“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” Charles Goodhart
As academic radiologists, others define us by how we communicate. Our dictated reports and our conversations with referring physicians (and increasingly our patients) define us as clinicians. Our lectures and workstation teaching define us as educators, and our scientific presentations and scholarly writing define us as researchers. If we cannot communicate, we cannot succeed.
However, in a world increasingly infatuated with objective scores and rankings, just how do we meaningfully measure the quality of that communication? Scholarly metrics are used to decide who gets promoted and who just stagnates. They can make or break academic careers, and in this new world of value-based payments, clinical metrics can make or break paychecks. With the stakes so high, it is imperative that our efforts focus on measuring not just what can be measured, but that which should be measured—the things that really matter.
Our scientific journals struggle with similar metric challenges. No author sets out to write a paper for a low-ranked journal. Most investigators initially shoot high and, if rejected, shimmy their way down the journal ladder—one whose rungs are largely defined by the almighty impact factor . First described by Garfield some 60 years ago, the impact factor is a measure of the frequency with which a journal’s average article is cited by others . Although other algorithmic measures of journal influence exist—ones less subject to rapid fluctuations and manipulation—the impact factor is the best known, and the one on which most of us focus . In the same way that academics publish or perish, scientific journals’ submissions can rise or fall based on impact factors.
In the current issue of Academic Radiology , Rosenkrantz and Ayoola leverage that tried and true journal metric to assess radiology’s changing scientific literature landscape. In a world in which “today’s research is tomorrow’s turf,” the authors news for the profession is quite good. Between 2003 and 2014, the number of indexed radiology journals increased each year by 4.6% (83 to 125), comparing favorably to the 4.2% annual growth rate for biomedical journals overall (5907 to 8718). And although the median impact factor of radiology journals grew more slowly than that for biomedical journals overall (+2.1% vs. +4.2%), radiology’s median journal impact factor remains higher (1.75 vs. 1.46). In fact, biomedical journals overall now score right about where radiology journals stood over a decade ago. If the impact factor is a prognosticator of our specialty’s future clinical influence, then we should all take a few moments to celebrate.
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
References
1. Garfield E.: The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 2006; 295: pp. 90-93.
2. Choudhri A.F., Siddiqui A., Khan N.R., et. al.: Understanding bibliometric parameters and analysis. Radiographics 2015; 35: pp. 736-746.
3. Rosenkrantz A.B., Ayoola A: The impact factor of radiological journals: associations with journal content and other characteristics over a recent 12-year period. Acad Radiol 2016; 23: pp. 661-668.
4. Dunnick N.R.: Proceedings of the Meeting of the Radiology Research Alliance. Acad Radiol 2001; 8: pp. 1026-1030.
5. Fuchs V.R., Sox H.C.: Physicians’ views of the relative importance of thirty medical innovations. Health Aff 2001; 20: pp. 30-42.
6. Borgstede J.P.: 2007 ACR presidential oration: four foundations for our future. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4: pp. 875-878.
7. Trueger N.S., Thoma B., Hsu C.H., et. al.: The altmetric score: a new measure for article-level dissemination and impact. Ann Emerg Med 2015; 66: pp. 549-553.