ismn
2007 Chemistry
Journals Impact Factors|
qualitas1998.net
ismn
2007 Chemistry
Journals Impact Factors |
| Search |
|
Large changes in the
impact factors of chemistry journals published on June
2008 by
Thomson ISI Journal Citation
Reports (JRC).
A journal impact factor is calculated by in its annual Journal Citation Report by dividing the number of citations in a year, by the number of citeable articles published in the preceding two years (see below for an interesting critique of IF). |
Wiley-VCHIn 2007, Wiley-VCH chemistry and materials journals record mixed results. Angewandte Chemie IF goes down to 10.031 (2006: 10.232), still leading among the general chemistry journals. Chemistry—A European Journal keeps advancing and has now reached 5.330 (5.015 in 2006), whereas sister journal Chemistry - An Asian Journal receives a promising first IF = 2.340.Advanced Synthesis & Catalysis rises to 4.977 (4.762 in 2006) and remains the leader among the primary organic and organometallic chemistry journals. Similarly, ChemBioChem leaps down to 3.446 from the record value of 4.10 in 2006; while ChemPhysChem IF increases to 3.502 (3.349 in 2006, but not yet the 3.607 record of 2005). Advanced Materials recovers to 8.191 (7.896 in 2006 and 9.107 in 2005). The younger sister journal Advanced Functional Materials grows to 7.496 (6.779 in 2005) whereas Small records its first impressive 6.408 (6.024 in 2006) being now listed under the top 10 journals in five ISI categories, including rank #3 in Nanoscience & Nanotechnology. The impact factor of the European Journal of Organic Chemistry is now 2.914 (2.769 in 2005) while that of the European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry is 2.704 (2005: 514). RSCChemSocRev, the RSC's general chemistry review journal, gets 13.082 (from 13.690 in 2006), amongst the most highly cited review journals. In general, most RSC journals record increased impact factors:
|
The journals of the American Chemical Society rank #1 in citations in the seven ISI core chemistry categories, but record a general decrease in IF.
Analytical Chemistry is #1 in impact factor (5.287) from 5.646 in 2006 and is #1 among journals publishing 100 or more articles in 2006.
The Journal of the American Chemical Society is #6 in impact factor at 7.885 (7.696 in 2006); Chemical Reviews is #1 in impact factor in chemistry with 22.757 (from 26.054 in 2006); Accounts of Chemical Research is #2 with an impact factor of 16.214 (17.113 in 2006).
Nano Letters further improves to 9.627, from 9.960 in 2006.
Five ACS journals rank in the top ten in impact factor in organic chemistry:
Four ACS journals rank in the top five of total cites in physical chemistry. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A (2.918, from 3.047 in 2006) and The Journal of Physical Chemistry B (4.086 from 4.115 in 2006); Chemistry of Materials records an impact factor of 4.883 (5.104 in 2006) and Langmuir gets 4.009 (from 3.902 in 2006).
Environmental Science & Technology, impact factor of 4.363 (4.040 in 2006) remains #1 in the environmental sciences
Elsevier journals in general are on the rise, especially in the fields of organic, inorganic and materials chemistry.
Organic chemistry
Chemical engineering, inorganic, analytical and materials chemistry
Is the impact factor is a reliable measurement of scientific quality? This post of Derek Love offers insight.
«"Impact factors" are an attempt to quantify what everyone knows empirically: some journals are more prestigious than others.
The whole business comes from the folks at ISI (now owned by Thomson.) They had been publishing the Citation Index for years, which was (and is) a way to find out who had referenced a given paper in the scientific literature after it was published. This can be useful if you want to see if anyone's followed up or commented on an interesting paper (or if you just want to see if anyone's cited your own work.)
About ten years ago, they introduced the Impact Factor to do the same thing for scientific journals...
The publishing community - initially rather worried and skeptical, if my memory serves - has gone completely crazy over the whole idea. Now journals advertise themselves by their impact factors. "Publish here! We're a good journal, really! We have proof!" If you'd like to know what a particular journal's rating is, they'll probably shout it out if it's any good at all. A failure to mention the number, down to three decimal places, is an act that speaks for itself.
Everyone whose livelihood depends on scientific publication, though, already knows them well, since anything that can be measured will be used at performance evaluation time. IFs are a particular obsession in academic research, since publishing papers is one of those things that an aspiring tenure-seeking associate professor is expected to do. (On the priority list, it comes right after hauling down the grant money)...
The less interesting papers are getting a free impact ride, while the better ones could have presumably been playing off in a super-impact league of their own, if such a journal existed. The authors also point out that journals covering new fields with a rapidly expanding literature - much of which is also ephemeral - have necessarily inflated IFs. Does it really indicate their quality? (Well now, say the pro-impact people, isn't this just the sort of carping you'd expect from the BMJ, who live in the shadow of the more-prestigious Lancet?)
On a different level, there's plenty of room to hate the whole idea, regardless of how it's implemented. The number of citations, say such critics, is not necessarily the only (or best) measure of a paper's worth, or the worth of the journal it appears in. (As that link shows, the original papers from both Salk and Sabin on their polio vaccines are on no one's list of high citation rates.)»
Back to the home page of Mario Pagliaro's Lab