 The impact of the IF has been so great that its
use has been injudiciously extended to judge
the quality of a journal and what is more
distressing, the quality of scientific output.
Furthermore if the IF is taken as an indication
for orienting editorial policies, then scientists
and journals in peripheral fields would find
increasing difficulties in publishing important
contributions out of the mainstreams of current
scientific research. In other words, this
possesses the danger to halt scientific creativity
and freedom.
THE MISUSE OF IMPACT FACTOR
Traditionally, committees formed by
senior scientists scrutinize the scientific
production of the candidate and mainly
judge the quantity and quality of their
publications. Quantity is easily evaluated,
involving counting the number of articles,
whereas quality is a notoriously difficult
aspect to appraise, in that subjectivity and
bias frequently overshadow the process.
THE MISUSE OF IMPACT FACTOR
Most evaluation committees in developing
nations currently base promotions,
resource allocations, and awards solely
on citation indices and IF, particularly in
the medical field. What is more surprising
is that most scientists and peer reviewers
seem to be convinced that this is the best
method for considering scientific quality.
THE MISUSE OF IMPACT FACTOR
 Hecht et al warn that IF should not be
misused to evaluate journals or to validate
scientific relevance, especially in decisions
regarding employment, funding, and
academic promotions. They emphasize
that IF has clearly become a key marketing
tool in biomedical publishing, and fear that
editorial policies, once determined by
scientific editors, may increasingly be
dictated by executives and accountants.
THE MISUSE OF IMPACT FACTOR
Garfield points out that successful
editors and publishers know that
in order to improve the editorial
quality of journals, there is no
substitute for good judgment,
quality, and relevance. Impact and
other citation measures merely
report the facts.
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE
JOURNAL IMPACT FACTORS






Journal impact factors are not
statistically representative of
individual journal articles.
Journal impact factors correlate
poorly with actual citations of
individual articles.
Review articles are heavily cited and
inflate the impact factor of journals.
Long articles collect many citations
and yield high journal impact factors.
Short publications lag allows many
short-tem journal self-citations and
produces a high journal impact factor.
Citations in the national language of
the journal are preferred by the
journal’s authors.
 Database has an English language
bias.
 The database is dominated by U.S.
Publications.
 Impact factor depends on the
dynamics (expansion or contraction)
of the research field.
 Small research fields tend to lack
journals with high impact.
 The citation of articles determines
journal impact but not viceversa .
 Citation is biased when publications
come from scientifically less
developed countries. A good example
is what occurs in Latin America.
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE
JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR
Articles that came directly from Latin
America in 1995 represented only 1.8% of
the total. Even so, this represents an
increase from 1981, in which year the figure
was 1.3%. Another important finding was
that 85% of the scientific articles originating
in Latin America came from only four
countries: Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and
Chile. These articles were cited between 40%
and 60% less than the world average for
papers in the same field.
LEADING LATIN AMERICAN NATIONS
CITED IN THE SCI
Source: Ardila R. Scientific Publishing in Latin America. Mexico (1999)
COUNTRY
AVERAGE IMPACT FACTOR
BRAZIL
0.646
ARGENTINA
0.352
MEXICO
0.332
CLINICAL MEDICINE AND EMERGING
FIELDS
There is a great difference in the numbers
of citations between basic biomedical
research and purely clinical publications.
Biomedical research, particularly if
releated to molecular genetics, tends to
be highly cited, while clinical publications
are not. Clinical medicine publications
draw heavily on basic science references,
but not viceversa.
CLINICAL MEDICINE AND EMERGING
FIELDS
The goals of the scientist can be diverted
from the original purpose of scientific
endeavor towards achieving a higher citation
rate, especially in the biomedical sciences. To
obtain the benefits of funding and academic
promotion, most medical scientists prefer to
work in molecular genetics rather than to
participate in patient-oriented research. This
is contributing to the progressive decline of
physician-scientists.
AGONY OF IF. THE INTERNET
The radical change brought about by the
Web for publishing and searching
scientific literature is changing the
classical scheme of printed library
collections and private journal
subscriptions. It is, therefore, foreseeable
that the IF will lose its significance to the
extent that electronic publishing and free
access to databases substitute for printed
journals.