MYCOLab Ai Logo - gold and army green

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

Summary

This study analyzed 20 years of data on how many new fungal species were discovered in different scientific journals. The researchers found that journals with high impact factors (which are often considered more prestigious) did not discover more new fungal species than journals with low or no impact factors. In fact, many important new fungal discoveries were published in less prestigious journals. This suggests that using impact factor as the main way to evaluate mycologists’ research quality is misleading and that hiring committees and funding agencies should look at actual research contributions instead.

Background

Journal impact factors (IFs) were originally designed to help libraries select publications but have become widely used by funding agencies and hiring committees to evaluate research quality and researcher performance. The assumption that high-IF journals contribute more to systematic mycology than low or no-IF journals lacks empirical evidence. This study examines whether journal impact factors actually correlate with fungal species discovery in systematic mycology.

Objective

To assess the relationship between journal impact factors and discovery potential in systematic mycology by analyzing 20 years of bibliometric data from the UNITE database. The study aims to determine whether reliance on impact factors as a measure of scientific quality in mycology is justified by empirical evidence.

Results

Of 33,913 published sequences representing initial SH discoveries, 84.5% were published in journals with formal IFs while 15.5% were in no-IF outlets. Remarkably, the majority of new SHs in recent years were first reported in journals with IFs below the mycological median. The study found no meaningful correlation between journal IF and mycosystematical discovery potential, contradicting the assumption underlying current evaluation practices.

Conclusion

Journal impact factors are poor predictors of discovery potential in systematic mycology and should not be used as the primary criterion for evaluating researchers or funding applications in this field. Funding agencies and hiring committees should instead assess research quality, productivity, teaching ability, and review services directly rather than relying on publication venue as a proxy for scientific merit.
  • Published in:MycoKeys,
  • Study Type:Bibliometric Analysis,
  • Source: 10.3897/mycokeys.110.136048
Scroll to Top