The Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for 2010 have been out for months, but I only just now got around to creating this post. This is miles away from my World Cup of Impact Factors post from a year ago, which was published within hours of last year’s report release! Apologies for that. The above explanation covers the one “belated” of the title. Of course, the other “belated” has to do with the fact that, as always, Impact Factors for 2010 were published with a year’s delay in the middle of the summer of 2011!Controversial as Impact Factors are, they remain the main way in which journal quality is judged. The higher the Impact Factor, the more sought after the journal is, and publishing in the top journals (especially Nature and Science) can make or break a scientist’s career.So how did journals do in this yearly competition? Like last year, I have selected a few journals that I find interesting personally, and are somehow relevant to the research I am familiar with.
Journal
Impact factor
2010
Impact factor
2009
5-year
impact factor
36.104
34.480
35.248
32.406
31.152
34.931
31.377
29.747
31.777
31.090
29.495
29.065
12.472
12.916
14.376
9.771
9.432
10.591
9.667
12.125
13.327
7.836
7.479
7.314
5.517
5.759
6.251
5.512
4.725
5.263
5.460
5.132
5.617
4.877
4.926
6.326
4.411
4.351
4.610
3.601
3.451
3.399
3.565
4.064
3.961
3.129
3.042
3.200
3.029
3.428
3.787
3.021
1.695
2.377
2.371
2.574
2.491
1.735
2.384
2.025
1.600
1.694
2.033
As my friend Duncan over at O’Really pointed out, it certainly looks like the big journals are getting bigger, and the small journals are getting smaller. Information about all journals can be accessed online on the ISI website, but a subscription is required. Accessing the website through a university IP address will usually do the trick.
Have I left some interesting journals out of my table? Drop me a line and I will be happy to add any suggestions.