Proteomics journals by impact factor
I must be preparing some publications because I keep looking up the stupid impact factors of proteomics journals. To save both of us time, I just wrote a bunch of them down. I didn't check to see which system is used, because we all know that every journal is going to use the metric that favors them the most. This list is very incomplete and I can't verify all of the sources, but it could be a useful starting point. (These numbers do shift, and I can't guarantee these are current)
Molecular and Cellular Proteomics: 7.4
Journal of Proteome Research: 5.1
Journal of Proteomics (Elsevier) 4.8
Proteomics (Wiley): 4.5
Expert Reviews Proteomics: 3.7
Proteins and Proteomics: 2.9
Proteome Science: 2.3
Journal of Proteomics and Bioinformatics: 2.1
Journal of Data Mining in Proteomics and genomics: 2.1
Open Proteomics: 2.0?
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics: 1.0
If anyone has more information they'd like to contribute, please let me know! I know there are more journals out there (particularly internationally!) and I'd love to have a more comprehensive list.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
It is great that you put this list which people can use as a guide for proteomics literature.
I would recommend that you add Analytical chemistry. Although not dedicated exclusively to proteomics, the journal publishes quite a lot of proteomic method development and data.
In addition, Molecular systems biology occasionally publishes the results of large scale proteomic studies which are also state of the art.
Analytical Chemistry has a 2013 IF of 5.8ReplyDelete
journal of proteomics and bioinformatics has IF of 2.56ReplyDelete
OMICS Publishing Group (which publishes journal of proteomics and bioinformatics) is a publisher of open access journals that is widely regarded as ***predatory***.Delete
The obsession with IF is killing science! NO journal needs to be more or less read in the electronic age. MCP is one of the slowest journals on the block, so if you are a grad student or a postdoc who needs to get the work out, think carefully about the journal you target. The differences in IF of all of these is so small as to be insignificant. I'd almost like Ben to redact this article, or at least, provide references to the growing concern over obsession with IF.ReplyDelete
I think just about everybody would agree with you. Impact factors are silly and sloppy shortcuts. But I don't know what metrics we would use instead. I got to work on a faculty search committee once. There were 5 of us on the committee, I think, and we were probably as diverse in background as 5 biologists could be. It would have been best if we could have really understood the technical expertise of the candidates from thorough analysis of their backgrounds. Unfortunately, the time and technical expertise wasn't there to do that. So...inevitably, the amount of work and the impact factors of that work played a part. Just a part, but there is some validity in this system.Delete
----- Random thought. What is going to be VERY interesting is the distribution of trends in impact factors in the future, particularly in regards to Open Access journals. I've been tinkering on a review on the weekends for a few months. Through my employer I have access to virtually every journal, but I have to request each article separately from our library system. My references for this review are made up predominantly of Open Access papers. I imagine we're going to see a continued trend that direction as well, particularly from smaller institutions and from researchers in countries with less abundant funding. Sorry, that was random. I've got lots of coffee and 0.5m of snow outside.
Elsevier also a new journal called EUPA, http://www.journals.elsevier.com/eupa-open-proteomics/
Elsevier are the 'poster child' for bad behaviour in academic publishing, and they are profiteering hugely from public and charitable funds.ReplyDelete
Has anyone heard about Open Journal of Proteomics and Genomics? Is it a predatory journal?ReplyDelete