2010 ISI Impact Factors out now (with some surprises)

29 06 2011

It’s been another year of citations and now the latest list of ISI Impact Factors (2010) has come out. Regardless of how much stock you put in these (see here for a damning review), you cannot ignore their influence on publishing trends and author journal choices.

As I’ve done for 2008 and 2009, I’ve taken the liberty of providing the new IFs for some prominent conservation and ecology journals, and a few other journals occasionally publishing conservation-related material.

One particular journal deserves special attention here. Many of you might know that I was Senior Editor with Conservation Letters from 2008-2010, and I (with other editorial staff) made some predictions about where the journal’s first impact factor might be on the scale (see also here). Well, I have to say the result exceeded my expectations (although Hugh Possingham was closer to the truth in the end – bugger!). So the journal’s first 2010 impact factor (for which I take a modicum of credit ;-) is a whopping… 4.694 (3rd among all ‘conservation’ journals). Well done to all and sundry who have edited and published in the journal. My best wishes to the team that has to deal with the inevitable rush of submissions this will likely bring!

So here are the rest of the 2010 Impact Factors with the 2009 values for comparison:

and for some ecology journals that frequently publish conservation-related material:

and for some more general journals that occasionally publish conservation papers:

So the big winners were Ecology Letters, Conservation Letters, Trends in Ecology and Evolution and Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

CJA Bradshaw

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine



13 responses

14 07 2017
Journal ranks 2016 | ConservationBytes.com

[…] 21 conservation journals, just as I have done in previous years (2015, 2014,  2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, […]


26 07 2016
Journal ranks 2015 | ConservationBytes.com

[…] For previous lists based on ISI Impact Factors (except 2014), see the following links (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, […]


18 02 2016
How to rank journals | ConservationBytes.com

[…] in conservation ecology according to their ISI® Impact Factor (see lists for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013). These lists have proven to be exceedingly […]


1 08 2014
A fairer way to rank conservation and ecology journals in 2014 | ConservationBytes.com

[…] also publish conservation-related material from time to time (see my lists of the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 Impact Factor […]


20 06 2013
Conservation and ecology journal Impact Factors 2012 | ConservationBytes.com

[…] previously listed the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 IF for major conservation and ecology journals. As before, I’ve included the […]


29 06 2012
Conservation and Ecology Impact Factors 2011 « ConservationBytes.com

[…] previously listed the 2008, 2009 and 2010 IF for major conservation and ecology journals – now here are the 2011 IF fresh off the press […]


13 04 2012
Journal metrics « sharmanedit

[…] including this for medical journals, this for Nature journals, this for Cell Press journals, this for general and evolutionary journals, this and this for a range of other journals, and individual […]


14 07 2011
The 2010 journal impact factors are out: should we care? | Ideas for Sustainability

[…] them out, in fact before breakfast … for my favourite journals, did they go up or down? Others also commented on the new impact factors as soon as they came out — clearly, it’s the kind of thing that makes scientists tick these […]


30 06 2011
Julian Olden

Interesting results – but be aware of inflation rates in impact factors. Due to increases in the number of cited papers per paper, we have seen an inflation rate of 0.23 over the past 10 years in the field of ecology (Neff and Olden 2010). See http://www.fish.washington.edu/research/oldenlab/pdf/2010/BioScience_2010b.pdf


30 06 2011

Thanks, Julian. Yes, they all are going up on average. I was aware of your study. It’s just the big jumps (or falls) I’m most interested in.


30 06 2011
Cagan Sekercioglu

Congrats to Corey and the Con Let team


30 06 2011
Cagan Sekercioglu

How about Current Biology?


30 06 2011

Was 10.992, now is 10.025. Slight decline, but relatively speaking, not much change.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s