A half of my articles (from my beginner years), though in Elsevier and Springer journals, don't have any IF. I regard some of them highly, for the frequent rejections and rigorous revisions they have put me though. Also, with their high downloaded numbers, I think they deserve IF.
Dear Seema,
The impact factor of a journal for the current year is normally calculated on the basis of the number of citations obtained for the articles published in that journal in the previous two years. So, the journal impact factors will be updated annually.
Dear Seema,
The impact factor of a journal for the current year is normally calculated on the basis of the number of citations obtained for the articles published in that journal in the previous two years. So, the journal impact factors will be updated annually.
Seema -
Michael and Sudev appear to have nicely addressed your main question, as you stated it.
However, I note that with regard to some journals you further asked "Also, with their high downloaded numbers, I think they deserve IF." If you check some past ResearchGate questions on Impact Factors, I think you will see that many believe that metric to be deeply flawed. Downloads do seem to be more important to me. Some researchers think IFs are commercially motivated. I don't know about that, but I do think much better metrics could be used. In the case of the IF, perhaps having no metric at all would be better.
Note the link below to a question that I posted that is critical of IFs that ResearchGate software would not post under "Impact Factors," nor apparently anywhere but on my profile. I also very recently saw someone else's post that might be critical of IFs, and then it disappeared. I have to wonder why. I hope your RG question does not similarly disappear.
Best wishes - Jim
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_impact_on_society_of_low_impact_factors_for_statistics_journals
Dear All,
Assessment of IF is a popular subject in RG threads. This is an ambivalent topic because of multiple raisons: Evaluation of scientific merit according to the number of citations is uncertain factor which does not express the real merit of a work. In addition, not the particular citation number of an article matters but that of all papers of a time period. Another trouble is the fact that there are “fashion” subjects like biotechnology/molecular biology which are overestimated in IF in case of very simple contributions too. Man should mention the custom of honorary authors who practically have no scientific contribution except their influence and that all authors are acknowledged with the same often not deserved IF. I have read articles with 1684 authors whose list was much longer than the paper itself.
The number of downloads here at RG does not mean always the real scientific interest for an article. Often it is a gest of mutual politeness or personnel, not scientific interest and the downloaded paper will never be cited.
Dear All,
Assessment of IF is a popular subject in RG threads. This is an ambivalent topic because of multiple raisons: Evaluation of scientific merit according to the number of citations is an uncertain factor which does not express the real merit of a work. In addition, not the particular citation number of an article matters but that of all papers of a time period. Another trouble is the fact that there are “fashion” subjects like biotechnology/molecular biology which are overestimated in IF in case of very simple contributions too. Man should mention the custom of honorary authors who practically have no scientific contribution except their influence and that all authors are acknowledged with the same often not deserved IF. I have read articles with 1684 authors whose list was much longer than the paper itself.
The number of downloads here at RG does not mean always the real scientific interest for an article. Often it is a gest of mutual politeness or personnel, not scientific interest and the downloaded paper will never be cited.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Composition Studies
- Articles