Abstract
Purpose
Our success as a field and as individuals in reproductive science and medicine relies on our ability to produce high quality work that has broad visibility and impact. A common metric for assessing such success is the quantity of publications that are published in journals with high impact factors. It is unclear, however, how frequently work related to reproductive science and medicine actually appears in what are considered the highest impact journals.
Methods
To address this gap in knowledge, we first determined how the field of reproductive biology in general compared to other research areas in terms of composite journal impact factor. Second, using a targeted search approach in the PubMed database, we examined the relationship between a journal’s impact factor and the number of reproductive research articles published per journal issue.
Results
We found that compared to other major scientific disciplines, our field lacks journals with impact factors above 4. In addition, primary original research articles on reproduction—irrespective of male or female search terms—do not appear often in high impact journals. Instead, there is an increased percentage of secondary reproductive literature in high impact journals compared to topic-specific journals of lower impact.
Conclusions
There are likely several explanations for why reproductive science and medicine has low visibility, including the field’s small relative size, its lack of a specific disease and associated strong advocacy, and its surrounding social, ethical, and political unease. Nevertheless, there are concrete actions we can take to minimize the role of impact factor in our evaluation while simultaneously increasing influence through global awareness of the importance and need for reproductive research.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Edwards RG. The bumpy road to human in vitro fertilization. Nat Med. 2001;7(10):1091–4. doi:10.1038/nm1001-1091.
Pincus G, Baum OS. On the interaction of oestrin and the ovary stiumulating principles of extracts of the urine of pregnancy. Am J Physiol. 1932;102:241–8.
Pincus G, Chang MC. The effects of progesterone and related compounds on ovulation and early development in the rabbit. Acta Physiol Latinoam. 1953;3:117–83.
Pincus G, Chang MC, Hafez ES, Zarrow MX, Merrill A. Effects of certain 19-nor steroids on reproductive processes in animals. Science. 1956;124:890–1.
Chang MC, Hafez ES, Merrill A, Pincus G, Zarrow MX. Studies of the biological activity of certain 19-nor steroids in female animals. Endocrinology. 1956;59(6):695–707.
Pincus G. Some effects of progesterone and related compounds upon reproduction and early development in mammals. Acta Endocrinol Suppl (Copenh). 1956;23 Suppl 28:18–36.
Ingle DJ. Gregory Goodwin Pincus, April 9, 1903–August 22, 1967. Biogr Mem Natl Acad Sci. 1971;42:229–70.
Rock J, Menkin MF. In vitro fertilization and cleavage of human ovarian eggs. Science. 1944;100(2588):105–7. doi:10.1126/science.100.2588.105.
Edwards RG. The experimental induction of gynogenesis in the mouse. I. Irradiation of the sperm by x-rays. Proc R Soc Lond B Containing Papers Biol Character R Soc. 1957;146(925):469–87.
Donini P, Puzzuoli D, Montezemolo R. Purification of gonadotrophin from human menopausal urine. Acta Endocrinol (Copenh). 1964;45:321–8.
Edwards RG. Maturation in vitro of human ovarian oocytes. Lancet. 1965;2(7419):926–9.
Edwards RG. Maturation in vitro of mouse, sheep, cow, pig, rhesus monkey and human ovarian oocytes. Nature. 1965;208(5008):349–51.
Edwards RG, Steptoe PC, Purdy JM. Establishing full-term human pregnancies using cleaving embryos grown in vitro. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1980;87(9):737–56.
Vogel G, Enserink M. Nobel prizes. Honor for test tube baby pioneer. Science. 2010;330(6001):158–9. doi:10.1126/science.330.6001.158.
Fisher SJ, Giudice LC. Retrospective. Robert G. Edwards (1925–2013). Science. 2013;340(6134):825.
Smith R. Commentary: the power of the unrelenting impact factor–is it a force for good or harm? Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35(5):1129–30. doi:10.1093/ije/dyl191.
Garfield E. Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science. 1955;122(3159):108–11.
Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science. 1972;178(4060):471–9.
Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006;295(1):90–3. doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90.
Misteli T. Eliminating the impact of the impact factor. J Cell Biol. 2013;201(5):651–2. doi:10.1083/jcb.201304162.
Walker RL, Sykes L, Hemmelgarn BR, Quan H. Authors’ opinions on publication in relation to annual performance assessment. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:21. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-10-21.
Franzoni C, Scellato G, Stephan P. Science policy. Changing incentives to publish. Science. 2011;333(6043):702–3. doi:10.1126/science.1197286.
Gleicher N. Strategies to improve insurance coverage for infertility services. Fertil Steril. 1998;70(6):1006–8.
Hammoud AO, Gibson M, Stanford J, White G, Carrell DT, Peterson M. In vitro fertilization availability and utilization in the United States: a study of demographic, social, and economic factors. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(5):1630–5. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.10.038.
Jain T, Harlow BL, Hornstein MD. Insurance coverage and outcomes of in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(9):661–6. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa013491.
Campo-Engelstein L. For the sake of consistency and fairness: why insurance companies should cover fertility preservation treatment for iatrogenic infertility. Cancer Treat Res. 2010;156:381–8. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_29.
Brouillet M, Turner L. Bioethics, religion, and democratic deliberation: policy formation and embryonic stem cell research. HEC Forum Interdisc J Hosp Ethical Leg Issues. 2005;17(1):49–63.
Dolin G, Roberts DE, Rodriguez LM, Woodruff TK. Medical hope, legal pitfalls: potential legal issues in the emerging field of oncofertility. Cancer Treat Res. 2010;156:111–34. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_9.
Kastenberg ZJ, Odorico JS. Alternative sources of pluripotency: science, ethics, and stem cells. Transplant Rev. 2008;22(3):215–22. doi:10.1016/j.trre.2008.04.002.
Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S. Oncofertility: ethical, legal, social, and medical perspectives. Preface. Cancer Treat Res. 2010;156:v–vii.
Zoloth L, Backhus L, Woodruff T. Waiting to be born: the ethical implications of the generation of “NUBorn” and “NUAge” mice from pre-pubertal ovarian tissue. Am J Bioeth. 2008;8(6):21–9. doi:10.1080/15265160802248203.
Yoshimura Y. Bioethical aspects of regenerative and reproductive medicine. Hum Cell. 2006;19(2):83–6. doi:10.1111/j.1749-0774.2006.00009.x.
Shanner L, Nisker J. Bioethics for clinicians: 26. Assisted reproductive technologies. Can Med Assoc J. 2001;164(11):1589–94.
Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, Tingen C, Woodruff T. Practical parthenote policy and the practice of science. Am J Bioeth. 2011;11(3):W1–2. doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.563162.
Rodriguez S, Campo-Engelstein L, Tingen C, Woodruff T. An obscure rider obstructing science: the conflation of parthenotes with embryos in the Dickey-Wicker amendment. Am J Bioeth. 2011;11(3):20–8. doi:10.1080/15265161.2010.546472.
Tingen C, Rodriguez S, Campo-Engelstein L, Woodruff TK. Research funding. Politics and parthenotes. Science. 2010;330(6003):453. doi:10.1126/science.1196881.
Schutte HK, Svec JG. Reaction of Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica on the current trend of impact factor measures. Folia Phoniatr Logop Off Organ Int Assoc Logopedics Phoniatrics. 2007;59(6):281–5. doi:10.1159/000108334.
Opatrny T. Playing the system to give low-impact journal more clout. Nature. 2008;455(7210):167. doi:10.1038/455167b.
Fersht A. The most influential journals: impact factor and Eigenfactor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(17):6883–4. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903307106.
Rizkallah J, Sin DD. Integrative approach to quality assessment of medical journals using impact factor, eigenfactor, and article influence scores. PloS One. 2010;5(4):e10204. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010204.
Albert KM. Open access: implications for scholarly publishing and medical libraries. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94(3):253–62.
Roberts RG, Alfred J. Collection overview: ten years of wonderful open access science. PLoS Biol. 2013;11(10):e1001688. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001688.
Bjork BC, Solomon D. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Med. 2012;10:73. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-73.
Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342(6154):60–5. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60.
Pion GM, McClure ME, Fazleabas AT. Outcomes of an intensive summer course in reproductive biology. Biol Reprod. 2006;74(2):230–5. doi:10.1095/biolreprod.105.045427.
Faurot M, Woodruff TK. The oncofertility saturday academy: a paradigm to expand the educational opportunities and ambitions of high school girls. Cancer Treat Res. 2010;156:321–44. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_25.
Smeyers C, Wallach H, Woodruff TK. Repropedia: a reproductive lexicon to fill the gap in reproductive terminology. Biol Reprod. 2012;87(4):98. doi:10.1095/biolreprod.112.104000.
Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007;316(5827):1036–9. doi:10.1126/science.1136099.
Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science. 2013;342(6157):468–72. doi:10.1126/science.1240474.
Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science. 2008;322(5905):1259–62. doi:10.1126/science.1158357.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Sarah Rodriguez, Dr. Lisa Campo-Englestein, and Rosemary Hines for insightful discussions. We also acknowledge Dr. Kate Timmerman, Dr. Tracey Woodruff, Marj Plumb, Jason Harless, Dr. Mario Ascoli, and Megan Castle for providing updated statistics for their respective programs. This work was supported by Award Number U54HD076188 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of the National Institutes of Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Capsule Reproductive research is underrepresented in high impact journals.
Francesca E. Duncan and Benjamin Derman contributed equally to this manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Duncan, F.E., Derman, B. & Woodruff, T.K. A small field for fertile science: the low visibility of reproductive science in high impact journals. J Assist Reprod Genet 31, 511–520 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0205-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0205-4