Is the Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research falsifying its impact factor?
Keith S. Taber
Impact factors give an indication of journal quality. However, some predatory journals will make false claims (i.e., lie) about their impact factors to attract submissions.
Read about Journal impact factors
I was therefore suspicious when a biomedical journal approached me to submit my work for a 'reputed journal' that had a decent Impact Factor, despite wanting me to publish on a field I do not do research in.
I did a quick informal calculation of what would seem a feasible impact factor, and came up with a figure that suggested the journal's claimed impact factor was completely implausible. It seemed the journal was lying. (I even found an impact factor published by a less selective organisation than that used by most prestigious journals which was much closer to my own estimate.)
Of course, I could be mistaken. So, I sent the following response to clinical@scientificpublisher.net (the source of the invitation to submit) the same day I received their invitation (19th May). I did not immediately get a reply, so I sent the message again to clinical@biomedres.us (an email address given in the footer of the invitation) two days later (21st May).
As of yet (30th May), I have had no reply – probably because the Journal staff know their claimed impact factor is fabricated. They suggested in their invitation that 'The best way to predict the future is to invent it'. I assume they took their own advice, but doubt this will help them get a genuine impact factor.
Dear Angela
Thank you for your invitation to contribute to the 'Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research'.
I understand this journal was only established about 5 years ago, so I was very impressed to see that it already has an Impact factor of 1.229 – that seems a real achievement in such a short time. Your website suggests the journal has already published over 5000 articles, so having an impact factor of over 1.2 implies the journal's articles have already been cited over 6000 times in citation ranking outputs! I was so surprised to read this, that I went to check on Google Scholar, which is a very liberal listing of citations (it includes all kinds of things like student dissertations and webpages which are not included in the formal calculation of impact factors).
Yet, as far as I can see, Google scholar seems to list less than 200 citations of articles in 'Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research'. If that is not just my incompetence in using the search engine, that would likely suggest that the number of citations appearing in outputs included in the indices for calculating Impact Factors is many fewer than 100 – which would mean an Impact Factor over the life of the journal of certainly no more than about 0.02?
I would be grateful for your clarification. Have there really been 6000+ citations of articles in 'Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research' in journals which qualify for indexing when calculating citation indices? If not, is the journal's impact factor just one of these 'dodgy' numbers that some predatory journals quote but which have been generated by some dubious algorithm or act of necromancy, and which has no real connection with the authentic Impact Factors quoted by reputable journals?
The academic community has an accepted understanding of what genuine Impact Factors are claiming, and I cannot see any details on your site (perhaps I have missed this?) to suggest that your journal uses a different methodology to the academic norm, so it would be dishonest if the journal looked to deceive those you invite to be authors (such as myself) by pretending to have an Impact Factor that could not be substantiated and which has been heavily inflated. I am sure you would appreciate that authors are unlikely to be enticed to submit to a journal if they feel from initial contact that they are being misled by a journal that cannot be trusted to adhere to academic norms.
Perhaps I am not using Google Scholar correctly, and you can point me to the evidence for your impressive Impact Factor. I look forward to your response.
It may well be that 'The best way to predict the future is to invent it' but I hope this does not include the Impact Factor you cite.
Best wishes
Keith
On 19/05/2022 12:42, Clinical Trials & Results wrote:
Dear Dr. Keith S Taber,
The best way to predict the future is to invent it. So, lets make this year as a year of finding and fulfillment.
On behalf of Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research (ISSN: 2574-1241) with an Impact factor: 1.229, we take the great opportunity in inviting you to submit your manuscript for new issue release i.e., Volume 43 Issue 5 by 03rd of June.
We would be delighted if you would take part in this issue with your significant article being published in our reputed journal.
We look forward to hearing a positive response from your end.
Angela Roy
Biomedical Journal (BJSTR)
clinical@biomedres.us
Address: One Westbrook Corporate Center, Suite 300, Westchester, IL 60154, USA
Ph. No: +1 (502) 904-2126
Note:
By far the most common practice in journal publishing is to have one volume per year – so typically all issues published in 2021 would comprise one volume. In 2021 Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research published volumes 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and part of volume 40.
