Slaying the hydra of journal impact factor obsession in evaluating conservation biology research

Abstract

Since last century conservation biologists, in common with researchers and practitioners in other disciplines with a strong applied focus, have complained of poor recognition by the broader academic community of authors whose important research is published in outlets with a low Journal Impact Factor (JIF) or no JIF. Ironically, low-JIF journals are often primary sources for much applied work of narrow regional or taxonomic interest essential for successful intervention on the ground. Publications in such outlets are often rated poorly in academic review, promotion, and tenure (RPT), so how can researchers be encouraged to make these important contributions and be recognised when they do? Here, we answer by documenting evidence confirming the publication priorities of high-JIF and low-JIF conservation journals, the value of some publications in low-ranked journals for conservation policy and practice, and the harms caused by focusing on JIF in RPT. Having established the validity of concerns regarding overusing JIF in evaluating conservation research and researchers, we overview strategies available to individual researchers facing JIF-focused evaluations of their work, alternative methods for RPT for consideration by relevant committees, and opportunities for collective action to achieve reform.