JIF notes

Jun 24 2015 Published by under Impact Factor

More on NPP's pursuit of BP is here.

see this for reference

Additional Reading:
The 2012 JIFs are out

Subdiscipline categories and JIF

Why JIF is complete sheepshit from Stephen Curry

A significant change in Impact Factor

13 responses so far

  • Selerax says:

    JNeurosci's IF has declined massively, but in the same period, Cerebral Cortex has jumped ahead - from ~6 to >8.

    What's up with that? AFAIK they don't publish reviews either.

  • drugmonkey says:

    JNeuro has been on a very steady, linear decline ever since NNeuro and Neuron were invented. This coincides with the gradual pernicious Glamification of science. I suspect a direct link.

    CC on the other hand made a leap 2013-2014 relative to the decade before that. I doubt these two trends are related to each other. sharp changes such as this probably have more acute causes.

  • Susan says:

    J Neurophys's IF and slide are worse than JNeuro, but at least in my subsubfield, the two are neck-and-neck for real paper quality. IF isn't everything.

  • WH says:

    I was interested to see how eLife would do and if it could become an OA alternative to Nature or Science. This year is its second JIF (first with two years of citations), but it only moved up to 9.3 from 8.5.

  • drugmonkey says:

    if it could become an OA alternative to Nature or Science

    Are you joking?

  • pinus says:

    J neuros slide has more to do with douchebag editors I think.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Easy killer. It's a long steady trend

  • drugmonkey says:

    Susan- d'ya think?

  • WH says:

    Well, it's what the founders of eLife hoped for: "its backers hope the publication will eventually rival Nature and Science as a top tier journal."


    Obviously, they're off by a long shot.

  • Dr Becca says:

    The NPP vs. BP thing has been interesting - it always seemed like NPP had a little more caché because of the NPG ties, but the BP surge is undeniable. Word on the street is BP has been handing out a lot more editorial rejections than it used to, which might have something to do with it.

  • elifeauthor says:

    As somebody who published in eLife, I have to say that, at the time we submitted, we were still buying into that hope that it would be viewed in the same glamourous light as C, S, or N. Our paper was not glam, it was looong but showed a lot of cool, somewhat disconnected things (definitely no "storyboarding"), and eLife was our first choice.

    The whole peer review process was pure JOY. Seriously. Reviewers' comments were one, single consensus list of questions and suggestions, and they did not ask for additional experiments (being expressly prohibited from doing so).

    After publishing there, I started paying attention to the journal, and my enthusiasm for it has waned. It's irrational, mostly. I think the lack of compartmentalization into issues is the killer for me. It's an incessant, unchanging slog of articles, one after the other. There's no anticipation, no suspense. Even the specialty boutique journals in my subfield I look forward to checking on every two weeks or so, just to see what made it into the neat little issue this time.

    I also happen to enjoy the opinion, policy, and news pieces found in the first half of glam journals. What I can't stand are the "fluff" perspective pieces hyping the research articles in the current issue, and that seems to be the only additional content eLife has decided to put out with any regularity.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Dr Becca,

    there does seem to be a small uptick in JIF when NPP went to NPG from Elsevier but it has always been below BP since about 2001 which is right about that time.

    BP put on a surge from 1999-2001 and passed NPP but I'm not sure what they were before that.

  • […] If it's late June, it must be time for the latest Journal Impact Factors to be announced. (Last year's notes are here.) […]

Leave a Reply