Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A small field for fertile science: the low visibility of reproductive science in high impact journals

  • Opinion
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Edwards RG. The bumpy road to human in vitro fertilization. Nat Med. 2001;7(10):1091–4. doi:10.1038/nm1001-1091.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ingle DJ. Gregory Goodwin Pincus, April 9, 1903–August 22, 1967. Biogr Mem Natl Acad Sci. 1971;42:229–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Donini P, Puzzuoli D, Montezemolo R. Purification of gonadotrophin from human menopausal urine. Acta Endocrinol (Copenh). 1964;45:321–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Edwards RG. Maturation in vitro of human ovarian oocytes. Lancet. 1965;2(7419):926–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Edwards RG. Maturation in vitro of mouse, sheep, cow, pig, rhesus monkey and human ovarian oocytes. Nature. 1965;208(5008):349–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fisher SJ, Giudice LC. Retrospective. Robert G. Edwards (1925–2013). Science. 2013;340(6134):825.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Garfield E. Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science. 1955;122(3159):108–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science. 1972;178(4060):471–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006;295(1):90–3. doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Misteli T. Eliminating the impact of the impact factor. J Cell Biol. 2013;201(5):651–2. doi:10.1083/jcb.201304162.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Franzoni C, Scellato G, Stephan P. Science policy. Changing incentives to publish. Science. 2011;333(6043):702–3. doi:10.1126/science.1197286.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gleicher N. Strategies to improve insurance coverage for infertility services. Fertil Steril. 1998;70(6):1006–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S. Oncofertility: ethical, legal, social, and medical perspectives. Preface. Cancer Treat Res. 2010;156:v–vii.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Shanner L, Nisker J. Bioethics for clinicians: 26. Assisted reproductive technologies. Can Med Assoc J. 2001;164(11):1589–94.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tingen C, Rodriguez S, Campo-Engelstein L, Woodruff TK. Research funding. Politics and parthenotes. Science. 2010;330(6003):453. doi:10.1126/science.1196881.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Opatrny T. Playing the system to give low-impact journal more clout. Nature. 2008;455(7210):167. doi:10.1038/455167b.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Albert KM. Open access: implications for scholarly publishing and medical libraries. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94(3):253–62.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342(6154):60–5. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science. 2013;342(6157):468–72. doi:10.1126/science.1240474.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior Street, Lurie 10-250, Chicago, IL, USA

    Francesca E. Duncan, Benjamin Derman & Teresa K. Woodruff

Authors
  1. Francesca E. Duncan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Derman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Teresa K. Woodruff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teresa K. Woodruff.

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0205-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation