Literature DB >> 27402825

ASM Journals Eliminate Impact Factor Information from Journal Websites.

Arturo Casadevall1, Stefano Bertuzzi2, Michael J Buchmeier3, Roger J Davis4, Harold Drake5, Ferric C Fang6, Jack Gilbert7, Barbara M Goldman2, Michael J Imperiale8, Philip Matsumura9, Alexander J McAdam10, Marcela F Pasetti11, Rozanne M Sandri-Goldin12, Thomas Silhavy13, Louis Rice14, Jo-Anne H Young15, Thomas Shenk13.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27402825      PMCID: PMC4958266          DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01150-16

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  MBio            Impact factor:   7.867


× No keyword cloud information.

EDITORIAL

Many scientists attempt to publish their work in a journal with the highest possible journal impact factor (IF). Despite widespread condemnation of the use of journal IFs to assess the significance of published work, these numbers continue to be widely misused in publication, hiring, funding, and promotion decisions (1, 2). There are a number of problems with this approach. First of all, the journal IF is a journal-level metric, not an article-level metric, and its use to determine the impact of a single article is statistically flawed since citation distribution is skewed for all journals, with a very small number of articles driving the vast majority of citations (3, 4). Furthermore, impact does not equal importance (5) or advancement to the field, and the pursuit of a high IF, whether at the article or journal level, may misdirect research efforts away from more important priorities. The causes for the unhealthy obsession with IF are complex (2). High-IF journals limit the number of their publications to create an artificial scarcity and generate the perception that exclusivity is a marker of quality. The relentless pursuit of high-IF publications has been detrimental for science (2, 5). This behavior is an example of the economic phenomenon known as the “tragedy of the commons” (6), in which individuals engage in a behavior that benefits them individually at the expense of communal interests. Individual scientists receive disproportionate rewards for articles in high-IF journals, but science as a whole suffers from a distorted value system, delayed communication of results as authors shop for the journal with the highest IF that will publish their work, and perverse incentives for sloppy or dishonest work (2). Since many investigators consider IFs in deciding where to submit their manuscripts, many journals list their IFs on their websites, and until now American Society for Microbiology (ASM) journals have been no exception. ASM journals focus on publishing high-quality science that has been rigorously peer reviewed by experts and evaluated by academic editors. The primary mission of ASM is to advance microbial science. At the recent Journals Board meeting that took place during ASM Microbe 2016 in Boston, MA, the editors in chief and the ASM leadership decided to no longer advertise the IFs of ASM journals (7). Our goal is to avoid contributing further to the inappropriate focus on journal IFs. Although this action by itself may have little effect on a practice that is deeply entrenched in the biological sciences, we hope that removing IFs from ASM journal websites makes a statement of principle that will be emulated by other journals.
  6 in total

1.  Comparison of the distribution of citations received by articles published in high, moderate, and low impact factor journals in clinical medicine.

Authors:  M E Falagas; V D Kouranos; A Michalopoulos; S P Rodopoulou; M A Batsiou; D E Karageorgopoulos
Journal:  Intern Med J       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.048

2.  The tragedy of the commons. The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality.

Authors:  G Hardin
Journal:  Science       Date:  1968-12-13       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal.

Authors:  Dwight J Kravitz; Chris I Baker
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 2.380

4.  Impacted science: impact is not importance.

Authors:  Arturo Casadevall; Ferric C Fang
Journal:  mBio       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 7.867

5.  The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment.

Authors:  Ross Cagan
Journal:  Dis Model Mech       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 5.758

Review 6.  Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania.

Authors:  Arturo Casadevall; Ferric C Fang
Journal:  mBio       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 7.867

  6 in total
  5 in total

1.  Analysis and Correction of Inappropriate Image Duplication: the Molecular and Cellular Biology Experience.

Authors:  Elisabeth M Bik; Ferric C Fang; Amy L Kullas; Roger J Davis; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 4.272

2.  A Framework for Improving the Quality of Research in the Biological Sciences.

Authors:  Arturo Casadevall; Lee M Ellis; Erika W Davies; Margaret McFall-Ngai; Ferric C Fang
Journal:  mBio       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 7.867

3.  Are the Editors Responsible for Our Obsession with the Impact Factor?

Authors:  Juan Carlos Argüelles; Raquel Argüelles-Prieto
Journal:  mBio       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 7.867

4.  Article-level assessment of influence and translation in biomedical research.

Authors:  George M Santangelo
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 4.138

5.  The freedom of choice.

Authors:  Vera Meyer; Alexander Idnurm
Journal:  Fungal Biol Biotechnol       Date:  2016-10-14
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.