This Article Résumé de cet Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a scholarly reply Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Fassoulaki, A. Articles by Melemeni, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fassoulaki, A. Articles by Melemeni, A.

Academic anesthesiologists' views on the importance of the impact factor of scientific journals: a North American and European survey

L'opinion des universitaires en anesthésiologie sur l'importance du facteur d'impact des revues scientifiques : une enquête nord-américaine et européenne

Argyro Fassoulaki, MD PhD DEAA^*, Constantine Sarantopoulos, MD PhD DEAA, Kostantinos Papilas, MD DEAA, Konstantinos Patris, MD and Aikaterini Melemeni, MD

^* From the Department of Anesthesiology, Aretaieion Hospital, Medical School, University of Athens, Greece, the Department of Anesthesiology
Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, and the Department of Anesthesiology
St Savas Hospital, Athens, Greece

Dr. A. Fassoulaki, 57-59 Raftopoulou street, 11744 Athens, Greece. Phone: +301- 9024530; Fax: +301-9024530; E-mail: afassou1{at}otenet.gr

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.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. P. Weiss Measuring the Impact of Medical Research: Moving From Outputs to Outcomes Am J Psychiatry, February 1, 2007; 164(2): 206 - 214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Holden, G. Rosenberg, K. Barker, and P. Onghena An Assessment of the Predictive Validity of Impact Factor Scores: Implications for Academic Employment Decisions in Social Work Research on Social Work Practice, November 1, 2006; 16(6): 613 - 624. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Gastel Assessing the impact of investigators' work: beyond impact factors/Evaluer l'influence des travaux de recherche au dela des facteurs d'impact Can J Anesth, November 1, 2001; 48(10): 941 - 945. [Full Text] [PDF]