Table 2.

Journal Editors' attitudes to the impact factor: illustrative quotes from interviews

EDITORS' ATTITUDES

Mixed feelings

`Having our IF go up is a measure of success—having articles more people want to read.'

`It gives some indication of [quality] even if it is imperfect, like democracy.'

`I have a mild attraction-hate relationship with the IF... I wouldn't mourn it if it died!'

Concerns about emphasis on IFs in academia

`The IF is attractive to authors as they are judged by the IF of journals in which they publish.'

`Researchers do use it because they want their research cited and the IF tallied into grant applications, although not in a codified fashion, and for academic promotion.'

`Using IF as a surrogate for the impact of journals is illogical. Its inventor [Eugene Garfield] would agree if the whole research enterprise were driven by the IF, which tends to favour basic science papers, there would be more molecular biology, less health sciences research... the IF should be a general guide to judgement although its three decimal points make people think it has a precision that it doesn't have.'

Concerns that IFs don't mean much to clinicians

`The IF is only one of many ways to judge a publication. The IF measures how well the journal is used to help researchers, not doctors, communicate... I've found little correlation between articles that changed the world and number of citations to them...'

`What may be important to practising physicians may have no impact on IF.'

`Most clinicians are not concerned by IF, so if we got too concerned about it, our relationship with them would dwindle.'

`The good of medicine and the good of public health are badly damaged by the IF culture because it stops journals accurately reflecting the burden of disease priorities—an issue of economics and perverse incentives: to be successful in getting a message across, you have to be read by the rich—hence the IF.'

`I tried to grow IF and personally went after it, but then became worried that this would change the nature of the journal and focus from doctors to researchers... I feel very strongly that we can give readers what they want to know and want to read; i.e. aim for the middle ground with a mix from the top down and the bottom up.'