3 research outputs found
Academic anesthesiologists' views on the importance of the impact factor of scientific journals: a North American and European survey
Purpose: To investigate the views of North American and European
anesthesiologists on the value of the impact factor (IF).
Method: Four hundred thirty-eight anesthesiologists in Canada, the
United States of America (USA), and Europe were polled about the
importance of the IF regarding hiring, promotions, funding of research
and to express their personal views.
Results: IF of a candidate’s publications is a criterion in 38% of
academic appointments in Canada and USA vs 81% in Europe (P < 0.0001).
The importance of IF to obtain funding is greater in Europe (46%) than
in North America (17%) (P < 0.0001). Twenty-three percent and 50% of
Canadian and American anesthesiologists respectively believe that IF
affects financial support (P = 0.0389). European anesthesiologists value
the IF more than the North Americans (67% vs 31%, P < 0.0001).
Forty-five percent, 67%, and 56% of the Canadian, American and
European anesthesiologists respectively estimate that IF reflects
journal quality. Sixty-four percent of anesthesiologists in North
America vs 81% in Europe (P = 0.0175) pursue to publish in high IF
journals. Eighty-six percent, 85% and 90% of the Canadian, American
and European anesthesiologists believe that the IF of a journal can be
manipulated. Finally, 79%, 67%, and 81% of the Canadian, American,
and European anesthesiologists believe that IF should be improved but
33%, 35%, and 30% believe that it should be abandoned.
Conclusions: IF for academic appointments and funding is more important
in Europe than in North America. More than 50% of anesthesiologists
agree that IF needs to be improved