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

Argyro Fassoulaki, Konstantinos D. Sarantopoulos, Kostantinos Papilas, Konstantinos Patris, Aikaterini Melemeni

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)953-957
Number of pages5
JournalCanadian Journal of Anesthesia
Volume48
Issue number10
StatePublished - Dec 1 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Journal Impact Factor
North America
Canada
Appointments and Schedules
Anesthesiologists
Surveys and Questionnaires
Financial Support
Publications

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Academic anesthesiologists' views on the importance of the impact factor of scientific journals : A North American and European survey. / Fassoulaki, Argyro; Sarantopoulos, Konstantinos D.; Papilas, Kostantinos; Patris, Konstantinos; Melemeni, Aikaterini.

In: Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol. 48, No. 10, 01.12.2001, p. 953-957.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fassoulaki, Argyro ; Sarantopoulos, Konstantinos D. ; Papilas, Kostantinos ; Patris, Konstantinos ; Melemeni, Aikaterini. / Academic anesthesiologists' views on the importance of the impact factor of scientific journals : A North American and European survey. In: Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. 2001 ; Vol. 48, No. 10. pp. 953-957.
@article{e84d2eb4c1db4c0e81c1005f4282a77d,
title = "Academic anesthesiologists' views on the importance of the impact factor of scientific journals: A North American and European survey",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Argyro Fassoulaki and Sarantopoulos, {Konstantinos D.} and Kostantinos Papilas and Konstantinos Patris and Aikaterini Melemeni",
year = "2001",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "953--957",
journal = "Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesth{\'e}sie",
issn = "0008-2856",
publisher = "Canadian Anaesthetists Society",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Academic anesthesiologists' views on the importance of the impact factor of scientific journals

T2 - A North American and European survey

AU - Fassoulaki, Argyro

AU - Sarantopoulos, Konstantinos D.

AU - Papilas, Kostantinos

AU - Patris, Konstantinos

AU - Melemeni, Aikaterini

PY - 2001/12/1

Y1 - 2001/12/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035694595&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035694595&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11698312

AN - SCOPUS:0035694595

VL - 48

SP - 953

EP - 957

JO - Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthésie

JF - Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthésie

SN - 0008-2856

IS - 10

ER -