Most scientists would prefer to be second author on a paper published in a high impact journal than be first author on a paper published in a low impact journal
When it comes time to publish their research, scientists and physicians would gladly sacrifice the limelight in order to share in the glory of a premier publication.
In a recent opinion poll by the Science Advisory Board, 72% of the 1982 respondents stated that they would prefer to be second author on a paper published in a high impact journal than be first author on a paper published in a low impact journal.
Impact factors have been assessed and published regularly since 1961 by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), and reflect the frequency with which a typical article has been cited during a particular year. The impact factor is considered an estimate of the citation rate of a journal's papers, and the higher its value, the greater the scientific esteem of the journal.
Although originally intended to measure a journal's quality, it is also used to assess the quality of individual papers, researchers and departments.
"I believe that this overwhelming emphasis on valuing a journal's perceived prestige is the direct result of the fact that impact factors are being used to help evaluate academic performance and decide funding allocations," claims Tamara Zemlo, director of the Science Advisory Board.
Today, the impact factor also provides librarians with a tool for managing their extensive periodical collections as well publishers with a means to evaluate the performance of their journals.
Data from ISI impact factor ratings can also be used to examine such trends as which are the most highly cited papers and authors and which laboratories appear to be the most productive.
Despite vigorous criticisms over the inherent fairness of such a measure (eg, review articles are cited more often than original research, the number of journals in the ISI database is limited compared to all the journals which are published, self-citations are not taken into account, errors are commonplace in reference lists, etc), it is strikingly evident from this poll that the majority of biomedical professionals believe a journal's impact factor is an essential consideration when building their body of work.
