ReviewmBio2014
Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania.
Review in mBio, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Low quality evidence of epidemiological observational studies on leishmaniasis in Brazil.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Will top-ranked scientific publications become the preserve of "rich" groups? ASM editorial policy.mBio · 2026Article
- Ending publication bias: A values-based approach to surface null and negative results.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Article
- The changing roles of scientific journals.mBio · 2024Review
- General practice-related MeSH terms in main journals: a bibliometric analysis from 2011 to 2021.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
- Prisoner's science.mBio · 2024Article
- Article
- One size does not fit all: an exploratory interview study on how translational researchers navigate the current academic reward system.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluation of editors' abilities to predict the citation potential of research manuscripts submitted toBMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Article
- Review
- Faculty appointment and promotion in Taiwan's medical schools, a systematic analysis.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Academic Promotion of Physicians in Medical Schools: A Special Focus on Primary Health Care in Taiwan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Article
- The state of the journal: theJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020Article
- Pediatric Surgical Research Output in Germany in the Last 30 Years - An Assessment and International Comparison of Three Dedicated Paediatric Surgical Journals.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Article
- Misleading with citation statistics?The Journal of physiology · 2019Article
- Size matters! Association between journal size and longitudinal variability of the Journal Impact Factor.PloS one · 2019Article
- New quality and quantity indices in science (NewQIS): results of the first decade-project progress review.Scientometrics · 2019Article
2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ABSTRACT Numerous essays have addressed the misuse of the journal impact factor for judging the value of science, but the practice continues, primarily as a result of the actions of scientists themselves. This seemingly irrational behavior is referred to as "impact factor mania." Although the literature on the impact factor is extensive, little has been written on the underlying causes of impact factor mania. In this perspective, we consider the reasons for the persistence of impact factor mania and its pernicious effects on science. We conclude that impact factor mania persists because it confers significant benefits to individual scientists and journals. Impact factor mania is a variation of the economic theory known as the "tragedy of the commons," in which scientists act rationally in their own self-interests despite the detrimental consequences of their actions on the overall scientific enterprise. Various measures to reduce the influence of the impact factor are considered. IMPORTANCE Science and scientists are currently afflicted by an epidemic of mania manifested by associating the value of research with the journal where the work is published rather than the content of the work itself. The mania is causing profound distortions in the way science is done that are deleterious to the overall scientific enterprise. In this essay, we consider the forces responsible for the persistence of the mania and conclude that it is maintained because it disproportionately benefits elements of the scientific enterprise, including certain well-established scientists, journals, and administrative interests. Our essay suggests steps that can be taken to deal with this debilitating and destructive epidemic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.