956
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIA
ing (4.5%). Some of the reported disadvantages were:
the IF is biased (10%), is not a measure of quality (11%),
lacks general recognition or general acceptance (0.5%),
is self-perpetuating (7%), is subject to manipulation
departments, program directors etc, they had been inter-
viewed in the past on several occasions and, most likely,
had participated in committees appointing anesthesiolo-
gists in academic departments. As researchers, they were
also familiar with criteria for making funding decisions.
The view that the IF reflects journal quality is sim-
ilar and widely accepted among anesthesiologists in
North America and Europe. However, Europeans are
much more eager to publish in high IF journals. In
general, anesthesiologists believe that the IF of a jour-
nal may be favoured by policies of the journal itself.
The editor of the journal “Leukemia” has been
accused of asking the authors submitting a manuscript
to include more articles published in “Leukemia” in
(
7%), and favours English language journals (16%), spe-
cific scientific fields or specialties (24%).
Discussion
Appointments and promotions
The low response rate from American compared to
Canadian and European anesthesiologists suggests
either that Americans are less familiar with the IF or
that it is less important in making rank and tenure
decisions. Indeed, our results demonstrate that the
importance of the IF for a scientist’s appointment or
promotion is much greater in Europe than in North
America. We have chosen to question only anesthesi-
ologists because, as anesthesiologists, we read and
publish mostly in anesthesia journals which, in gener-
al, belong to the category of low IF journals. This may
affect appointments and funding competition for
anesthesiologists.
3
their reference list.
It has been shown that a high self-citation rate may
positively influence the IF of the leading anesthesia
journals. An appropriate correction by eliminating
2
self-citations has been proposed. However, although
2
self-citations may affect the IF of some journals, they
do not determine the IF of high impact journals.
The most frequently reported advantages of the IF
are that it is an indication of quality and allows com-
parisons between journals. Its most frequently report-
ed disadvantages are that the IF favours English
language journals, and that it is specialty specific and
highly influenced by the scientific discipline. Despite
It is important to realize that a journal’s IF does
not represent the citation rate of individual articles.
On the opposite, it is the article citation rate that
determines the journal’s IF. A journal has a high IF
10
because it publishes articles with a high citation rate.
2–7,11
Therefore, it might be more appropriate for individu-
als and research groups to be assessed primarily by the
number of citations of their articles rather than by the
IF of the journals where their work is published.
its disadvantages and flaws
only a relatively low
percentage of North American and European
Anesthesiologists believes that it should be aban-
doned. On the contrary, the majority believes that IF
should be “kept alive” but needs to be improved.
Responses to our survey do not agree with pub-
lished articles on the subject, the great majority of
which are strongly opposed to the IF. Despite all the
published limitations of the IF, high impact journals
and their editors continue to attract the best manu-
Funding
The same applies to some degree to departmental
funding. Though it is generally believed that the IF is
11
used to direct financial support for research, our
results show this may be true only to a limited extent
in North America. The degree to which the IF will
direct funding towards different scientific fields
appears to be more important in Canada and in
Europe than in the USA. Rapidly developing research
fields will increase the IF and, most likely, receive
more funding. Also, articles in basic science journals
are frequently cited by clinical medicine journals but
not vice versa. However, the inter-field IF differences
can be normalized somewhat so that the differences
are attenuated while the ranking of the different fields
is maintained.
12
scripts. This is confirmed by the high percentage of
North Americans and very high percentage of
Europeans who answered that they seek to publish
their work in high impact journals.
Our results suggest that the IF, although originat-
ing from the USA, is used more by Europeans despite
its inherent limitations. Academic anesthesiologists
believe that it should be improved upon or replaced
by a better index. Until a “new and improved” index
of quality of scientific journals becomes available,
anesthesiologists should be well aware of the limita-
tions of the IF, as we know it today.
Personal views
We believe most anesthesiologists who answered the
questionnaire were familiar with how the IF impacts
appointments and funding. In their position as heads of
References
1 Science Citation Index, Journal Citation Reports,
Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia,