In academia, publishing articles showcases expertise and credibility. Journals with high impact factors signal significance in the field. Understanding how to gauge a journal’s impact can enhance your publication strategy. Impact factor, a key metric, reflects a journal’s influence over time. Calculating it involves dividing the number of citations by the total articles published. Assessing personal impact also matters, considering citations to your own work. This article explores the significance, methodology, and implications of impact factors, empowering academics and professionals to navigate the publishing landscape strategically and enhance their scholarly footprint.
The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) of an academic journal is a scientometric index calculated by Clarivate that reflects the yearly mean number of citations of articles published in the last two years in a given journal, as indexed by Clarivate’s Web of Science.
As a journal-level metric, it is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field; journals with higher impact factor values are given the status of being more important, or carry more prestige in their respective fields, than those with lower values.
While frequently used by universities and funding bodies to decide on promotion and research proposals, it has been criticised for distorting good scientific practices [1-3].
Why is the impact factor important?
Impact factor, an index based on the frequency with which a journal’s articles are cited in scientific publications, is a putative marker of journal quality [4]. A journal’s impact factor holds immense sway over funding, submissions, and the reputation of publishers and academics. Upholding publication quality not only boosts citation rates but also enhances a journal’s ranking. High impact factor journals signal meticulous management and prestige, fostering a virtuous cycle of scholarly engagement and recognition.
How to calculate the journal impact factor?
Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is calculated by Clarivate Analytics as the average of the sum of the citations received in a given year to a journal’s previous two years of publications (linked to the journal, but not necessarily to specific publications) divided by the sum of “citable” publications in the previous two years [5].
The calculation is based on a two-year period and involves dividing the number of times articles were cited by the number of articles that are citable.
Calculation of 2010 IF of a journal:
A = the number of times articles published in 2008 and 2009 were cited by indexed journals during 2010. B = the total number of “citable items” published in 2008 and 2009. A/B = 2010 impact factor
The Impact Factor is reported in Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
CiteScore, which is similar to the IF but is based on a 4-year period.
Impact Factor Controversy
The impact factor (IF), widely used in academia, has sparked debate due to its limitations. It quantifies a journal’s influence based on citations received by its articles within a specific time frame (usually two years). However, critics argue that it oversimplifies research quality and favors certain fields [6]. Indeed, the fact that it is simple to understand – it is roughly the average number of citations that primary research papers published in two consecutive years gather in the following year – makes it all too easy to point out its shortcomings: the metric also includes citations to non-primary content (such as reviews and news articles); for many fields, citations accumulate slowly and thus the two-year time window seems too short; and the average number of citations per paper can be skewed by a few highly cited ones, of which high-impact journals have a big share [7]. Furthermore, a recent study found that papers published in predatory journals, which often lack rigorous peer review, have little scientific impact. Around 60% of these papers hadn’t attracted any citations at all, and less than 3% received more than 10 citations [8]. As we rethink science publishing, there’s a growing need for a broader, more-transparent suite of metrics to judge journals beyond the traditional impact factor [9]. Researchers and institutions should consider these complexities when evaluating scholarly work and avoid relying solely on impact factors for assessing journal quality.
Recent Biggest Discoveries and advances in Oncology Research (2024)
Test to Identify 18 Early-Stage Cancers: Researchers in the US have developed a test that can identify 18 early-stage cancers. Unlike traditional invasive methods, this test analyzes a patient’s blood protein. In a screening of 440 people already diagnosed with cancer, the test correctly identified 93% of stage 1 cancers in men and 84% in women. While it’s still early days, this finding could pave the way for a cost-effective, highly accurate, multi-cancer screening test that can be implemented on a population-wide scale [10].
Seven-Minute Cancer Treatment Jab: England’s National Health Service (NHS) is leading the way by using a cancer treatment injection that takes just seven minutes to administer. This is a significant improvement over the current hour-long intravenous infusion process. The drug, called Atezolizumab or Tecentriq, treats cancers including lung and breast. By speeding up the treatment process, it not only benefits patients but also frees up valuable time for medical professionals [10].
PEACE Study and Formaldehyde Reduction: Results from the PEACE study revealed how some skin cancers stop responding to treatment at the end of life. Additionally, researchers in Oxford and Cambridge found that lowering the amount of formaldehyde in our cells might reduce the risk of blood cancers [11].
Senescent Cell Removal to Prevent Lung Cancers: Another team discovered that removing cells called senescent cells could prevent some lung cancers. These exciting developments are contributing to our understanding of cancer and improving treatment options [11].
Advances in Cancer Vaccines: Experts predict that in 2024, there will be developments in targeting shared neoantigens, treating diverse tumor types, combining vaccines with other immunotherapies, and evaluating cancer vaccines in large, industry-sponsored phase II clinical trials [12].
References
Waltman L, Traag VA (1 March 2021). “Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: Statistically flawed or not?”. F1000Research. 9: 366. doi:10.12688/f1000research.23418.2
Curry S (February 2018). “Let’s move beyond the rhetoric: it’s time to change how we judge research”. Nature. 554 (7691): 147. Bibcode:2018Natur.554..147C. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-01642-w
Hutchins, BI; Yuan, X; Anderson, JM; Santangelo, GM (September 2016). “Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level”. PLOS Biology. 14 (9): e1002541. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541
Saha S, Saint S, Christakis DA. Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? J Med Libr Assoc. 2003 Jan;91(1):42-6. PMID: 12572533; PMCID: PMC141186.
Wouters, P., Sugimoto, C. R., Larivière, V., McVeigh, M. E., Pulverer, B., de Rijcke, S., & Waltman, L. (2019). Rethinking impact factors: better ways to judge a journal. Nature, 569(7758), 621-623. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01643-3
Bergsma EJ, Elgawly M, Mancuso D, Orr R, Vuskovich T, Seligson ND. Atezolizumab as the First Systemic Therapy Approved for Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2024;58(4):407-415. doi:10.1177/10600280231187421
Jha, S. K., De Rubis, G., Devkota, S. R., Zhang, Y., Adhikari, R., Jha, L. A., … & Paudel, K. R. (2024). Cellular Senescence in Lung Cancer: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Interventions. Ageing Research Reviews, 102315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2024.102315
Li, X., You, J., Hong, L., Liu, W., Guo, P., & Hao, X. (2024). Neoantigen cancer vaccines: a new star on the horizon. Cancer Biology & Medicine, 21(4), 274. https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2023.0395
“Thank you for the quality and fast professional service.”
Prof. Dr. Sc. Natasa Stambuk Cvitanovic
Croatia, [Mail Date: 16-October-2024]
“Thank you so much for your editing work”
Dr. Yening Zhang
China, [Mail Date: 25-January-2024]
“I am writing this email to sincerely appreciate the exceptional work you and your team have done on our manuscript. Kindly pass on our gratitude to every member of your team for their remarkable efforts. Rest assured, we will definitely be seeking your team’s expertise again in the future.” (English Academic Editing Service)
Prof. Dr. Sherif Saad
Canada., [Mail Date: 12-September-2023]
“Many thanks for the reviewing and the kind comments of the reviewer” (English Academic Editing Service)
Dr. Dominique Misselyn
Belgium., [Mail Date: 18-March-2023]
“Many thanks for your excellent service” (English Academic Editing Service)
