This article was downloaded by: [University Library Utrecht] On: 23 April 2015, At: 06:39 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Natural Product Research: Formerly Natural Product Letters Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gnpl20
Impact factor or useless fight a
Marcello Nicoletti a
Natural Product Research, Editor Published online: 21 Apr 2015.
Click for updates To cite this article: Marcello Nicoletti (2015) Impact factor or useless fight, Natural Product Research: Formerly Natural Product Letters, 29:10, 891-892, DOI: 10.1080/14786419.2015.1014196 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2015.1014196
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [University Library Utrecht] at 06:39 23 April 2015
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Natural Product Research, 2015 Vol. 29, No. 10, 891–892, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2015.1014196
EDITORIAL
Downloaded by [University Library Utrecht] at 06:39 23 April 2015
Impact factor or useless fight
Naturally, we are very proud of the evident progress of the Natural Product Research impact factor (IF) during recent years. However, all that glitters is not gold, and it is necessary also to consider the current debate on the importance and value of the IF, starting from its evolution. Some years ago, during a plenary meeting of Italian botanists, concerning the necessity of evaluating scientific production for distribution of funding and careers, a distinguished professor stated: ‘It is not important where you publish but what you publish!’ Most of the audience, especially those with a botanical pure pedigree, clapped enthusiastically, but there was an uncomfortable silence from colleagues on the phytochemical side. In principle, the phrase should be accepted, but a generally accepted measure of quality is necessary, albeit complicated. The danger is that when subjected to a personal point of view, the judgement can lose any objectivity. A few years later, the Italian Botanical Society adopted the IF (or journal impact factor (JIF)) as the measure of evaluation for academic advancement, as did many other scientific institutions. The JIF is a measure of the importance of an academic journal, reflecting the average number of citations of recent articles published in the journal. Therefore, journals with a higher JIF are deemed to be more important than those with a lower JIF. Authors publishing in journals with a high JIF have a competitive advantage. JIF calculation started in 1975 for those journals that were indexed in the Journal Citation Report (www.nd.edu/-pkarmat/citations/citations.html). Initially, most of the researchers considered the JIF an impartial and reliable validation. They even appreciated the simplification of a complex evaluation to a number that allowed a very simple and immediate comparison. For a short time, this was the single generally accepted solution, despite the complication in calculating the JIF. However the JIF’s dominance has been short. Some started to consider the matter in a different way and the criticism finally converged into a protest. There were increasing number of contestations, accusing the JIF of having negative effects and an aberrant influence on world science. Thus, in December 2012, the American Society of Cell Biology stated: ‘Impact Factors warp the way that research is conducted, reported and funded’ (http://ascb.org/scientific-insurgents-say-journal-impact-factors-distort-science/). Other scientists participated in the so-called ‘great JIF insurrection’, asking for a revision of the scientific valuation, accusing the system of being ‘largely about marketing and self-promotion’ (Kai Simons (2008) The Misused Impact Factor. Science 322:165). Even prominent and respected names in the academic pyramid joined together to declare their position about the disastrous effects of allowing the citation rate of a scientific journal to become the dominant measure of the value of all scientific research. In May 2013, the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment accused the JIF ‘of a number of well-documented deficiencies’ (http://ar. ascb.org/sfdora.html), and proposed that we should put ‘science back into the assessment of research’. See also the comment ‘Why the Impact Factor of Journals Should Not Be Used for Evaluating Research’ published by Per O Seglen in BMJ (314: 498 – 502 (1997)). The cracking of JIF, as the consequence of this ‘riot’ against ‘a broken system’, is now evident, but there is still a need for some system of evaluation. The debate is dividing the
q 2015 Taylor & Francis
892
Editorial
scientific world with a plethora of opinions. The main proposed solutions are to continue with the JIF as it is, to revise and correct it, or to adopt other evaluation methods.
Downloaded by [University Library Utrecht] at 06:39 23 April 2015
Marcello Nicoletti Editor, Natural Product Research [email protected]
Natural Product Research: Formerly Natural Product Letters Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gnpl20
Impact factor or useless fight a
Marcello Nicoletti a
Natural Product Research, Editor Published online: 21 Apr 2015.
Click for updates To cite this article: Marcello Nicoletti (2015) Impact factor or useless fight, Natural Product Research: Formerly Natural Product Letters, 29:10, 891-892, DOI: 10.1080/14786419.2015.1014196 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2015.1014196
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [University Library Utrecht] at 06:39 23 April 2015
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Natural Product Research, 2015 Vol. 29, No. 10, 891–892, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2015.1014196
EDITORIAL
Downloaded by [University Library Utrecht] at 06:39 23 April 2015
Impact factor or useless fight
Naturally, we are very proud of the evident progress of the Natural Product Research impact factor (IF) during recent years. However, all that glitters is not gold, and it is necessary also to consider the current debate on the importance and value of the IF, starting from its evolution. Some years ago, during a plenary meeting of Italian botanists, concerning the necessity of evaluating scientific production for distribution of funding and careers, a distinguished professor stated: ‘It is not important where you publish but what you publish!’ Most of the audience, especially those with a botanical pure pedigree, clapped enthusiastically, but there was an uncomfortable silence from colleagues on the phytochemical side. In principle, the phrase should be accepted, but a generally accepted measure of quality is necessary, albeit complicated. The danger is that when subjected to a personal point of view, the judgement can lose any objectivity. A few years later, the Italian Botanical Society adopted the IF (or journal impact factor (JIF)) as the measure of evaluation for academic advancement, as did many other scientific institutions. The JIF is a measure of the importance of an academic journal, reflecting the average number of citations of recent articles published in the journal. Therefore, journals with a higher JIF are deemed to be more important than those with a lower JIF. Authors publishing in journals with a high JIF have a competitive advantage. JIF calculation started in 1975 for those journals that were indexed in the Journal Citation Report (www.nd.edu/-pkarmat/citations/citations.html). Initially, most of the researchers considered the JIF an impartial and reliable validation. They even appreciated the simplification of a complex evaluation to a number that allowed a very simple and immediate comparison. For a short time, this was the single generally accepted solution, despite the complication in calculating the JIF. However the JIF’s dominance has been short. Some started to consider the matter in a different way and the criticism finally converged into a protest. There were increasing number of contestations, accusing the JIF of having negative effects and an aberrant influence on world science. Thus, in December 2012, the American Society of Cell Biology stated: ‘Impact Factors warp the way that research is conducted, reported and funded’ (http://ascb.org/scientific-insurgents-say-journal-impact-factors-distort-science/). Other scientists participated in the so-called ‘great JIF insurrection’, asking for a revision of the scientific valuation, accusing the system of being ‘largely about marketing and self-promotion’ (Kai Simons (2008) The Misused Impact Factor. Science 322:165). Even prominent and respected names in the academic pyramid joined together to declare their position about the disastrous effects of allowing the citation rate of a scientific journal to become the dominant measure of the value of all scientific research. In May 2013, the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment accused the JIF ‘of a number of well-documented deficiencies’ (http://ar. ascb.org/sfdora.html), and proposed that we should put ‘science back into the assessment of research’. See also the comment ‘Why the Impact Factor of Journals Should Not Be Used for Evaluating Research’ published by Per O Seglen in BMJ (314: 498 – 502 (1997)). The cracking of JIF, as the consequence of this ‘riot’ against ‘a broken system’, is now evident, but there is still a need for some system of evaluation. The debate is dividing the
q 2015 Taylor & Francis
892
Editorial
scientific world with a plethora of opinions. The main proposed solutions are to continue with the JIF as it is, to revise and correct it, or to adopt other evaluation methods.
Downloaded by [University Library Utrecht] at 06:39 23 April 2015
Marcello Nicoletti Editor, Natural Product Research [email protected]
