The yearly editorial is often an opportunity to reflect on the previous year of the journal's life and to look forward to the coming year. You will often read of most cited papers, impact factors and other arguably useful metrics. This editorial will be no exception and we will dive into the shallow pool of metrics in a moment. However, I would like to first reflect on the current obsession with metrics, in particular the misuse of such metrics in evaluating science and scientists. How do you know a dog is happy? It is wagging its tail. And so, if we particularly care about the happiness of our dog should we then proceed to forcefully wag its tail? In this context it seems silly and yet, this is the very same error in logic committed by numerous funding bodies that require papers to be published in journals of a minimum impact factor. The famous painting commonly referred to as “Ceci n'est pas une pipe”[1] by Belgian painter René Magritte is often cited as an example of a metamessage. The basic idea is that we shouldn't confuse the map for the territory. This is an apt description of the current problem with metrics, in particular the infamous Impact Factor, in that we too often confuse the quality of a journal with its various citation metrics. Now don't get me wrong, I am not about to argue that citation metrics do not matter—they do. We are indeed quite happy with the first full impact factor received by Advanced Electronic Materials in 2018.[2] My point is simply that a journal editorial policies should not be geared towards obtaining a high impact factor. They should instead be laser-focused on quality and publishing the best possible research one can. They also should stay away from impact factor engineering and not just for the obvious consequences that come with engaging in that sort of thing,[3] but because in doing so a journal fails in its principle mission to communicate the best research to its target audience. One obvious engineering attempt we tried to stear clear from is the over-reliance on Review Articles which is endemic in recent journals. While we believe there is a time and place for a good review (see, for example the excellent progress report by our newest board member, Prof. Mario Lanza in Table 1), only 3% of the content published by Advanced Electronic Materials consists of reviews. With the safety warning out of the way, how is Advanced Electronic Materials doing? Quite well. Our first full impact factor is above 5, our submission numbers are increasing rapidly, and we continue to publish the top researchers in our field. After five years, the journal is a success and is showing every sign to continue growing and improving. As one measure among many we looked this year at the geographical origins of papers we published (Figure 1) so far, as well as the publication year of the most viewed articles of 2018 (Figure 2). The first metric is a nice confirmation that the journal has published the latest relevant developments in the field. The second measure is quite important for an international journal and should track the general geographical make up of the field. It is crucial to remark here that we do not try to publish papers from certain origins more than from others. The single guiding principle the editors of Advanced Electronic Materials has been and always will be excellence. It is reassuring to see clearly that even in the age of metrics, that is still a sufficient as well as necessary condition to create a high-quality journal. Figure 1. Publication year of the 25 most-viewed articles of 2018. Figure 2. Geographical origin of articles published 2014–2018. Figure 3. The editors of Advanced Electronic Materials 2014–2018. Some of the articles of note published this year can be found in Table 1. This is not a selection based on some sort of metric but a selection by this editor. Finally, the identity of a journal is above all embodied in its editors. In the last five years Advanced Electronic Materials has had an embarrassment of riches in that area, from its founding editor Dr. Novo da Silva, to all the team members since (Figure 3), all have contributed to the success of the journal. I look forward to continue leading this journal and its excellent team of editors over the next crucial years. Hakim Meskine Editor-in-Chief [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The Treachery of_Images. [2] If you care that much, you can easily google it. [3] http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/JCRGroup/titleSuppressions.html (accessed: November 2018).
Read full abstract
Feb 27, 2019
Li Zhang + 3
Open Access