Researchers aim not just to publish their findings, but to do so in journals with a significant reputation. This emphasis on high ‘impact factors’ often stems from their desire for career advancement, neglecting the essential role that smaller journals can play in scientific progress.
A recent study titled “Role of low-impact-factor journals in conservation implementation,” published on October 17 in Conservation Biology, challenges some common beliefs about the significance of a journal’s audience and impact factor.
Authored by Jonathan J. Choi, a doctoral candidate, along with other researchers from Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, this paper contrasts higher-visibility scientific journals with those that are less well-known, assessing their impact on conservation. The focus was primarily on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and highlighted the valuable contributions of smaller, specialized scientific journals.
The research revealed that journals which concentrate on specific regions or organisms, such as ferns, clams, or coral reefs, tend to contribute more frequently to federal government citations regarding endangered species protection compared to larger, more recognized publications.
“The Endangered Species Act is one of the most powerful tools available in U.S. policy,” Choi noted. “An endangered species can halt large construction projects and disrupt entire industries, which creates significant political challenges. Therefore, in the 1970s, Congress mandated that agencies utilize the ‘best available science’ when deciding to protect a species. My inquiry was about the origins of that science and how it aligned with academic values.”
Typically, the influence of scientific journals is evaluated by their “impact factor” (IF), a measure reflecting how often articles are cited by subsequent research within the first two years post-publication. Initially designed as a guide for librarians to identify widely read journals, it has evolved into a barometer for gauging the impact of the research themselves.
In this study, Choi and his team redefined ‘impact’ by looking at citation frequency of journals in connection with government listings of species requiring protection. They analyzed the listing decisions during the second term of the Obama Administration (2012-2016), a period during which 260 species were added to the ESA list, the highest number in recent history.
The researchers discovered 13,000 references used to support species being designated as endangered, with over 4,000 references drawn from academic publications. By measuring citation frequency akin to how academic impact factors are calculated, they evaluated each journal’s contribution to federal conservation efforts.
Surprisingly, they found that a significant number of articles cited in ESA listings originated from ‘low impact-factor’ or ‘no impact-factor’ journals. For instance, scholarly work published in the American Fern Journal and Ichthyology & Herpetology was referenced more often than that from high-profile journals like Nature or Science.
Larger publications often provide groundbreaking science that introduces new theories, but smaller journals offer detailed, focused insights. A naturalist exploring an old-growth forest and gathering fern samples is in a better position to notice minor changes in species and habitats and can have their findings shared in a specialized journal eager to publish in-depth articles on specific species.
Co-author Brian R. Silliman, the Rachel Carson Distinguished Professor of Marine Conservation Biology at the Nicholas School, emphasized the essential contributions of smaller journals, particularly as they often face financial challenges compared to for-profit counterparts. Given that these smaller journals are more likely to influence conservation organizations like the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Silliman urged academic departments to broaden their evaluation metrics for significant contributions to include not only impact factors but also how often a paper is cited by professionals applying their research.
“If emerging researchers prioritize only high-impact journals, what valuable research might be overlooked?” questions Choi. “What crucial conservation inquiries are we missing? While the work published in journals like Nature and Science remains impactful and innovative, it’s important to recognize that smaller journals have not always received proper acknowledgment for their contributions to conservation science. This valuable work deserves recognition within the academic community.”
In addition to Choi and Silliman, the team included Patrick N. Halpin, Professor of Marine Geospatial Ecology at Duke, along with Duke graduates Leo Gaskins, Joseph Morton, Julia Bingham, Ashley Blawas, Christine Hayes, and Carmen Hoyt.
This study received support from the Nicholas School of the Environment and a graduate research fellowship sponsored by the Rob & Bessie Welder Wildlife Foundation.
