ismn
2006 Chemistry
Journals Impact Factors|
qualitas1998.net
ismn
2006 Chemistry
Journals Impact Factors |
| Search |
Large changes in the impact factors of chemistry journals published on June 2007 by the Institute for scientific information (now Thomson). 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).
In 2006 most Wiley-VCH chemistry and materials journals record increased impact. Angewandte Chemie goes to 10.232 (2005: 9.596), strengthens its leading position among the general chemistry journals. Chemistry—A European Journal keeps advancing and has now reached 5.015 (2005: 4.907).
Advanced Synthesis & Catalysis rises to 4.762 (2005: 4.632) and remains the leader among the primary organic and organometallic chemistry journals. Similarly, ChemBioChem has risen to 4.10 (2005: 3.940) while sister journal ChemPhysChem IF decreases to 3.349 (2005: 3.607).
Advanced Materials leaped down to 7.896 (2005: 9.107). The younger sister journal Advanced Functional Materials slightly grows to 6.779 (2005: 6.770) whereas Small records its first impressive IF = 6.024.
The impact factor of European Journal of Organic Chemistry is 2.769 (2005: 2.548) and of European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry is 2.704 (2005: 514).
Chem Soc Rev, the RSC's general chemistry review journal, sees its impact factor rise by 27% to 13.747 and places it 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 as well as seven additional categories ranging from agriculture to polymer science and the new category of nanoscience & nanotechnology.
Analytical Chemistry is #1 in impact factor (5.646) from 5.635 in 2005 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 7.696 (2005: 7.419); Chemical Reviews is #1 in impact factor in chemistry with 26.054 (from 20.869 in 2005); Accounts of Chemical Research is #2 with an impact factor of 17.113 (13.141 in 2005).
Nano Letters further improves to 9.960, from 9.847 in 2005.
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 (3.047, from 2.898 in 2005) and The Journal of Physical Chemistry B (4.115, from 4.033 in 2005); Chemistry of Materials records an impact factor of 5.104 (4.818 in 2005) and Langmuir receives an impact factor of 3.902 (from 3.705 in 2005).
Environmental Science & Technology, impact factor of 4.040 (4.054 in 2005) remains #1 in total citations and articles published out of 140 journals in the environmental sciences
Elsevier journals in general are on the rise. Elsevier proudly points out that "virtually all (97%) of the most cited scientists of the last decade have published with us over 95% of chemistry Nobel Laureates over the past 50 years". This is true. But Elsevier is probably the publisher which will be hit the most by the Open Access revolution made possible by the internet.
Organic Chemistry
Chemical Engineering
Analytical Chemistry
You may also be interested in checking whether the impact factor is a reliable measurement of scientific quality. This post of Derek Love answers your question.
«"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