Impact factor and its role in academic promotion

Does the journal impact factor predict individual article citation rate in otolaryngology journals?

ObjectiveCitation skew is a phenomenon that refers to the unequal citation distribution of articles in a journal. The objective of this study was to establish whether citation skew exists in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) journals and to elucidate whether journal impact factor (JIF) was an accurate indicator of citation rate of individual articles.MethodsJournals in the field of OHNS were identified using Journal Citation Reports. After extraction of the number of citations in 2020 for all primary research articles and review articles published in 2018 and 2019, a detailed citation analysis was performed to determine citation distribution. The main outcome of this study was to establish whether citation skew exists within OHNS literature and whether JIF was an accurate prediction of individual article citation rate.ResultsThirty-one OHNS journals were identified. Citation skew was prevalent across OHNS literature with 65% of publications achieving citation rates below the JIF. Furthermore, 48% of publications gathered either zero or one citation. The mean and median citations for review articles, 3.66 and 2, respectively, were higher than the mean and median number of citations for primary research articles, 1 and 2.35, respectively (P < .001). A statistically significant correlation was found between citation rate and JIF (r = 0.394, P = 0.028).ConclusionsThe current results demonstrate a citation skew among OHNS journals, which is in keeping with findings from other surgical subspecialties. The majority of publications did not achieve citation rates equal to the JIF. Thus, the JIF should not be used to measure the quality of individual articles. Otolaryngologists should assess the quality of research through the use of other metrics, such as the evaluation of sound scientific methodology, and the relevance of the articles.

Academic Promotion of Physicians in Medical Schools: A Special Focus on Primary Health Care in Taiwan

The quality and quantity of papers published in journals play a crucial role in achieving an academic promotion in medical schools. Reports on the criteria for promotion and their impact on different specialties, especially on primary health care, which has low research output, are rare. We investigated the scoring systems generally adopted for academic promotion at most medical schools in Taiwan. The weighted scores were derived from the multiplication of weights from categories of paper, journal impact factor, or ranking in a certain category by impact factor, and author order. To determine the thresholds of papers required for different levels of promotion, we took papers in the highest- or lowest-ranked journals in the primary health care category in 2019 Journal Citation Reports as examples. Considering publications in the highest-ranked journals, a median of 4.6 first or corresponding author papers were required for a professorship, as well as 3.3 for an associate professorship, and 2.5 for an assistant professorship. In contrast, a median of 30, 20, and 13.5 papers in the lowest-ranked journals was required for the corresponding positions. Thus, academic promotions for primary health care educators in Taiwan are highly demanding. The detrimental effects of scoring systems deserve further research.

Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania

Numerous essays have addressed the misuse of the journal impact factor for judging the value of science, but the practice continues, primarily as a result of the actions of scientists themselves. This seemingly irrational behavior is referred to as “impact factor mania.” Although the literature on the impact factor is extensive, little has been written on the underlying causes of impact factor mania. In this perspective, we consider the reasons for the persistence of impact factor mania and its pernicious effects on science. We conclude that impact factor mania persists because it confers significant benefits to individual scientists and journals. Impact factor mania is a variation of the economic theory known as the “tragedy of the commons,” in which scientists act rationally in their own self-interests despite the detrimental consequences of their actions on the overall scientific enterprise. Various measures to reduce the influence of the impact factor are considered.

Science and scientists are currently afflicted by an epidemic of mania manifested by associating the value of research with the journal where the work is published rather than the content of the work itself. The mania is causing profound distortions in the way science is done that are deleterious to the overall scientific enterprise. In this essay, we consider the forces responsible for the persistence of the mania and conclude that it is maintained because it disproportionately benefits elements of the scientific enterprise, including certain well-established scientists, journals, and administrative interests. Our essay suggests steps that can be taken to deal with this debilitating and destructive epidemic.

Secular trends in impact factor of breastfeeding research publications over a 20-year period

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study was to determine whether secular changes have occurred in the breastfeeding literature, in terms of number and type of yearly published articles and impact factor of journals publishing these articles.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND SETTING

In order to evaluate all Medline articles related to breastfeeding, we used the Internet URL www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez and searched for articles recorded from January 1, 1992 through December 31, 2011 using as a key word "breast milk," "breast feeding," or "human milk." We specifically studied randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinical trials, case reports, meta-analyses, letters to the editor, reviews, systematic reviews, practice guidelines, and editorials.

RESULTS

There was a linear increase over the years in all articles recorded, from approximately 1,100/year in 1992 to 2,100/year in 2011 (i.e., an approximately 1.9-fold increase [R(2)=0.995, p=0.001]). Concomitant with the yearly increase in the number of published RCTs per year, there was a linear increase in the number of journals publishing articles on breastfeeding per year (from approximately 20 in 1992 to >60 in 2011 [R(2)=0.811, p<0.001]) but an overall decrease in the average impact factor every year (R(2)=0.202, p=0.047). However, the ratio of high-quality articles selected (RCTs+meta-analyses+systematic reviews+CR)/low-quality articles (reviews+editorials+letters to the editor+case reports) increased significantly over time in favor of the former.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a linear increase in the number of publications related to the field of breastfeeding and human milk, and the ratio of high-quality/low-quality articles improved over time, indicating a relative and absolute increase in the number of articles usually considered as being of high quality. There was a significant increase in the number of journals publishing breastfeeding-related articles, with a significant decrease of average impact factor of those journals.