© 2004 American Thoracic Society
Impact Factor as Measure of Scientific QualityTo the Editor:We read with interest your recent editorial on impact factor (1). As you outlined, editors are attentive to problems related to the impact factor of their journal. Speaking on behalf of the editorial office of Sarcoidosis, Vasculitis, and Diffuse Lung Diseases (SVDLD), we were a bit surprised at not seeing our journal included in Figure 2 of your editorial (1), which showed the impact factors of journals listed in the respiratory system category as ranked by the Institute for Scientific Information (2). Although SVDLD does not encompass the spectrum of all respiratory system and critical care medicine, our journal provides an interesting choice for publication in the area of interstitial lung disease. Our opinion is reinforced by the growing interest of members of the pneumology community who, by publishing outstanding articles in our journal, have caused our impact factor to grow impressively in only a few years. In 2002, the impact factor of SVDLD was 2.83, just a notch below that of Chest (2.97) and European Respiratory Journal (2.93). More importantly, the increase in impact factor of SVDLD is very similar to that of AJRCCM (see Figure 1) , and it has increased by approximately 100% since 1998.
Aside from the above consideration, our feelings on the value of impact factor are entirely consistent with the ideas presented in your editorial (1, 3). People display two lines of thinking on this subject: some strongly support the value of impact factor (we belong to this group), and others are very critical of the measurement (4, 5). We admit, however, that there are disadvantages to the use of the impact factor, although these are linked to inappropriate use of this bibliographic parameter rather than to an intrinsic defect in the parameter (4). The first problem relates to the transposition of the use of the impact factor from the evaluation of a journal to the rating of authors. Also, in the case of academic evaluation, especially when rank of a journal is being used in deciding the appropriateness of promoting an individual or the awarding a grant, it is sometimes inappropriate to compare authors working in different areas through use of the simple "numbers" of impact factor. Nevertheless, two points are undeniable: the most quoted journals are those that are most widely read and distributed, and a low or high international rating can be the difference between success and failure of a journal. All authors have experienced increased difficulty in being accepted by journals with the highest impact factor because of the high number of competing manuscripts. It is commonly understood that journals with the highest impact factor are those that are forced to make a more accurate selection, ultimately choosing the best manuscripts. Why should we not consider the impact factor as an index of the quality of articles published and thus of the prestige of the authors? In conclusion, we believe that the impact factor can decide the success or failure of a journal. Arguments raised by detractors of the impact factor are frequently without a solid basis, because it is clear that the limitations of this parameter are linked to its misleading use rather than an intrinsic defect of the parameter.
Editorial Office Sarcoidosis, Vasculitis, and Diffuse Lung Diseases Padova, Italy FOOTNOTES Conflict of Interest Statement: G.S. is Editor of Sarcoidosis, Vasculitis, and Diffuse Lung Diseases and is responsible for ensuring its quality. He receives a fixed stipend from the Italian Pneumological Foundation and is not affected financially by the impact factor of the Journal. G.R. is Executive Editor of Sarcoidosis, Vasculitis, and Diffuse Lung Diseases and is responsible for ensuring its quality. He receives a fixed stipend from the Italian Pneumological Foundation and is not affected financially by the impact factor of the Journal. C.A. is Associate Editor of Sarcoidosis, Vasculitis, and Diffuse Lung Diseases and is responsible for ensuring its quality. He receives a fixed stipend from the Italian Pneumological Foundation and is not affected financially by the impact factor of the Journal. REFERENCES
From the Editor: I thank Dr. Semenzato and colleagues of the editorial office of Sarcoidosis, Vasculitis, and Diffuse Lung Diseases for bringing to our readers' attention the increases in impact factor recently made by their journal. The omission of Sarcoidosis, Vasculitis, and Diffuse Lung Diseases from Figure 2 of my editorial (1) was not an oversight. The Institute for Scientific Information lists more than 30 journals in the respiratory system category. I focused only on pulmonary and critical care journals of general interest, and I excluded journals that focus on a particular disease or subgroup of diseases. Dr. Semenzato and colleagues make a number of other points about impact factor that are similar to the views expressed in my editorial. Indeed, it appears that we do not have any significant differences of opinion on this subject. I congratulate Dr. Semenzato and colleagues on the impressive increases in impact factor of Sarcoidosis, Vasculitis, and Diffuse Lung Diseases.
FOOTNOTES Conflict of Interest Statement: M.J.T. is editor of AJRCCM and is responsible for ensuring its quality. He receives a fixed stipend from the American Thoracic Society and is not affected financially by the impact factor of the Journal. REFERENCES
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
