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.
What is Impact factor?
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 Hematology (2024)
ACUTE LEUKEMIAS AND MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROMES:
No Benefit of Routine Thromboprophylaxis for Children with ALL (January 2024): A multicenter randomized trial involving over 500 children and adolescents with newly diagnosed pre-B or T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) found that routine thromboprophylaxis with apixaban did not significantly reduce the risk of thrombotic complications. The rates of symptomatic venous thrombosis were similar between the apixaban group and standard care alone, although nonmajor bleeding episodes occurred more frequently in the apixaban group [10].
CHRONIC LEUKEMIAS AND MYELOPROLIFERATIVE NEOPLASMS:
Rusfertide for Reducing Therapeutic Phlebotomy in Polycythemia Vera (February 2024): In patients with polycythemia vera (PV), maintaining hematocrit levels below 45 percent is crucial. A small placebo-controlled randomized trial demonstrated that rusfertide, an injectable hepcidin mimic, effectively controlled erythrocytosis, eliminated the need for therapeutic phlebotomy, and caused only minor injection site reactions. Although not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, rusfertide shows promise for managing erythrocytosis in PV patients [11].
Ibrutinib Plus Venetoclax in Previously Untreated CLL/SLL (December 2023): Two recent studies in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) showed that ibrutinib plus venetoclax improved progression-free and overall survival compared to chemoimmunotherapy. The combination therapy had acceptable toxicity, and the duration of therapy varied based on measurable residual disease assessments [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
O’Brien, S. H., Rodriguez, V., Lew, G., Newburger, J. W., Schultz, C. L., Orgel, E., … & Mitchell, L. G. (2024). Apixaban versus no anticoagulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in children with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukaemia or lymphoma (PREVAPIX-ALL): a phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. The Lancet Haematology, 11(1), e27-e37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(23)00314-9
Kremyanskaya, M., Kuykendall, A. T., Pemmaraju, N., Ritchie, E. K., Gotlib, J., Gerds, A., … & Hoffman, R. (2024). Rusfertide, a Hepcidin Mimetic, for Control of Erythrocytosis in Polycythemia Vera. New England Journal of Medicine, 390(8), 723-735. https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2308809
Niemann, C. U., Munir, T., Moreno, C., Owen, C., Follows, G. A., Benjamini, O., … & Kater, A. P. (2023). Fixed-duration ibrutinib–venetoclax versus chlorambucil–obinutuzumab in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (GLOW): 4-year follow-up from a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology, 24(12), 1423-1433. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00452-7
“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)
