Add Comment
Print ArticleImpressive impact factors prove that BioMed Central's Open Access journals are high quality and widely read and cited. Journals published by BioMed Central have again received impact factors that compare well with equivalent subscription titles, it was announced today, with five titles in the top five of their specialty. The high impact factors for these journals affirm that they are respected by researchers, and are fast becoming the place for authors to submit important research findings.
Five journals published by BioMed Central received their first impact factors this year. BMC Bioinformatics, with an impact factor of 5.42, has reinforced its reputation as one of the top journals in its field. Launched in 2000, it is the second highest ranked bioinformatics journal, and already has an impact factor comparable to that of Bioinformatics (5.74), the most established journal in the field, which has been publishing for more than two decades and is supported by a major society.
BMC Genomics enters the Journal Citation Report with a respectable 3.25. This puts it in the top third of the genetics titles, and the top 20% of biotechnology journals. BMC Molecular Biology has an impact factor of 3.12, and BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders an impact factor of 1.00, putting it in the top half of the orthopaedics listing. BMC Genetics has an impact factor of 0.92.
Critical Care's impact factor jumped from 1.9 to 3.21, and the journal is now third in the critical care medicine field having leap-frogged the competitor title Intensive Care Medicine, the official journal of the major European society. Breast Cancer Research also increased it's impact factor from 2.93 to 2.98 and remains the second highest ranking breast cancer journal. Arthritis Research & Therapy maintains its rank of second in the rheumatology field with an impact factor of 4.55.
A number of other journal published by BioMed Central also saw their impact factors and rankings improve. BMC Infectious Diseases jumped from 1.25 to 2.07. BMC Cell Biology, with an impact factor of 2.62, is now in the top half of the cell biology listing. The impact factor for BMC Health Services Research almost doubled, from 0.68 to 1.23. BMC Cancer went up from 1.70 to 2.29 and BMC Public Health now has an impact factor of 1.55. With an impact factor of 4.03, Respiratory Research is the fifth most cited journal in the highly competitive respirology field.
The impact factors, which are calculated by ISI, look at citations in 2004 of articles published in the journals in the period 2002-2003. According to Dr Matthew Cockerill, Director of Operations at BioMed Central, "These latest impact factors show that BioMed Central's Open Access journals have joined the mainstream of science publishing, and can compete with traditional journals on their own terms. The impact factors also demonstrate one of the key benefits that Open Access offers authors: high visibility and, as a result, a high rate of citation."
Source : BioMed Central
Mail to a Friend
Link to this article
Comments
While these statistics are encouraging, I can't help but feel that most of the "best" articles are a part of closed journals. One way to test this would be to publish citation results of the top 100 papers for last year according to the "Faculty of 1000". Certainly, if their citation results differ significantly from the citation results of all papers, and the best paper citation results show that closed journals have higher ratings, then it is fair to say that the best research is still "within closed circles".
Happy to see you here Rob!
My feeling is that comparing open access journals with closed ones will be tough.
Due to the fact that journals like PLoS Biology are available to everyone, they get much more exposure than say, Nature, especially amongst the general public. If I want to read Nature, I gotta go to my University's Library (2 hours trip easily) and photocopy the article, or order an article online (which can take 2-3 weeks). My University doesn't have online access to Nature, because it's too expensive. And I'm in Canada! The situation could be much worse for labs in less-developed countries. If i want to read PLoS Biology, I open my browser, from anywhere in the world. I'm not saying that PLoS Bio is in the league of Nature (impact factor ~30 I think), but as we see more open access journals being published (and as they gain more respect), the situation could change. For the best. Everyone wins with open-access journals.
With the current closed journals system, we pay both ways - to publish (and submit) papers, and to read them. I can understand that this model worked for years, especially before the Net. But now it feels more like a dinosaur getting in the way of science.
This being said, I agree with you that the best research is still done within privilieged groups. Access to information is a small part of the 'problem'. The the 'publish-or-perish' mindset coupled with the peer-reviewed system is another one. Competition shouldn't exist in science; cooperation would be a whole lot better. Imagine a world where all scientists share thoughts, ideas, results, comments in real-time. It would speed up discoveries in every branch of science.
I'm getting idealistic here, I guess
I do agree very much that open journals do have thier place, however the concept of elite closed ones has thier own benefits. The most prestigious of scientists will place thier findings in these closed journals and as a result they will have thier facts quadruple-checked. They will be held to a standard harsher then necessary, so that we are able to depend on them more fully and trust thier veracity. The open journals will provide more raw information which would be used in large part for cooperative research and citation.
BTW, What University are you a part of FiReaNG3L? Im over at Carleton and we have full electronic journal access for pretty much all of them including Nature.
Jagash, open journals shouldn't equal low standard (of peer-reviewing) in your mind. I've seen report from prestigious journals we're we asked ourselves if the reviewers even bothered to read the paper. Their comments were so off the point, it was scary. Anyway, I hope that the reputation of open journals will improve as we see more of them. As they gain reputation (and impact factor), more prestigious scientists will publish in them, and the information will be available to all.
As for the 'closed journals = veracity and trust', keep in mind that Nature published the original 'homeopathy' paper
I'm at University Laval. We have electronic access to almost everything, but the administration chose to keep only the paper version of Nature (and a few others) in order to cut down costs. Kinda sad if you ask me, but I still consider us lucky, compared to many.
Oh, im not saying that the current system does function that way. Im simply proposing that it might, that closed journals be regulated and reviewed a hell of alot more strictly so as to avoid the 'homeopathy' effect. Im also somewhat proposing that the open journals become of roughly the same impact factor and reputation as the current closed journals posess; Good, solid publications which hold a great volume of high-quality articles and research.
I suppose im simply too cynical that the best of the best will be free online for everyone to peruse.
Apparently we got electronic access back to Nature and a bunch of others 2 weeks ago while I was in vacation. Hurray for University Laval, I guess!
Register Now!