regarding eco anonym's post about the change in
ecological journal impact factors over time (see
below), i encourage eco anonym and others to read
the following two papers that show that journal
impact factors are inflated (wilson 2007...sorry
for the blatant self-promotion) and that temporal
changes in journal impact factors vary widely
across disciplines (althouse et al 2008). i
encourage my students (and my colleagues and
university administrators) to think more broadly
than the impact factor to evaluate the quality of
journals and the science published in them. alan
wilson 2007 - http://wilsonlab.com/publications/2007_BioScience_Wilson.pdf
Wilson, A. E. 2007. Journal impact factors are inflated. Bioscience 57:550-551.
althouse et al. 2008 -
http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/publications/AlthouseEtAl08.pdf
Althouse, B. M., J. D. West, C. T. Bergstrom, and
T. Bergstrom. 2009. Differences in Impact Factor
Across Fields and Over Time. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology 60:27-34.
TEXT FROM ECO ANONYM'S EARLIER POST
(2) Ecology remains far and away the most cited journal in the ecological
sciences according to the ISI Journal Citation Reports. The cited half life
of more than 10 years is as long as any journal in our subject-matter area
(indicating that our publications stand the test of time), and our impact
factor of 5.073 is among the highest for journals publishing primary
research articles in ecology. Ecology retains the confidence of readers and
authors alike as the premier journal in the ecological sciences.
- The evidence is not in support of these conclusions. Everyone knows that
Ecology Letters a good while ago surpassed Ecology as the premier ecology
journal (impact factor > 15). I surmise it is less widely appreciated that
Ecology has also been overtaken by Global Change Biology (6.3), Molecular
Ecology (6.5), and Global Ecology and Biogeography (5.3). Over the past 10
years Ecologys impact factor gained about 1 point, approximately the
average across all ecology journals. So, the tortoise has stood still,
being overtaken by journals formerly in the more specialized category for
Ecology rejectees. The latter journals were born <20 years ago, gaining
momentum in the last 10, making a cited half life >10, in point of fact,
impossible. (The distinction of cited half life >10 is, FWIW, shared by
the Texas Journal of Science, impact factor = 0.1).
At 05:00 PM 3/14/2012, Don Strong wrote:
Don Strong, Editor in Chief of Ecology replies.
Dear Eco Anonym:
It is my belief that there is no best journal. One submits to the journal
that is most appropriate for the work.
There are no differences in editorial standards between Ecology and
Ecosphere. Both give two reviews to authors of papers that the editors
chose to have reviewed. Ecosphere asks reviewers to be quick and to
sacrifice length and detail in the review for speed. Ecology continues its
tradition of lengthy, detailed reviews. The rejection rate of reviewed
articles at Ecosphere is roughly the same as that at Ecology.
Ecology receives many more submissions than the ESA can publish on paper.
It is not distinct from other journals in the practice of sending only a
fraction of submissions out for review. For more than a decade, Ecology has
practiced rejection following editorial review for a substantial fraction of
submitted manuscripts. Today this fraction is roughly equal to what it was
five years ago. Decisions on which manuscript to review follow the
examination of every submission by four editors. Because Ecology is a
traditional journal, published on paper, it has but a limited number of
pages that the ESA can afford to publish. Excessive length of submissions
is a major reason that our editors reject after editorial review. Because
Ecosphere is not published on paper, it has far less cost per unit length.
Ecosphere is the new open access journal of the ESA. The first issue
appeared in July 2010. Before Ecosphere, the ESA had to say to all of the
submissions rejected following editorial review, we cant help you. Now,
with Ecosphere, the ESA says, Welcome to Ecosphere. It is open access;
anyone can read your paper in Ecosphere. No subscription required. As
stated above, Ecosphere has much less length limitations than Ecology.
Ecosphere is a huge success. It has received an increasing number of
submissions; the number is now above 30 per month. Ecosphere has published
lots of papers and its authors include some of the most prominent ecologists
in the world. Check out Ecosphere, http://www.esajournals.org/loi/ecsp.
An international panel of subject expert librarians www.sla.org has ranked
Ecology among the 100 most influential journals of the past 100 years in
biological and clinical sciences.
(http://units.sla.org/division/dbio/publications/resources/dbio100.html). As
well, the clickstream statistics place Ecology in centrality of scholarly
activity among journals in natural sciences, social sciences and humanities,
as demonstrated by the Bollen et al. article. 2009, PLoS ONE 4(3): e4803.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone. We also rank very highly in terms of the
traditional bibliometrics of citations, see the Journal Citations Report of
ISI. In Eigenfactor.org one can see that the Article Influence of Ecology is
very high. Ecology, Ecological Applications, and Ecological Monographs give
very high value for the money of the more than 400 journals listed by
eigenfactor.org in the area of ecology and evolution (eigenfactor.org,
search cost-effectiveness).
The field of ecology is a huge success. It is now producing many more
studies than even a decade ago. There are many new journals, especially in
specialized areas. ESA applauds the new journals published by other
organizations that feature excellent ecological science. This increasing
demand shows in ESA journals: Ecology, Ecological Applications, Ecological
Monographs, and Frontiers in Ecology. All have increasing submission rates,
substantial bibliometrics, and continue to be sought after by authors and
ecological scientists.
Ecology articles have a very long half-life of citation. This is because
the articles cited are excellent in the eyes of the authors citing them.
This applies to articles with long half-life published in other journals.
When an author is rejected by a journal, the smart course is to reconsider
and recast the work based upon the reviews. Then submit to another journal.
If you are rejected after review by an ESA journal, you will have been done
a tremendous service in terms of the great
reviews provided to you by the ESA.
In 2009 we had a huge backlog, a large number of accepted papers that were
waiting to be published on paper in Ecology and Ecological Applications.
These papers were posted on line, but we could not publish them quickly on
paper because of page limitations. With Ecosphere, which is digital only and
lacks the page limitations of traditional journals, we are now able manage
the large number of submissions to ESA journals. The unpublished-on-paper
backlog at Ecology and Ecological Applications is short at this point. This
means that accepted papers are printed in the paper journal very soon after
they appear on line.
As I stated above, the fraction of submissions sent out for review has not
changed greatly in recent years. Repeating from above
Before Ecosphere, the
ESA had to say to all of the reject-without-review submissions, we cant
help you. Now, with Ecosphere, the ESA says, Welcome to Ecosphere. It is
open access; anyone can read your paper in Ecosphere. No subscription
required. Ecosphere is a huge success. It receives more than 30 submissions
per month and has published lots and lots of papers. Ecosphere authors
include the most prominent ecologists in the world. Check out Ecosphere,
http://www.esajournals.org/loi/ecsp.
I would ask you and other readers for suggestions about how to improve
Ecology and our other ESA journals.
---
Alan Wilson - Assistant Professor
Auburn University - Fisheries & Biological Sciences
www.wilsonlab.com - [email protected]
www.cyanopros.com - 334.246.1120
