Sir
Am I the only person to have been struck by the apparent contradiction between the space you give on the one hand to those critical of the impact of impact factors — for example Peter Lawrence's excellent Commentary piece “The politics of publication” (Nature 422, 259–261; 2003) and the subsequent correspondence (Nature 423, 479–480 & 585; 200310.1038/423479a) — and on the other hand your advertising department's decision to fill two whole pages with a striking example of what Adrian Tuck in Correspondence (Nature 424, 14; 200310.1038/424014a) rightly calls “bragging”: the news of Nature's 30.432 (note the three decimal places!) impact factor for 2002?
Perhaps Nature should speak with a single editorial voice; otherwise some of your readers might begin to regard your coverage of impact factors with a slight degree of cynicism.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Impact factors are but one measure of a journal's performance. We are proud of our achievements on this measure. The debate, which we have long encouraged, is about how impact factors are used — Editor, Nature.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cobb, M. Impact factors: letting everyone have their say. Nature 424, 487 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/424487b
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/424487b
