2013 Journal Impact Factors: Conservation and Herpetology Edition

There have been more discussions than I can count about the value of journal impact factors. There is a growing consensus that they are an inadequate metric of productivity in the publishing world. There are of course other metrics such as the eigenfactor (H-index) and Google Scholar Metrics; however, IFs still reign supreme. So, every summer when new IFs are released, I take a look to see how the journals in which I have publications are doing,* and to also gauge where send future publications.** While I am generally fascinated by the rise and fall of IFs, many others out there likely aren’t.

Below I have compiled a list of conservation/ecology/toxicology/disease/herpetology journals and their 2013 AND 2012 (for comparison) IFs. If you are interested in alternative metrics and how they stack up against standard IFs, head over to Conservation Bytes for an interesting look at the issue.

Some quick reads from 2012-2013. The Winners: Nature (duh), Global Change Biology (wow!), Ecosphere (1st IF). The Losers: Eco Letters, Copeia (it’s going to waste away into nothing pretty soon…), Freshwater Bio.

Take a look for youself and enjoy!

Conservation and Ecology

Animal Conservation: 2.524 (2013) versus 2.692 (2012)
Biodiversity and Conservation: 2.065 (2013) versus 2.264 (2012)
Biological Conservation: 4.036 (2013) versus 3.794 (2012)
Canadian Journal of Zoology: 1.346 (2013) versus 1.498 (2012)Conservation Biology: 4.320 (2013) versus 4.355 (2012)
Conservation Genetics: 1.846 (2013) versus 2.183 (2012)
Conservation Letters: 5.032 (2013) versus 4.356 (2012)
Diversity and Distributions: 5.469 (2013) versus 6.122 (2012)
Environmental Conservation: 2.320 (2013) versus 2.341 (2012)
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment: 8.412 (2013) versus 7.615 (2012)
Global Change Biology: 8.224 (2013) versus 6.910 (2012)
Journal for Nature Conservation: 1.833 (2013) versus 1.535 (2012)
Tropical Conservation Science: 1.329 (2013) versus 1.092 (2012)
Biology Letters: 3.425 (2013) versus 3.348 (2012)
Biotropica: 2.082 (2013) versus 2.351 (2012)
Ecography: 4.207 (2013) versus 5.124 (2012)
Ecological Applications: 4.126 (2013) versus 3.815 (2012)
Ecology: 5.000 (2013) versus 5.175 (2012)
Ecology Letters: 13.042 (2013) versus 17.949 (2012)
Ecosphere: 2.595 (2013)
Journal of Animal Ecology:
4.726 (2013) versus 4.841 (2012)
Journal of Applied Ecology:
4.754 (2013) versus 4.740 (2012)
Journal of Biogeography: 4.969 (2013) versus 4.863 (2012)
Global Ecology and Biogeography:
7.242 (2013) versus 7.223 (2012)
Molecular Ecology:
5.626 (2013) versus 6.275 (2012)
Oecologia:
3.248 (2013) versus 3.011
Oikos:
3.559 (2013) versus 3.329 (2012)
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B:
6.314 (2013) versus 6.230 (2012)
Wildlife Research:
1.194 (2013) versus 1.381 (2012)
BioScience:
5.439 (2013) versus 4.739 (2012)
Current Biology:
9.916 (2013) versus 9.494 (2012)
Nature:
42.351 (2013) versus 38.597 (2012)
Proceedings of the Royal Society London B:
5.292 (2013) versus 5.683 (2012)
PLoS Biology:
11.771 (2013) versus 12.690 (2012)
PLoS One:
3.534 (2013) versus 3.730 (2012)
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA:
9.809 (2013) versus 9.737 (2012)
Science:
31.477 (2013) versus 31.027 (2012)
Trends in Ecology and Evolution:
15.353 (2013) versus 15.389 (2012)

Herpetology

Amphibian-Reptilia: 1.138 (2013) versus 0.68 (2012)
Chelonian Conservation and Biology: 0.696 (2013) versus 0.744 (2012)
Copeia: 0.211 (2013) versus 0.644 (2012)
Herpetologica: 1.067 (2013) versus 1.080 (2012)
Herpetological Conservation and Biology: 0.653 (2013) versus 0.673 (2012)
Herpetological Monographs: 1.333 (2013) versus 1.818 (2012)
Journal of Herpetology: 0.838 (2013) versus 0.893 (2012)

Ecotoxicology

Aquatic Toxicology: 3.513 (2013) versus 3.730 (2012)
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology: 1.96 (2013) versus 2.012 (2012)
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology: 1.216 (2013) versus 1.105 (2012)
Ecotoxicology: 2.5 (2013) versus 2.773 (2012)
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety: 2.482 (2013) versus 2.203 (2012)
Environmental Pollution: 3.902 (2013) versus 3.73 (2012)
Environmental Science and Pollution Research: 2.757 (2013) versus 2.618 (2012)
Environmental Science and Technology: 5.481 (2013) versus 5.257 (2012)
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: 2.826 (2013) versus 2.618 (2012)

Aquatic

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems: 1.756 (2013) versus 1.917 (2012)
Freshwater Science (JNABS): 2.706 (2013) versus 2.957 (2012)
Freshwater Biology: 2.905 (2013) versus 3.933 (2012)
Journal of Freshwater Ecology: 0.593 (2013) versus 0.394 (2012)

Diseases

Diseases of Aquatic Organisms: 1.586 (2013) versus 1.734 (2012)
Ecohealth: 2.267 (2013) versus 2.196 (2012)
Environmental Health Perspectives: 7.029 (2013) versus 7.26 (2012)
Journal of Parasitology: 1.258 (2013) versus 1.31 (2012)
Journal of Wildlife Diseases: 1.305 (2013) versus 1.271 (2012)
Plos Pathogens: 8.057 (2013) versus 8.136 (2012)

 

—–

*I understand that technically we should take into consideration the IF of a journal during the year an article was accepted, but I think that this is a rarity.

**I don’t send manuscripts to journals soley based on impact. Of course it plays a role, but there are many factors that go into deciding where to send manuscripts.

 

Advertisements

One thought on “2013 Journal Impact Factors: Conservation and Herpetology Edition

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