How to avoid losing your Impact Factor

Ten ways to ensure you don’t end up out in the cold

Editor’s note: this article was updated on 30^th July 2024 to provide further clarity around the role of an editor with respect to reviewing.

In 2023 more than 80 journals lost their Impact Factor. The reasons ranged from serious cases of ethical misconduct through to routine errors. Even small errors (such as presence of articles clearly outside the scope of the journal, or citations to sources not relevant to the context) can lead to losing an Impact Factor and wider de-indexation.

Journals can be flagged because of feedback from the community, or through tools developed by Clarivate (owner and operator of the Impact Factor). Clarivate uses 24 quality criteria in its flagging process 打開新的分頁／視窗. Some areas are flagged more often than others, however. The following guide illustrates the most common factors that lead to de-indexation and guides you through the simple steps that need to be taken to avoid such an eventuality.

1. Ensure there is quality control, editorial oversight & functioning peer review

Fraudulent or otherwise flawed research brings many problematic outcomes, including for journals. Elsevier is committed to upholding scientific ethics (for example by combating fake papers) as part of delivering, together with its authors, editors and reviewers, a sizable share of the world’s highest quality research. A high level of editorial oversight, including rigorous peer review, should operate for all manuscripts submitted to a journal (including special issues and review articles). In addition, guest editors should be thoroughly vetted by the editorial team.

2. Stick to the stated scope and make sure articles abide by the guide for authors

Articles published which are clearly outside the stated aims & scope of the journal are a sign of poor editorial oversight and, as mentioned above, can lead to de-indexation.

Similarly, anything stated in the guide for authors should be reflected in practice. For example, if sharing a particular type of dataset is stated as being “required”, a process should be put in place to verify those datasets are indeed shared alongside their respective published articles.

3. Communicate changes and policies

Significant changes to the remit of the journal must always be carefully considered before being enacted. Even then, any substantial changes to important items such as the aims & scope can lead to loss of Impact Factor for a period of time, or a change in journal category. If the changes are significant, the journal could be subjected to a new editorial review by Clarivate. Therefore, such changes need to be proactively communicated to Clarivate by the publishing team. Furthermore, any procedure, policy or workflow adopted by the journal in its operations should be well-documented and easily defensible.

4. Be alert for manipulated or unjustifiable citations

Journals, authors and reviewers should not manipulate citations. Please refer to our previously published guidance for information and definitions on self-citations, citation stacking and citation rings.

Articles should not contain non-pertinent citations. These can be of two types: citations not pertinent to the topic of the article itself (e.g., citing an astrophysics reference in a cancer manuscript) and citations not pertinent to the context within the article where the citation is made (e.g., a reference about cancer genetics in a sentence discussing cancer biochemistry). These are often “throw-away” references placed in introductions. Any such citations should be removed.

5. Avoid conflicts of interest

Editors, guest editors, Editorial Board members, authors and reviewers should not serve in multiple roles in ways that can result in (a perceived) lack of independent judgement. For example, other than overseeing initial triage and making editorial decisions on papers, editors should not act as one of the reviewers on a paper; many indexing services expect that papers (which are not desk rejected by the editors) will be reviewed by a minimum of two external experts. There are many other examples of conflicts of interest in peer review.

6. Check declaration of interest statements (and other ethical compliance items)

Indexation services require that the necessary compliance statements be present within every article. All journals require a declaration of interest statement; many fields require discipline specific items, such as patient consent forms. The presence and suitability of these must be checked by an editor at the manuscript triage stage.

7. Embrace diversity in all aspects of the journal

The journal's Publisher is responsible for appointing editors and the Editorial Advisory board, but they will often ask for suggestions of potential researchers to join. When making suggestions, help the Publisher by suggesting researchers who enhance the diversity of the team.

Too much content from one country (or worse from a handful of institutions) can be problematic, unless it can be justified according to the general field’s publication patterns. If your journal is imbalanced in terms of authorship, commissioning can lend a hand in boosting author numbers from hitherto unrepresented countries/institutions.

8. Act decisively on ethics cases

As an editor, you may become aware of a potential ethical problem with a published article. First, alert the journal Publisher; they will guide you through the process and clarify what is needed. Act quickly and decisively to resolve ethics cases in a timely manner. If an article should be retracted, authorize the retraction.

9. Scrutinize authorship changes

Authorship changes during revision are a frequently used tactic employed by paper mills. Authorship changes are permissible when accompanied by a significant revision of the paper (e.g., more experiments) and an explanation from the corresponding author in the cover letter. Authorship change requests that cannot be robustly defended should be declined.

10. Check for paper mill submissions

There are several hallmarks of paper mill activity. Editors should familiarize themselves with these papermill hallmarks and check manuscripts at the triage stage. Use an ethical misconduct rejection term to flag and reject such instances. There are also additional ways to combat paper mill activity.

Trust is the main currency of science publishing

All of these recommendations are good editorial practices, which point to the need for trust and transparency in all aspects of a journal’s peer review and publication activity. Building trust is a way to be proactive, rather than reactive on scientific ethics. Your publishing team is there to help you navigate these issues with best practices and specific advice.