The 2009 Journal Citation Report has just been published!
Just as last year [See The 2008 Journal Citation Report is in! ], there are not many surprises on the top (considering ALL journals), with some medical (CA-CANCER J CLIN, NEW ENGL J MED) and review journals holding on to most of the top 10 positions (including biology related review journals like NAT REV MOL CELL BIO -with an amazing 42.198, which ranks it 4th overall- and NAT REV IMMUNOL).Also in the top 10, we find Nature (34.480, compared to its 2008 IF of 31.434) and Nature Genetics (34.284, compared to its 2008 IF of 30.259).
Cell, which last year was among the top 10, is now ranked 12th, with 31.152, compared to its 2008 IF of 31.253.
Science, the other glam journal, is now at the 15th position overall, with 29.747, compared to its 2008 IF of 28.103.
Note that, just as I said last year...
you know how I feel about the IF [for example see here] and I've talked about the special care one has to have with it before, so I don't want you to get the impression that just because I'm posting the news I think we should all live our lives around the IF (which of course, I don't... don't be silly). The list, however, is a highlight so we are bringing some details right to your RSS reader (if you follow us through one of those).
Now let's get down to business: who made the Top-20 in the Biochemistry & Molecular Biology category?
In descending order: CELL, ANNU REV BIOCHEM1, NAT MED, ANNU REV BIOPH BIOM1, NAT CHEM BIOL, MOL PSYCHIATR, MOL CELL, PLOS BIOL, NAT STRUCT MOL BIOL, MOL SYST BIOL, BBA-REV CANCER1, TRENDS BIOCHEM SCI1, GENOME RES, TRENDS MOL MED1, CURR BIOL, CRIT REV BIOCHEM MOL, MOL BIOL EVOL, CURR OPIN STRUC BIOL1, PLANT CELL, NAT PROD REP.
1 Review journals
Here's the 2008 top-20 list in the field, for comparison:
CELL, ANNU REV BIOCHEM1, NAT MED, ANNU REV BIOPH BIOM1, NAT CHEM BIOL,TRENDS BIOCHEM SCI1, MOL CELL, PLOS BIOL, MOL PSYCHIATR, MOL SYST BIOL, PROG LIPID RES, NAT STRUCT MOL BIOL, CURR BIOL, BBA-REV CANCER1, GENOME RES, TRENDS MOL MED1, PLANT CELL, CURR OPIN STRUC BIOL1, CRIT REV BIOCHEM MOL1, EMBO J
Just as last year, let's take a look at how some of the PLoS journals are doing (why? because we love PLoS and what it represents, see here and here)
First, the heavily criticized PLoS ONE shows that their novel strategy is working, with a great 4.351!.
PLoS Medicine now leads the way for the PLoS journals with 13.050 (last year PLoS Biology held the top position)
Also, PLoS Biology 12.916 (close second!), PLoS Pathogens 8.978, PLoS Genetics 9.532, PLoS Computational Biology 5.759, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 4.693.
That's it for the moment.
I have to get back to my bacterial transformations and to watch some World Cup games ;-)
--
[Image credit: The NAD group]
3 Comments:
I have mixed feelings about the many review journals that come out on top in these IF reports. Sure, reviews are really valuable for summarizing research fields and putting new findings into context.
But do they need to be cited that much? Often I see review articles cited for claims or sentences that really could have cited the original paper(s) in which the findings are published..
Where's Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology? And Protist? And European J Protistol? Eur J Phycol? J Foram Res?
*sniff* why do the med people hog all the cool numbers T_T
(that's ok, we get all the cool science =P)
@Lucas
I totally agree. It's not unusual to have to go fish for a reference by going backwards over 10 papers to get the original article for something.
@Psi
haha, I was kinda of expecting that sort of comment from you :)
If you need the info, I'll email it to you.
Post a Comment