Academic anesthesiologists' views on the importance of the impact factor of scientific journals: a North American and European survey

Purpose: To investigate the views of North American and European anesthesio logists on the value of the impact factor (IF). Method: Four hundred thirty-eight anesthesiologists in Canada, the United S tates of America (USA), and Europe were polled about the importance of the IF regarding hiring, promotions, funding of research and to express their p ersonal views. Results: IF of a candidate's publications is a criterion in 38% of academic appointments in Canada and USA vs 81% in Europe (P < 0.0001). The importan ce of IF to obtain funding is greater in Europe (46%) than in North America (17%) (P < 0.0001). Twenty-three percent and 50% of Canadian and American anesthesiologists respectively believe that IF affects financial support (P = 0.0389). European anesthesiologists value the IF more than the North Ame ricans (67% vs 31%, P < 0.0001). Forty-five percent, 67%, and 56% of the Ca nadian, American and European anesthesiologists respectively estimate that IF reflects journal quality. Sixty-four percent of anesthesiologists in Nor th America vs 81% in Europe (P = 0.0175) pursue to publish in high IF journ als. Eighty-six percent, 85% and 90% of the Canadian, American and European anesthesiologists believe that the IF of a journal can be manipulated. Fin ally, 79%, 67%, and 81% of the Canadian, American, and European anesthesiol ogists believe that IF should be improved but 33%, 35%, and 30% believe tha t it should be abandoned. Conclusions: IF for academic appointments and funding is more important in Europe than in North America. More than 50% of anesthesiologists agree that IF needs to be improved.