Is the pursuit of a higher impact factor fully justified?
Authors: G. Milano
Journal: Annals of Oncology (2016)

J.C. Soria, Editor in Chief of the journal, recently wrote an editorial which resounds like a hymn of praise to the impact factor [1.Soria JC. New goals.Ann Oncol. 2016; 27: 1655-1656Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar]. Having remarkably reached the objective of raising the impact factor (IF) to 10, the Editor is now setting an even greater challenge by striving for an IF of 12 by 2018. As an author of numerous articles in the journal ever since its foundation, I feel concerned by this editorial strategy, in common, I am sure, with the majority of readers and authors. MB Nielsen, the Editor of the European Journal of Ultrasound (IF = 4.4) recently published an editorial on the same topic which conveyed a very different message while objectively addressing specific problems and concerns regarding the IF [2.Nielsen MB. Impact factors and prediction of popular topics in a journal.Ultraschall Med. 2016; 37: 343-345Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar]. Above all, it must be borne in mind that the principle underlying the IF for a given journal is that it reflects the average number of citations from articles published in the journal during the two previous years. Many articles of high scientific value may in fact generate more citations beyond this relatively short period. A reasonable proposal to enlarge the citation window to a period exceeding 2 years has recently been made [3.Liu X.L. Gai S.S. Zhang S.L. Wang P. An analysis of peer-reviewed scores and impact factors with different citation time windows: a case study of 28 ophthalmologic journals.PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0135583PubMed Google Scholar]. The urge to boost the IF may also induce harmful results by encouraging a “flash-in-the-pan” effect by favoring “hot” topics, while neglecting the long-term impact of articles. As also mentioned by M.B. Nielsen [2.Nielsen MB. Impact factors and prediction of popular topics in a journal.Ultraschall Med. 2016; 37: 343-345Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar], CME articles of major importance may receive fewer citations and thus will likely be judged less acceptable for publication due to a high IF policy. The importance of the greatest educational value conferred by published articles was recently stressed by S.A. Cannistra, the Editor-In-Chief of Journal of Clinical Oncology [4.Cannistra SA. In the pursuit of excellence: reflections from the editor-in-chief of Journal of Clinical Oncology.J Clin Oncol. 2016; Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar]. The high IF strategy may also place published case-reports at a disadvantage as they tend to receive fewer citations, although they offer a real-life source of information for the reader, especially regarding current developments in cancer treatment. Last but not least, efforts to achieve a higher journal IF may lead to fraud, as recently described in the New England Journal of Medicine [5.Haug CJ. Peer-review Fraud–Hacking the scientific publication process.N Engl J Med. 2015; 373: 2393-2395Crossref PubMed Scopus (110) Google Scholar]. Therefore, the Editorial Board of Annals of Oncology should be encouraged to moderate the drive to eagerly improve the IF. While undoubtly remaining vital to the life of a journal, a high IF should not be seen as a mandatory aim but rather as the outcome of an editorial policy encompassing complementary aspects of the publication policy in the field of cancer including not only “hot” topic papers but also case-reports and hypothesis-driven articles. None declared.