20 years of bibliometric data illustrates a lack of concordance between journal impact factor and fungal species discovery in systematic mycology

Journal impact factors were devised to qualify and compare university library holdings but are frequently repurposed for use in ranking applications, research papers, and even individual applicants in mycology and beyond. The widely held assumption that mycological studies published in journals with high impact factors add more to systematic mycology than studies published in journals without high impact factors nevertheless lacks evidential underpinning. The present study uses the species hypothesis system of the UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi and other eukaryotes to trace the publication history and impact factor of sequences uncovering new fungal species hypotheses. The data show that journal impact factors are poor predictors of discovery potential in systematic mycology. There is no clear relationship between journal impact factor and the discovery of new species hypotheses for the years 2000-2021. On the contrary, we found journals with low, and even no, impact factor to account for substantial parts of the species hypothesis landscape, often discovering new fungal taxa that are only later picked up by journals with high impact factors. Funding agencies and hiring committees that insist on upholding journal impact factors as a central funding and recruitment criterion in systematic mycology should consider using indicators such as research quality, productivity, outreach activities, review services for scientific journals, and teaching ability directly rather than using publication in high impact factor journals as a proxy for these indicators.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
MycoKeys
Published
2024-11-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.110.136048
Primary Topic
Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

20 years of bibliometric data illustrates a lack of concordance between journal impact factor and fungal species discovery in systematic mycology

Alice Retter, R. Henrik Nilsson, Teresita M. Porter, Masoomeh Ghobad‐Nejhad et al.
MycoKeys
Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
article

20 years of bibliometric data illustrates a lack of concordance between journal impact factor and fungal species discovery in systematic mycology

Alice Retter, R. Henrik Nilsson, Teresita M. Porter, Masoomeh Ghobad‐Nejhad, Sten Svantesson, Kessy Abarenkov, Erik Kristiansson, Maryia Khomich, Charlotte Lennartsdotter, Patrik Svedberg, Marko Peterson, David Lund, Tobias Jansson, Duong Vu, Sergei Põlme, Natàlia Corcoll, Christian Wurzbacher, Marisol Sánchez‐García, Mikael Gustavsson, Faheema Kalsoom Khan, Pauline Helen Belford, Vladimir Mikryukov, Daniela Gómez-Martínez, Sten Anslan, Martin Ryberg, Alexandra Dombrowski, B. van der Merwe
article en

Abstract

Journal impact factors were devised to qualify and compare university library holdings but are frequently repurposed for use in ranking applications, research papers, and even individual applicants in mycology and beyond. The widely held assumption that mycological studies published in journals with high impact factors add more to systematic mycology than studies published in journals without high impact factors nevertheless lacks evidential underpinning. The present study uses the species hypothesis system of the UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi and other eukaryotes to trace the publication history and impact factor of sequences uncovering new fungal species hypotheses. The data show that journal impact factors are poor predictors of discovery potential in systematic mycology. There is no clear relationship between journal impact factor and the discovery of new species hypotheses for the years 2000-2021. On the contrary, we found journals with low, and even no, impact factor to account for substantial parts of the species hypothesis landscape, often discovering new fungal taxa that are only later picked up by journals with high impact factors. Funding agencies and hiring committees that insist on upholding journal impact factors as a central funding and recruitment criterion in systematic mycology should consider using indicators such as research quality, productivity, outreach activities, review services for scientific journals, and teaching ability directly rather than using publication in high impact factor journals as a proxy for these indicators.

MycoKeysVol. 110
Uppsala University (SE), University of Vienna (AT), Stellenbosch University (ZA), Lindholmen Science Park (SE), Iranian Research Organization for Science and Technology (IR), Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (DE), University of Bergen (NO), University of Tartu (EE), Technical University of Munich (DE), Chalmers University of Technology (SE), University of Gothenburg (SE), University of Jyväskylä (FI)
Vetenskapsrådet, Artdatabanken, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet
Openalex Percentile: Top 88%
Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.