, Volume 86, Issue 1, pp 93–97 | Cite as

The effect of a two-stage publication process on the Journal Impact Factor: a case study on the interactive open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

  • Lutz Bornmann
  • Christoph Neuhaus
  • Hans-Dieter Daniel


Taking the interactive open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics as an example, this study examines whether Thomson Reuters, for the Journal Citation Reports, correctly calculates the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) of a journal that publishes several versions of a manuscript within a two-stage publication process. The results of this study show that the JIF of the journal is not overestimated through the two-stage publication process.


Journal Impact Factor Open access Peer review 



The research project is investigating quality assurance of interactive open access journals and is supported by a grant from the Max Planck Society (Munich, Germany). We thank Marie E. McVeigh, Senior Manager JCR and Bibliographic Policy at Thomson Reuters, for her comments on a previous version of our paper.


  1. Amin, M., & Mabe, M. A. (2003). Impact factors: Use and abuse. Medicina-Buenos Aires, 63(4), 347–354.Google Scholar
  2. Archambault, É., & Larivière, V. (2009). History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences. Scientometrics, 79(3), 635–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., & Marx, W. (2007). Citation environment of Angewandte Chemie. CHIMIA, 61(3), 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, T., & Glänzel, W. (1995). The sweet and sour of journal citation rates. On a source of error in computing impact factors. The Chemical Intelligencer, 31–32.Google Scholar
  5. Garfield, E. (1976). Significant journals of science. Nature, 264(5587), 609–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Koop, T., & Pöschl, U. (2006). Systems: an open, two-stage peer-review journal. The editors of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics explain their journal’s approach. Retrieved 26 June 2006, from
  8. Kumar, V., Upadhyay, S., & Medhi, B. (2009). Impact of the impact factor in biomedical research: Its use and misuse. Singapore Medical Journal, 50(8), 752–755.Google Scholar
  9. Kurtz, M., & Brody, T. (2006). The impact loss to authors and readers. In N. Jacobs (Ed.), Open access: Key strategic, technical and economic aspects (pp. 45–54). Oxford: Chandos Publication.Google Scholar
  10. Magri, M.-H., & Solari, A. (1996). The SCI Journal Citation Reports: A potential tool for studying journals? Scientometrics, 35(1), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marx, W. (2001). Angewandte Chemie in light of the “Science Citation Index”. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 40(1), 139–143.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. McVeigh, M. E. (2010). Journal Impact Factor (JIF) of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).Google Scholar
  13. Moed, H. F., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Reedijk, J. (1996). A critical analysis of the journal impact factors of Angewandte Chemie and the Journal of the American Chemical Society—inaccuracies in published impact factors based on overall citations only. Scientometrics, 37(1), 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pendlebury, D. A. (2009). The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57(1), 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s00005-009-0008-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pöschl, U. (2004). Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance. Learned Publishing, 17(2), 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Retzer, V., & Jurasinski, G. (2009). Towards objectivity in research evaluation using bibliometric indicators: A protocol for incorporating complexity. Basic and Applied Ecology, 10(5), 393–400. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2008.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Todd, P. A. (2009). Ambiguity, bias, and compromise: An abc of bibliometric-based performance indicators Introduction. Environment and Planning A, 41(4), 765–771. doi: 10.1068/a424.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lutz Bornmann
    • 1
  • Christoph Neuhaus
    • 1
  • Hans-Dieter Daniel
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.University of Zurich, Evaluation OfficeZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations