ISI 2011 impact factors for ecology and evolution journals

Regardless what one thinks about impact factors, they’re out now for 2011 and will no doubt have their impact on science, publication decisions and research funding. As last year, I list the 40 most highly cited journals that are listed by the web of science under “ecology” below, with their 2011 and 2010 rank, and their respective IFs.

Taking aside stochasticity in smaller journals, the trends of the last years continue to some extent, with EL gaining ground on TREE, but below the very top, there is a bit of a mixed picture. For example, the trend of BES journals improving compared to the ESA journals of the last years is broken by Ecological Monographs making a big step forward, and also the trend towards macro-topics doesn’t seem so clear to me than it used to be in the last years. Methods in Ecology and Evolution is listed for the first time, starting with an impressive IF of around 5. Note that, for some reason, ISI didn’t list Conservation Letters under Ecology any more, but its new IF is not at 4, somewhat lower than in it’s first listed year 2010. Also, as a reference: the big journals have hardly changed compared to last year, with Nature at 36, Science at 31 and PNAS at 9.7.

Rank ’11 (’10)

Journal

Publications

IF ’11

IF ’10

1 (1)

ECOL LETT

94

17.557

15.253

2 (2)

TRENDS ECOL EVOL

74

15.748

14.448

3 (3)

ANNU REV ECOL EVOL S

22

14.373

10.698

4 (4)

FRONT ECOL ENVIRON

54

9.113

8.820

5 (8)

ECOL MONOGR

30

7.433

5.938

6 (7)

ISME J

178

7.375

6.153

7 (6)

GLOBAL CHANGE BIOL

292

6.862

6.346

8 (5)

MOL ECOL

368

5.522

6.457

9 (13)

P ROY SOC B-BIOL SCI

466

5.415

5.064

10 (36)

ADV ECOL RES

5

5.333

3.077

10 (16)

WILDLIFE MONOGR

5

5.333

4.800

12 (9)

EVOLUTION

285

5.146

5.659

13 (10)

GLOBAL ECOL BIOGEOGR

78

5.145

5.273

14 (24)

ECOL APPL

262

5.102

4.276

15

METHODS ECOL EVOL

76

5.093

 

16 (14)

J APPL ECOL

161

5.045

4.970

17 (11)

J ECOL

152

5.044

5.260

18 (22)

J ANIM ECOL

129

4.937

4.457

19 (12)

ECOLOGY

230

4.849

5.073

20 (27)

DIVERS DISTRIB

102

4.830

4.248

21 (17)

AM NAT

168

4.725

4.736

22 (15)

CONSERV BIOL

133

4.692

4.894

23 (20)

HEREDITY

154

4.597

4.569

24 (19)

FUNCT ECOL

140

4.567

4.645

25 (25)

J BIOGEOGR

177

4.544

4.273

26 (23)

ECOGRAPHY

107

4.188

4.417

27 (32)

BIOL CONSERV

346

4.115

3.498

28 (30)

BIOGEOSCIENCES

254

3.859

3.587

29 (29)

BIOL LETTERS

247

3.762

3.651

30 (27)

ECOSYSTEMS

95

3.495

3.679

31 (31)

OECOLOGIA

311

3.412

3.517

32 (28)

J EVOLUTION BIOL

254

3.276

3.656

33 (21)

PERSPECT PLANT ECOL

29

3.208

4.488

34 (46)

BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL

221

3.179

2.565

35 (51)

ECOL ENG

255

3.106

2.203

36 (41)

BEHAV ECOL

172

3.083

2.926

37 (70)

MOL ECOL RESOUR

165

3.062

1.631

38 (36)

LANDSCAPE ECOL

103

3.061

3.200

38 (34)

OIKOS

207

3.061

3.393

40 (44)

AGR ECOSYST ENVIRON

212

3.004

2.790

4 thoughts on “ISI 2011 impact factors for ecology and evolution journals

  1. Interesting that the highest journals here are review-focused journals – with the exception of Ecol Lett. Although I’ve heard some interesting stories of Ecol. Lett. editors pushing hard for review papers as a means to inflate their impact factor. I hope that’s not true, but sad if it is – should not be the primary motivation of scientific journals in my opinion. Also interesting that the Plos journals are not listed here. An artifact of ISI selection criteria?

  2. I think it’s an open secret that reviews are on average more highly cited than research papers, so review journals are naturally doing well, and a lot of journals (also lower ranked) are happy to accept reviews.

    However, I don’t think that this is a bad thing at all – primary research is important of course, but I find that specially for ecology, where comparability is often low, where terminology is often weakly determined and methods are changing fast, it is very important to summarize what’s going on in the primary research and discuss new ideas in the form of (quantitative) reviews, syntheses, perspectives and meta-analyses. For my part, I don’t have the feeling that we are swamped with good! reviews just yet.

    PLOS journals are not listed because they are not pure Ecology and Evolution journals.

  3. Pingback: ISI 2012 impact factors for ecology and evolution journals | theoretical ecology

  4. Pingback: ISI 2013 impact factors for the top 40 ecology journals | theoretical ecology

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