OBJECTIVE: As reported in the 2011 Journal Citation Reports, despite an increase of the impact factor (IF) for 54% of all journals, only 39% of imaging journals experienced an IF increase. Of the 41 imaging journals with an IF of higher than 2.0, only 17 obtained a higher IF value in 2011 than in 2010 and the IF of most key international imaging journals decreased. How to manage and contrast this decline in IF is still a challenge for the radiologic community all over the world. CONCLUSION: Radiologic journals may try to increase their IF by soliciting important articles, such as meta-analyses, cost-effective analyses, and guidelines, that are frequently published in high-IF clinical journals, and encouraging nonradiologists to submit relevant radiologic-related clinical articles.
OBJECTIVE: As reported in the 2011 Journal Citation Reports, despite an increase of the impact factor (IF) for 54% of all journals, only 39% of imaging journals experienced an IF increase. Of the 41 imaging journals with an IF of higher than 2.0, only 17 obtained a higher IF value in 2011 than in 2010 and the IF of most key international imaging journals decreased. How to manage and contrast this decline in IF is still a challenge for the radiologic community all over the world. CONCLUSION: Radiologic journals may try to increase their IF by soliciting important articles, such as meta-analyses, cost-effective analyses, and guidelines, that are frequently published in high-IF clinical journals, and encouraging nonradiologists to submit relevant radiologic-related clinical articles.
Authors: Christian B van der Pol; Matthew D F McInnes; William Petrcich; Adam S Tunis; Ramez Hanna Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240