Impact Factor Of Scientific Journals in Life Sciences: Trends, Calculation & Alternatives

Journal metrics have become cornerstone tools for assessing research quality and influence within the life and biomedical sciences, shaping decisions that affect careers, funding, and innovation. Chief among these metrics is the Journal Impact Factor. It is a number so widely used that it often determines where researchers publish, how institutions rank output, and which studies receive attention from regulators and commercial partners. Yet, as publication practices evolve and scientific work becomes increasingly interdisciplinary, questions about the fairness, transparency, and limitations of relying solely on the impact factor come to the forefront.

This article examines the fundamentals of Journal Impact Factors, including their calculation, life science benchmarks, and their influence on research, regulatory, and commercial decision-making. It also explores criticisms, disciplinary differences, and alternative metrics.

Understanding Journal Impact Factors: Basics and Calculation

Journal Impact Factors measure the average citations of articles published in a journal and are especially influential for life sciences, but the metric has some limitations and varies widely between scientific disciplines.

Impact factors quantify a journal’s average number of citations per article over a specific period, typically two years or so. In life sciences, they are used to assess a journal’s prestige, guide where researchers submit manuscripts, and influence funding and promotion decisions. Publishing with a high-impact journal in life sciences can reward authors with greater visibility and career advancement, although this can lead to pressure to publish primarily in these venues.

Calculation Method

A step-by-step method is typically used to calculate the impact factor of a journal:

• Count the total citations in one year to articles published in the journal during the previous two years.

• Determine the total number of “citable items” (usually original research articles and reviews, but not editorials or letters) published by the journal during those two years.

• Divide the number of citations by the number of citable articles published.

Impact Factor in Year X = Citations in Year X to articles published in Years X-1 and X-2Total number of citable articles published in Years X-1 and X-2

Common Limitations and Criticisms

Journal impact factors are shaped by nuances in citation patterns across fields, editorial strategies that may boost scores, and a narrow focus on short-term citations. Relying solely on this metric can distort research priorities and undervalue work that builds its influence gradually or falls outside mainstream journal publishing. 

Furthermore, the opacity of underlying data and susceptibility to manipulation challenge the reliability and fairness of using impact factors for assessing research or researcher merit.

Variation Across Scientific Disciplines

• Impact factors vary considerably by discipline; citation activity is naturally higher in fast-moving fields like medicine and biology, and lower in fields such as mathematics, engineering, or social sciences.

• Field-specific differences relate primarily to citation behaviors, coverage of literature by indexing services, and the rate at which new research is published and cited.

• For example, the average impact factor for journals in molecular biology is usually much higher than that for journals in mathematics or history. 

Journals should be compared only within their discipline using the impact factor, and this metric should be considered alongside other indicators for a balanced assessment.

Field-Specific Trends and Benchmarks in Life Sciences

Impact factors in life sciences usually range from about 2.5 for solid specialty journals to above 8 for leading ones, while the very top titles often exceed 20. A score over 3 is considered good in most life science fields, and anything over 7 is excellent. Compared to the field average, a score of 2.5 is respectable and 7 is outstanding. 

Impact factors have steadily grown in life sciences, especially in biomedical areas, due to rapid publication of manuscripts and increasing citation rates; most journals still have scores below 3, but elite journals now regularly break past 30. However, scores can change yearly due to changes in editorial practices, the number of published articles, landmark papers, and even artificial boosts like self-citation or special issues.

Role of Impact Factors in Research, Regulatory & Commercial Decision-Making

Journal impact factors play a visible role in funding decisions, hiring, and career advancement, as high scores signal prestige and credibility. However, reliance on metrics alone can promote questionable practices and undervalue meaningful research. 

Regulatory bodies often consider journal reputation in evidence assessment for medical technologies, but encourage complementary metrics and qualitative review to ensure fairness and rigor. For commercial partners in med tech, high-impact publications can validate products and attract collaborations, though shared innovation and regulatory compliance ultimately drive success more than journal metrics alone. 

The responsible approach is to interpret the impact factor as just one indicator among many, using it alongside judgment and other qualitative and quantitative measures to avoid overemphasizing a single metric in critical decisions.

Alternative Metrics to Impact Factor for Holistic Assessment

Several alternative metrics complement or address the limitations of journal impact factors, helping research teams and decision-makers gain a more holistic view of quality and influence. 

Key Alternative Metrics

• H-index: Measures both researcher productivity and citation impact, considering the number of publications with at least “h” citations.

• Eigenfactor: Weighs citations by their source’s prestige over a five-year window, excluding self-citations, and is commonly used at the journal level. 

• CiteScore: Assesses average citations per document published in a journal over four years, allowing for a broader sampling of influence than impact factor.

• Altmetrics: Tracks social media mentions, downloads, views, and references in policy documents or blogs, offering insight into non-academic and early-stage impacts.

Alternative metrics offer advantages such as broader coverage, multi-dimensional influence, and faster feedback, especially for judging impact outside traditional academia. However, some drawbacks do exist:

• Variability between disciplines.

• Susceptibility to manipulation (especially for altmetrics).

• A lack of universal standards for interpretation. 

• H-index can be biased toward established researchers.

• Eigenfactor’s calculations may favor large journals.

Cases where Alternative Metrics Provide Enhanced Insights

• Altmetrics reveal rapid community engagement through social media, often identifying research with public or policy relevance before it accumulates academic citations.

• The h-index gives a stable measure of both output and persistent influence, which is ideal for evaluating individual researchers or teams.

• Eigenfactor and CiteScore provide broader field-adjusted views of journal prestige, which is especially useful for cross-disciplinary comparisons. 

How Can R&D Teams Combine Metrics for Balanced Evaluation?

R&D teams achieve balanced evaluation by using a portfolio of metrics, tracking citations, researcher and journal scores, patents, and qualitative inputs to manage bias and minimize “gaming” risks. Using complementary measures helps highlight innovation, technical progress, and societal impact, supporting strategic decision-making in research investment. 

It’s important to remember that no single metric gives a complete view, so combining quantitative and qualitative approaches ensures a fair and rigorous assessment.

Controversies and Criticisms: Navigating Metric Limitations

Debate continues over impact factor gaming, as some journals inflate scores through self-citations, coercive citation, and publishing review articles packed with references, raising integrity concerns within academia. The metric’s short citation window favors rapid-turnover laboratory research but often undervalues clinical, interdisciplinary, and long-term life-science studies, leading institutions to reconsider reliance on impact factor alone for funding and evaluation. 

In response, organizations and universities have joined initiatives such as the DORA Declaration and Transparency Initiative, promoting open, responsible metrics and broader recognition of diverse research outputs.

Ethical strategies for improving impact factor include expanding journal visibility, publishing accessible guidelines, commissioning topical reviews by trusted experts, and emphasizing research quality over quantity or artificial boosts.

Practical Recommendations for Researchers and Stakeholders

Researchers and stakeholders should set publication goals that align with realistic impact factor benchmarks in their field. For example, aiming for journals with moderate to high scores relative to sub-discipline averages, rather than only pursuing elite titles. Incorporating alternative metrics alongside qualitative peer assessments creates a more balanced evaluation of research quality and influence, especially for interdisciplinary work or outputs with societal impact.

Regularly monitoring metric trends can help teams to respond strategically to shifts in publication practices and evolving citation behaviours, ensuring decisions are based on the latest available data. Key resources for up-to-date impact factor and journal metric data include Journal Citation Reports (Web of Science), Scopus, Dimensions, and OpenAlex, all of which provide comparative analytics and help identify the best publishing venues.

Conclusion: Towards Informed and Balanced Use of Journal Metrics

Journal impact factors remain a widely used metric for assessing research output, but understanding their calculation, historical trends, and the growing suite of alternative indicators is vital for making informed decisions in today’s research landscape. Research quality is inherently multidimensional; no single metric can fully capture its scope, which spans scholarly impact, innovation, social relevance, and knowledge transfer. 

For life-science R&D, regulatory, and commercial settings, critical and responsible use of journal metrics, as part of a broader qualitative and quantitative assessment, supports fair evaluation, strategic planning, and successful collaboration. By embracing transparency, benchmarking realistically, and integrating diverse data sources, researchers and stakeholders can balance rigor with innovation, ensuring metrics serve as constructive tools rather than arbitrary gatekeepers. 

At Co-Labb, our PhD-educated writers are highly experienced in writing high-quality manuscripts. Contact us today to find out how our expert team can help you develop your own manuscript outline for publication.