Journal impact factor: Recent evaluation changes and Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) was introduced by Science Information in 1955 as a tool for librarians to prioritize journal subscriptions. It subsequently came to be used as a measurement for gauging perceptions of the prestige of journals among governments, funding bodies, universities, and authors. , , Because it is intricately tied to the career advancement of scientific researchers while being arguably flawed and manipulable, the JIF is seen as the metric authors and editors love but also hate. Some would welcome a viable alternative metric that more accurately estimates the impact and prestige of research journals and authors.

For Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis (RPTH), the JIF has sat on the horizon shrouded in a certain air of mystery as we have pondered when the journal would mature to the point of qualifying to receive one. At that juncture, we would be included in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), published by Clarivate Analytics. Publishers, societies, journals, and journal editors eagerly anticipate this annual report every year as it contains the new JIFs.

The mystery regarding JIF is attributed to recent changes in how journals are evaluated for inclusion. In 2016, the year RPTH began receiving submissions for peer review, the JCR, and other related products including Web of Science (WoS), ScholarOne, and EndNote, were sold by Thomson Reuters to private‐equity firms Onex Corporation and Baring Private Equity Asia and relaunched as Clarivate Analytics. Over the next four years, Clarivate revamped the evaluation process for inclusion of journals in the JCR and the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). They first repositioned the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), which had been launched by Thomson Reuters in 2015, so that it focused on expansion of coverage within WoS, the main citation database from which the JIF is calculated. Starting in 2015, journals could be indexed in ESCI, which would allow for the citation counts of the articles they published to become available via reportable means (ie, the WoS database).

As reported in RPTH in 2017, the journal was accepted for inclusion in ESCI in 2018–2019. However, the evaluation methods for graduating from ESCI to the flagship indexes, including SCIE, and receiving a JIF have changed. Previously, there was a process whereby journal leaders, in collaboration with the journal's publisher, would make an assessment of editorial protocol and impact of published content, and submit an application requesting a formal evaluation when it was assumed the journal met the perceived requirements. In the intervening years since Clarivate assumed ownership of the WoS Core Collection, they improved the transparency of their evaluation process and requirements by publishing them online (Figure 1). Now, when the first formal application is submitted for WoS coverage, journals are checked against 28 criteria, divided into three stages. Journals that meet the 24 Quality Criteria will be accepted for coverage in the ESCI. Journals that meet the four Impact Criteria will be indexed in the flagship indexes and it is rare to achieve this on the first application. Two years ago, the WoS editorial team introduced a new evaluation cycle, whereby ESCI journals that are comparable to journals performing the top 50% of the journal's subject category are re‐evaluated for promotion to the flagship indexes in the latter part of the calendar year.

FIGURE 1

Diagram of the evaluation process and requirements for inclusion in ESCI and JCR indices. Data from Web of Science, provided by Clarivate. Web of Science and Clarivate are trademarks of their respective owners and used herein with permission

What does this mean for RPTH? We must remember that the JIF is a lagging indicator ; the denominator of the JIF calculation released in June 2020 is informed by only those articles published in 2018 and 2019, which, for RPTH, comprise only its 2nd and 3rd volume years of publication. It is extremely rare for any journal, let alone a gold open access journal that requires payment of an article processing charge, to be in a position after its second year of publication to compete with established traditional subscription journals in terms of citation counts and article impact. It takes time for journals to establish their identities and for the communities that ultimately define and sustain them to inform and differentiate them among their established peer journals. This incubation period can feel like it moves glacially—especially for those most invested (e.g., editorial leadership, supportive authors and reviewers, and society leaders) because the JIF imparts a perceived legitimacy among the general research community that cannot otherwise be substituted via any other means. However, this period does provide opportunities for experimentation and innovation, and RPTH has taken advantage of this via a variety of initiatives including by making a concerted effort to focus on diversity and inclusion as a core component of its mission , and by re‐envisioning articles in terms of their content and format.

One such innovation was the introduction of the Illustrated Review article type in 2018, led by associate editor Alisa Wolberg. Illustrated Reviews are meant to enhance scientific communication and learning by using succinct illustrated capsules that provide a format that potentially could improve retention and understanding of the complex concepts. As it turns out, these reviews have also played a role in establishing RPTH’s impact as measured by citations received. Two of the four top‐cited articles published in 2019 were Illustrated Reviews. , So, what was conceived as an experimental format aimed intuitively at improving the effectiveness of scholarly communication, has rapidly been embraced by the research community (based on number of citations received). In turn, this has raised the perceived impact of RPTH.

Overall, the trajectory of RPTH in terms of impact, as measured by both article output and the number of citations received, has shown a very steady ascension since the journal's launch in 2017. As Figure 2 shows, accepted submissions to the journal have grown each year, which shows a growing author base whose expectations for publication align with what RPTH offers through attributes like its open access status, its high level of engagement on social media channels, and its emphasis on providing a swift and thoughtful peer review and publication process. Figure 2 also shows that the quality of the content being published in the journal, as measured by the number of citations received, has experienced healthy growth in the years since launch—especially in terms of in‐window citations, which are those that would contribute to the journal's JIF if it were eligible to receive one.

FIGURE 2

RPTH total articles published, and total in‐window citations received by year, 2017–2020. Note, launch in 2017 was in July. In‐window citations are those that would, per protocol of a JIF calculation, count toward a journal's JIF. For example, the value for 2020 indicates citations to articles from 2018 and 2019. Data from Web of Science, provided by Clarivate. Web of Science and Clarivate are trademarks of their respective owners and used herein with permission

While some love the JIF and others hate it – or both – it's here to stay. Though RPTH is unable to influence the timing of receiving an initial JIF, novel initiatives, and the hard work of the editorial leadership team and peer reviewers who give their valuable time to support the journal, have put RPTH in strong position in terms of reach and impact. Of course, the trust authors have placed in the journal forms the basis of its early success, and we are truly grateful for this.

RELATIONSHIP DISCLOSURE

Dr. Cushman is Editor in Chief of RPTH. Mr. Coughlin is employed by Wiley.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Coughlin and Dr. Cushman cowrote the article and approved the final version.