Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Editorial

Impacting our young

Eve Marder, Helmut Kettenmann, and Sten Grillner
  1. aPast President, Society for Neuroscience;
  2. bPast President, Federation of European Neuroscience Societies; and
  3. cPresident, Federation of European Neuroscience Societies

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS December 14, 2010 107 (50) 21233; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016516107
Eve Marder
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: marder@brandeis.edu kettenmann@mdc-berlin.de sten.grillner@ki.se
Helmut Kettenmann
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: marder@brandeis.edu kettenmann@mdc-berlin.de sten.grillner@ki.se
Sten Grillner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: marder@brandeis.edu kettenmann@mdc-berlin.de sten.grillner@ki.se
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Much has been written about impact factors, how they are calculated, and what they do and do not measure. Briefly, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) impact factor is calculated for each journal as the number of citations per paper published in that journal in the prior 2 years. When the 2-year impact factor was designed, it was intended to be an aid to librarians making decisions about which journals to purchase so that they could get a rough sense of a journal's influence in its field. In this context, the impact factor makes sense. Nonetheless, the use of the impact factor to judge individual scientists, departments, and institutions is a remarkable case study in the law of unintended consequences. Like so many well-intentioned interventions in social policy, ecology, and medicine, reliance on the impact factor as part of the evaluation of candidates and programs has caused myriad problems, although it has perhaps solved some.

Today, the impact factor is often used as a proxy for the prestige of the journal. This proxy is convenient for those wishing to assess young scientists across fields, because it does not require knowledge of the reputation of individual journals or specific expertise in all fields. In some countries, it was hoped that the impact factor would provide a more objective metric for scientific excellence than reliance on scientific pedigrees. For this reason, the impact factor has become a formal part of the evaluation process for job candidates and promotions in many countries, with both salutatory and pernicious consequences.

There are many reasons why reliance on the impact factor for the evaluation of individual scientists makes little sense. Because the least important paper published in a journal shares the impact factor with the most important papers in the same journal, the number of citations of a given article often does not reflect the impact factor of the journal where it is published. However, our major concern is not whether using the impact factor to evaluate individuals makes sense but its negative consequences for our young scientists as they make decisions about how to do science, publish their work, and apply for positions. It is our contention that overreliance on the impact factor is a corrupting force on our young scientists (and also on more senior scientists) and that we would be well-served to divest ourselves of its influence.

The scientific enterprise is about the creation and dissemination of new knowledge. In today's world, where it is possible to post findings on the web, scientific journals add value by providing peer review. At some journals, peer review consists primarily of asking whether the work was done correctly, if appropriate controls and statistics are present, if the figures and text are clear, and whether the arguments make logical sense. At other journals, peer review emphasizes the potential significance and novelty of the work.

Not surprisingly, the journals with the highest impact factor (leaving aside the review journals) are those that place the highest premium on perceived novelty and significance. This can distort decisions on how to undertake a scientific project. Many, if not most, important scientific findings come from serendipitous discovery. New knowledge is new precisely because it was unanticipated. Consequently, it is hard to predict which projects are going to generate useful and informative data that will add to our body of knowledge and which will generate that homerun finding. Today, too many of our postdocs believe that getting a paper into a prestigious journal is more important to their career than doing the science itself.

We have seen postdocs waste years submitting a paper to a high impact factor journal, having it be rejected, and then, revising it down the prestige chain, costing them months and months of time that would be better spent doing new science. Sadly, this process erodes their sense of accomplishment. Instead of being satisfied by reviews saying that the work was well done and clearly presented, they are disappointed by the impact factor of the journal in which it eventually is published. Too many postdocs say that their favorite journals, where they find the papers that they like to read and where they would choose to publish if they did not feel pressure to publish in high impact factor journals, are off limits to them because of the evaluation system of their home governmental review panels. The hypocrisy inherent in choosing a journal because of its impact factor, rather than the science it publishes, undermines the ideals by which science should be done. This contributes to disillusionment, causing some of our talented and creative young people to leave science.

There are countries that give financial and other bounties to young scientists for publications in high impact factor journals. We understand wanting to encourage young people to aspire to international recognition for their work. However, placing too much emphasis on publication in high impact factor journals is a recipe for disaster. At the extreme, it creates temptation to falsify data. Even among the most scrupulous, it sends the message that the honest pursuit of the truth in science is not sufficient for success.

Is there a solution? Minimally, we must forego using impact factors as a proxy for excellence and replace them with in-depth analyses of the science produced by candidates for positions and grants. This requires more time and effort from senior scientists and cooperation from international communities, because not every country has the necessary expertise in all areas of science. Already, a number of countries around the world solicit opinions internationally. We all must be willing to participate in international reviews, because this is the only way that we can free our young scientists from the tyranny of the impact factor. As a society of scientists, we must be vigilant to ensure by all of our actions that our job is the pursuit of new knowledge and its dissemination, not the pursuit of glory before truth.

Footnotes

  • 1To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: marder{at}brandeis.edu, kettenmann{at}mdc-berlin.de, or sten.grillner{at}ki.se.
  • Author contributions: E.M., H.K., and S.G. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Impacting our young
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Impacting our young
Eve Marder, Helmut Kettenmann, Sten Grillner
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2010, 107 (50) 21233; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1016516107

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Impacting our young
Eve Marder, Helmut Kettenmann, Sten Grillner
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2010, 107 (50) 21233; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1016516107
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 107 (50)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Smoke emanates from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant a few days after tsunami damage
Core Concept: Muography offers a new way to see inside a multitude of objects
Muons penetrate much further than X-rays, they do essentially zero damage, and they are provided for free by the cosmos.
Image credit: Science Source/Digital Globe.
Water from a faucet fills a glass.
News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
Venus flytrap captures a fly.
Journal Club: Venus flytrap mechanism could shed light on how plants sense touch
One protein seems to play a key role in touch sensitivity for flytraps and other meat-eating plants.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Kuttelvaserova Stuchelova.
Illustration of groups of people chatting
Exploring the length of human conversations
Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert explore why conversations almost never end when people want them to.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Panda bear hanging in a tree
How horse manure helps giant pandas tolerate cold
A study finds that giant pandas roll in horse manure to increase their cold tolerance.
Image credit: Fuwen Wei.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490