Last year I reported the 2008 ISI Impact Factors for some prominent conservation journals and a few other journals occasionally publishing conservation-related material. ISI just released the 2009 Impact Factors, so I’ll do the same again this year, and add some general ecology journals as well. For all you Australians, I also recently reported the ERA Journal Rankings.
So here are the 2009 Impact Factors for the journals listed on this site’s Journals page and their 2008 values for comparison:
- Animal Conservation: 2.358 (2009) versus 2.587 (2008)
- Biodiversity and Conservation: 2.066 (2009) versus 1.473 (2008)
- Biological Conservation: 3.167 (2009) versus 3.566 (2007)
- Conservation Biology: 4.666 (2009) versus 4.705 (2008)
- Conservation Evidence: no Impact Factor yet
- Conservation Letters: not yet old enough to obtain an impact factor, but one should be ascribed in 2011
- Conservation Genetics: 1.849 (2009) versus 2.408 (2008)
- Diversity and Distributions: 4.224 (2009) versus 3.466 (2008)
- Environmental Conservation: 1.541(2009) versus 1.875 (2008)
- Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment: 6.922 (2009) versus 5.065 (2008)
- Global Change Biology: 5.561 (2009) versus 5.876 (2008)
- Journal for Nature Conservation: 0.711(2009) versus 0.940 (2008)
- Oryx: 1.693 (2009) versus 1.381 (2008)
and for some ecology journals that frequently publish conservation-related material:
- Ambio: 2.486 (2009) versus 2.092 (2008)
- Austral Ecology: 1.578 (2009) versus 1.826 (2008)
- Biotropica: 2.270 (2009) versus 2.170 (2008)
- Ecography: 4.385 (2009) versus 4.099 (2008)
- Ecological Applications: 3.672 (2009) versus 3.628 (2008)
- Ecology: 4.411 (2009) versus 4.874 (2008)
- Ecology Letters: 10.318 (2009) versus 9.392 (2008)
- Journal of Animal Ecology: 3.714 (2009) versus 4.222 (2008)
- Journal of Applied Ecology: 4.197 (2009) versus 4.560 (2008)
- Journal of Biogeography: 4.087 (2009) versus 4.566 (2008)
- Global Ecology and Biogeography: 5.913 (2009) versus 5.304 (2008)
- Marine Ecology Progress Series: 2.519 (2009) versus 2.631 (2008)
- Molecular Ecology: 5.960 (2009) versus 5.325 (2008)
- Oecologia: 3.192 (2009) versus 5.325 (2008)
- Wildlife Research:1.222 (2009) versus 1.111 (2008)
and for some more general journals that occasionally publish conservation papers:
- Nature: 34.480 (2009) versus 31.434 (2008)
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA: 9.432 (2009) versus 9.380 (2008)
- Science: 29.747 (2008) versus 28.103 (2007)
- Trends in Ecology and Evolution: 11.564 (2009) versus 11.904 (2008)
Also rather cool, the new-ish Open Access journal, PLoS One has received its first Impact Factor and comes in at a respectable 4.351 (phew! – I’ve published two papers [see here and here] there in the last few years).
What about PLoS Biology and Proc B?
Ok – I can add those.
PLoS Biology comes in at 12.196, and I can’t find PRS-B’s!
Proc B doesn’t seem to be in the 2009 Journal Citation Reports at all…!?
I know – very strange. I expect this is a temporary oversight on ISI’s part.
From the Royal Society website:
Impact Factor 2009: 4.857 * Please note that Proc B is currrently missing from the 2009 JCR due to an error by Thomson Reuters, which we hope will be corrected shortly *
This just in from the Royal Society London:
- Proceedings B now has an Impact Factor of 4.857 and is ranked 7th in biology
- Biology Letters now has an Impact Factor of 3.521 and is ranked 14th in biology
- Philosophical Transactions B now has an Impact Factor of 5.117 and is ranked 6th in biology
What about 2009 impact factor of following journal
1) Invertebrate reproduction and development
2) Journal of Applied Animal Research
3) Indian journal of Biochemistry and Biophysics
Not conservation or ecology journals – not my interest (or my readers’). Subscribe to ISI if you want them.
Dear sir,
Please, iam in india, i dont have access to ISI, Please help me
This blog is not a charity. Sorry.
Hi,
Could you send me a .PDF file with all the ISI 2009 Impact Factors of all the scientific journals by alphabeticla order, that woudl be great !
Thanks and regards,
Brice Felden, prof Biochemistry
Sorry, don’t have one and it’s illegal (copyright infringement). You need to subscribe to ISI.
In fact you could. There are quite few countries where a list of numbers can be copyrighted. ISI’s stance on this is quite ridiculous. I’d love to get time to see them trying to so me. Note that (in my country at least), a phonebook can also not be copyrighted. The work needs to be creative for that.
But honestly, the list is useless anyway. Just use google and you get a number which means just as little, and can be more easily verified.
Check out good discussion on PLoS One’s new Impact Factor here http://wp.me/pcvbl-37B
Check out http://wp.me/phhT4-16B for projected Impact Factor for Conservation Letters.
Hi,
Could you send me a PDF file with all the ISI 2009 Impact Factors of all the scientific journals by alphabeticla order, that woudl be great !
Thanks
With my best regards,
Dr. Md. Ehtesham Ul Hoque
You obviously didn’t read the comments above. I cannot and will not do this. It is copyright breach. You must be a subscriber to ISI.
Kindly inform me the 2009 impact factor of American Journal of Applied Sciences through my E-mail Id
Sorry – as I said, I am not in the business of doing people’s research for them.
[...] ISI 2009 Impact Factors now out June 2010 20 comments 3 [...]
[...] I’ve done for 2008 and 2009, I’ve taken the liberty of providing the new IFs for some prominent conservation and ecology [...]
[...] previously listed the 2008, 2009 and 2010 IF for major conservation and ecology journals – now here are the 2011 IF fresh off [...]