Hi,

The main reason for this is that every discipline has a different citation dynamics.

The medical sciences have the highest level and citation speed, followed by computer science, the "BIO" fields and physics. The social sciences have a slower citation pace, and the humanities have a very slow citation dynamics. These difference create a different impact factor for the respective journals, since the impact factor measures the relation between citations and publication. It follows, therefore, that one should not compare the IF between disciplines, but rather among journals within a discipline.

Hi,

The main reason for this is that every discipline has a different citation dynamics.

The medical sciences have the highest level and citation speed, followed by computer science, the "BIO" fields and physics. The social sciences have a slower citation pace, and the humanities have a very slow citation dynamics. These difference create a different impact factor for the respective journals, since the impact factor measures the relation between citations and publication. It follows, therefore, that one should not compare the IF between disciplines, but rather among journals within a discipline.

Avishag is correct - and then there is the simple case of 'supply and demand'. The more academics that there are in a discipline and the more that that disciplines demands that practitioners have an up-to-date knowledge-base i.e. for professional registration purposes and/or are contractually expected to research and publish (medicine is a good example - as well any of the other allied health professional disciplines), then the IF is likely to be higher. Add to that, the fact that many of the 'traditionalist' discipline journals have often been established for many, many years generally means that they have the experience and capacity to recruit the best editors etc and have learnt how to 'play the game' of increasing citation impact. They often have high and competitive manuscript submission numbers - so can 'afford' to accept the most original, creative, robust and citable submissions.

Hi Derek,

I see your point of view - but one only based on your experience and not a wider audience. The two two journals that you mention, while familiar to you, will be unfamiliar to most - so their IFs will not be immediately or easily understandable to most. If we are not careful then we may potentially be 'sucked' into the emerging journal market i.e. 'theory' sounds stronger than 'perspective' - 'international' sounds stronger than 'national'; we have to be careful the semantic path that we tread.

It depends field of research. Highest is medical field.

it depends on he number of publication and the repetition of the reviewer