Abstract
Purpose
1b investigate the views of North American and European anesthesiologists on the value of the impact factor (IF).
Method
Four hundred thirty-eight anesthesiologists in Canada, the United States of America (USA), and Europe were polled about the importance of the IF regarding hiring, promotions, funding of research and to express their personal views.
Results
IF of a candidate’s publications is a criterion in 38% of academic appointments in Canada and USA vs 81% in Europe (P < 0.000l). The importance of IF to obtain funding is greater in Europe (46%) than in North America (17%) (P < 0.0001). Twenty-three percent and 50% of Canadian and American anesthesiologists respectively believe that IF affects financial support (P = 0.0389). European anesthesiologists value the IF more than the North Americans (67% vs 31%,P < 0.000l). Forty-five percent, 67%, and 56% of the Canadian, American and European anesthesiologists respectively estimate that IF reflects journal quality. Sixty-four percent of anesthesiologists in North America vs 81 % in Europe (P = 0.0175) pursue to publish in high IF journals. Eighty-six percent, 85% and 90% of the Canadian, American and European anesthesiologists believe that the IF of ajournai can be manipulated. Finally, 79%, 67%, and 81% of the Canadian, American, and European anesthesiologists believe that IF should be improved but 33%, 35%, and 30% believe that it should be abandoned.
Conclusions
IF for academic appointments and funding is more important in Europe than in North America. More than 50% of anesthesiologists agree that IF needs to be improved.
Objectif
Obtenir l’opinion des anesthésiologistes nord-américains et européens sur la valeur du facteur d’impact (FI).
Méthode
Quatre cent trente-huit anesthésiologistes du Canada, des États-Unis et d’Europe ont répondu á un sondage sur l’importance du FI en regard de l’embauche, des promotions, du financement de la recherche et de leurs opinions personnelles.
Résultats
Le FI des publications d’un candidat sert de critère dans 38 % des nominations au Canada et aux É-Uvs 81 % en Europe (P < 0,0001). L’importance du FI pour l’obtention de financement est plus marquée en Europe (46 %) quén Amérique du Nord (17 %) (P < 0,0001). Vingt-trois pour cent et 50 % des anesthésiologistes canadiens et américains, respectivement, croient que le FI influence le soutien financier (P = 0,0389). Les anesthésiologistes européens accordent plus de valeur au FI que les nord-américains (67 %vs 31 %,P < 0,0001). Quarante-cinq pour cent, 67 % et 56 % des anesthésiologistes canadiens, américains et européens, respectivement, estiment que le FI reflète la qualité de la revue. Soixante-quatre pour cent des anesthésiologistes d’Amérique du Nordvs 81 % d’Europe (P = 0,0175) cherchent á publier dans des revues á FI important. Quatrevingt-six pour cent, 85 % et 90 % des anesthésiologistes canadiens, américains et européens croient que le FI d’une revue peut être manipulée. Enfin, 79 %, 67 % et 81 % des anesthésiologistes canadiens, américains et européens pensent que le FI devrait être amélioré, mais 33 %, 35 % et 30 % voudraient qu’on l’abandonne.
Conclusions
Le FI est plus important en Europe quén Amérique du Nord quant aux nominations universitaires et au financement de la recherche. Plus de 50 % des anesthésiologistes pensent que le FI devrait être amélioré.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Science Citation Index, Journal Citation Reports, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: 1998.
Fassoulaki A, Paraskeva A, Papilas K, Karabinis G. Self-citations in six anaesthesia journals and their significance in determining the impact factor. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 266–9.
Smith R. Journal accused of manipulating impact factor. BMJ 1997; 314: 463.
Smith G. Impact factors in anaesthesia journals (Editorial). Br J Anaesth 1996; 76: 753–4.
Hansson S. Impact factor as a misleading tool in evaluation of medical journal (Letter). Lancet 1995; 346: 906.
Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997; 314: 498–502.
Smith R. Unscientific practice flourishes in science. Impact factor of journals should not be used in research assessment (Editorial). BMJ 1998; 316: 1036–40.
Brody S. Impact factor as the best operational measure of medical journals (Letter). Lancet 1995; 346: 1300–1.
Harder DR. Impact factors and the competitive nature of journal publishing (Editorial). Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2000; 279: H457.
Seglen PO. Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact. J Am Soc Inform Sci 1994; 45: 1–11.
Gisvold S-E. Citation analysis and journal impact factors — is the tail wagging the dog? (Editorial). Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1999; 43: 971–3.
Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved? BMJ 1996; 313:411–3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fassoulaki, A., Sarantopoulos, C., Papilas, K. et al. Academic anesthesiologists’ views on the importance of the impact factor of scientific journals: a North American and European survey. Can J Anaesth 48, 953–957 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03016583
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03016583