Neutralizing the Impact Factor Culture

Abstract

In the letter “Painful publishing” by M. Raff et al. (4 July, p. [36][1]) and in the accompanying Editorial “Reviewing peer review” by B. Alberts et al. (4 July, p. [15][2]), the authors succinctly outline the pressure being felt by both junior and senior scientists to publish in highprofile journals. Although not defined by the authors, high-profile journals are generally identified by and have become synonymous with Thomson high-impact factor scores. A common, but deeply flawed, practice has been to equate the importance and quality of a paper with the impact factor score of the journal in which it is published. In many cases, decisions on obtaining jobs, seeking tenure and receiving promotions and grants are being based on the impact factor of the journals in which an individual publishes. This creates enormous pressure to publish in high-impact factor journals. This situation has become so extreme that in some institutions the impact factor of each published paper in a scientist's bibliography is being requested and/or checked, junior scientists have become reluctant to initiate experiments that may not lead to publication in high-impact factor journals, and candidates for certain positions are being told that their chances are slim if they don't have papers in Science , Nature , or the like. As a result, many scientists are now more concerned about building high-impact factor bibliographies than their science. The adverse effects of the impact factor culture must be reversed before more damage is done to the orderly process of scientific discovery. Although there may be no way of stopping computer-generated evaluation of journals and published papers, the scientific community certainly can control its use. To accomplish this, several concrete steps should be taken. First, each institution should make it clear, in a written statement, that it will not use the impact factor or the like to evaluate the contributions and accomplishments of its staff. Second, the heads of laboratories should prepare similar written statements and in addition discuss in depth with their fellows the importance of solid step-by-step science. Third, the editors of journals published by professional societies, joined by as many other journal editors as are willing, should indicate that they will not advertise, massage, or even state the impact factor score of their respective journals. By means such as these, it might be possible to put science back on the right track. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.321.5885.36a [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1162115