In academic medicine we are all aware of the pressure to publish, and the metric by which many judge the quality of the papers that are published by a given author is the impact factor of the journal in which their papers appear. The impact factor of a journal is simply the average number of citations per article divided by the total number of “citable articles”. This method of assessing the quality of journals has become increasingly important over the last 20 years and has led to some changes in publication practices. For example, reviews tend to get cited more often than original research papers which is why review journals often have a relatively high impact factor (e.g Current Opinions in Nephrology and Hypertension in our field). Case reports, in contrast, rarely get cited and as a result, journals have moved away from publishing case reports and towards publishing reviews.
Ten years ago, Thomson Reuters (who generate the impact factors) realized that some journals were gaming the system to increase their citation count by publishing review articles and editorials that would preferentially cite papers published in their own journal. TR changed their algorithm to detect this kind of behavior and it is much less common as a result. Which brings me to this great website: Retraction Watch. This is a site which details on a daily basis papers which have been retracted from the literature for various reasons some sinister and some more innocent. Yesterday, they reported on the case of a series of articles retracted for citation manipulation which resulted in 3 journals losing their impact factors for this year. The articles were review papers which almost exclusively cited papers in another journal called “Cell Transplantation” and the authors were editorial board members of this journal. All in all, if these papers were excluded from the citation record, the impact factor of this journal would decrease from 6.2 to 4.1 for last year! This is a great post detailing the whole saga.
See here for a paper detailing the history of the impact factor.
Of course, we in the nephrology world would never get caught up in something like this…
All opinions expressed on the website are those of the respective authors and not of their employer. Information provided here is for medical education only. It is not intended as and does not substitute for medical advice. If you are a patient, please see your doctor for evaluation. The appearance of external hyperlinks to other websites does not constitute endorsement. We do not verify, endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, currency, completeness or quality of the content contained in these sites. There is no real life patient data on this website. The Renal Fellow Network does not profit from any of the material on this website. No advertisements are accepted. The Renal Fellow Network is not funded by any agency or company. Any information collected by our website, such as email addresses, will never be passed on to any third party, unless required by law. The Renal Fellow Network is moderated occasionally and posteriorly. Moderators are volunteers. Internet users posting comments on this blog should not be considered as health professionals.Comments posted on this Blog should be designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her existing physician.We remind you that everyone can read and use your comments. You do not have the possibility to erase your own comments.Internet users commenting on the Renal Fellow Network must behave with respect and honesty at all times. Do not post any commercial/advertising comment. Posts will be deleted if commercial or advertising comments are made. Internet users commenting of the Renal Fellow Network must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge. Sources to health/medical claims must be provided when relevant. Moderators reserve the right to erase, without notification, any comment they would judge inappropriate.