Well, I've been avoiding the topic, but finally the time has come to talk about impact factors. Before we start, I want you to picture your humble Hitchhiker's Guide to the Literature correspondent. He is sitting in the JPCH editorial offices. If you choose, you may assume that these offices occupy the entire top floor of a waterfront skyscraper. Sweeping Sydney Harbour views, soft leather couches and the dulcet tones of the in-house string quartet all work together to aid the concentration of the journal's staff, in general, and your intrepid reviewer, in particular. Got that mental picture firmly in mind? Stick with me, this is going somewhere, I promise. Well, here at the journal (yes, thank you, I will have another chocolate truffle), as you can easily imagine, we are above such irrelevancies as impact factors. We have other, loftier yardsticks by which we measure ourselves. But sadly, many journals live or die by their impact factors. The higher the impact factor, the greater the prestige. If your impact factor is high, authors will send their best papers to you, desperate to be published in your pages. If it is low, papers will come limping to you, tattered and bleeding, only after rejection by several other journals (no, I had a foot massage earlier, thanks). Publishing the best papers raises your impact factor, publishing poor ones lowers it. This virtuous or vicious cycle (depending on where you stand in the rankings) is a huge force in modern medical publishing, moving advertising dollars and shaping editorial policy. What is the impact factor and how is it calculated? The full answer lies in the realm of the occult (a small glass, perhaps … wait, what year is it? The '94?), but in brief, this is a measure of how many times other authors cite papers published in a journal, divided by the total number of papers published by that journal. If you look at the top 20 journals as listed by impact factor, some interesting patterns emerge. Firstly, fully 10 of the 20 (including the ‘top’ journal, Ca – A Cancer Journal for Clinicians) publish only review articles, consensus statements and the like, which tend to attract more citations than original research. Some of them publish very few papers, making the denominator for calculating the impact factor smaller. Eight of the 20 are Nature journals (not all Nature Reviews journals). That leaves only half a dozen independent journals in that stratospheric realm which publish original research. One of them is Cell. What is it like? I haven't a clue. I tried to read an issue, on your behalf, but I could not understand a word of it. Sample article title: ‘The ATAC acetyltransferase complex coordinates MAP kinases to regulate JNK target genes’ Scientific importance: ***** General interest to paediatricians: *****