Health and medical researchers are willing to trade their results for journal impact factors: results from a discrete choice experiment

Abstract

The research community's fixation on journal prestige is harming research quality, as some researchers focus on where to publish instead of what. We examined researchers' publication preferences using a discrete choice experiment in a cross-sectional survey of international health and medical researchers. We asked researchers to consider two hypothetical journals and decide which they would prefer. The hypothetical journals varied in their impact factor, formatting requirements, speed of peer review, helpfulness of peer review, editor's request to cut results, and whether the paper would be useful for their next promotion. These attributes were designed using focus groups and interviews with researchers, with the aim of creating a tension between personal and societal benefit. Our survey found that researchers' strongest preference was for the highest impact factor, and the second strongest for a moderate impact factor. The least important attribute was a preference for making changes in format and wording compared with cutting results. Some respondents were willing to cut results in exchange for a higher impact factor. Despite international efforts to reduce the importance of impact factor, it remains a driver of researchers' behaviour. The most prestigious journals may have the most partial evidence, as researchers are willing to trade their results for prestige.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.