The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor.

This article presents information about journals specializing in the forensic sciences and legal medicine, their development and distribution and their current status as reflected in the journal impact factor. The first scientific journal devoted to spreading information and reporting new developments in social and legal medicine seemingly originated in Germany about 150 years ago. The official journal of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFS) was founded in 1956 and has enjoyed 50 years of scholarly publishing. The two leading European journals specializing in forensics are Forensic Science International (FSI) and International Journal of Legal Medicine (IJLM). Besides the size of the circulation, the readership numbers, the quality of the editorial staff and the peer-reviewers, the number of submitted and accepted manuscripts, considerable interest has focused on the journal's impact factor as a measure of prestige. The 2006 impact factor of a certain journal is derived by counting the number of citations in 2006 to all material published in the journal in the previous 2 years (2004 and 2005) and dividing this total by the number of citable items (articles and reviews) published in the same 2 years. Impact factors for several thousand scientific journals are compiled and published by a company called Thomson Institute for Scientific Information (Thomson ISI) and are available on-line via the database Journal Citation Reports. Forensic journals are grouped within the subject category Medicine, Legal, which currently comprises nine journals a few of which are seemingly unrelated to mainstream forensics. The top-ranked forensic journal in terms of its impact factor was IJLM with a score of just over 2.0 in 2004. This means that the average article published in 2003 and 2002 was cited twice per year in the 2-year window after publication. Impact factors of forensic journals are fairly low in comparison with many other disciplines, probably because of the small size of the field, fewer active researchers and less pressure to publish. The relatively low impact factors of forensic journals should be less of a concern than ensuring that manuscripts receive a rigorous and preferably an open peer-review prior to acceptance for publication. The information, conclusions and opinions published in forensic science journals might one day be proffered as evidence in criminal or civil litigation.

[1]  P. Lawrence The politics of publication , 2003, Nature.

[2]  P. Seglen,et al.  Education and debate , 1999, The Ethics of Public Health.

[3]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Journal impact measures in bibliometric research , 2004, Scientometrics.

[4]  A. Jones,et al.  Mode of classification of source material as citable items skews journal impact factor calculations , 2005, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation.

[5]  Alan Wayne Jones,et al.  Crème de la crème in forensic science and legal medicine , 2004, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[6]  Ray Wu,et al.  Making an impact , 2004, Nature.

[7]  P. Rochon,et al.  Haunted Manuscripts: Ghost Authorship in the Medical Literature , 2005, Accountability in research.

[8]  Faith McLellan,et al.  Ethical issues in biomedical publication , 2000 .

[9]  D. Rennie,et al.  Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. , 1998, JAMA.

[10]  M. Deahl Smoke, mirrors, and Gulf War illness , 2005, The Lancet.

[11]  G. Lundberg,et al.  The “omnipotent” Science Citation Index Impact Factor , 2003, The Medical journal of Australia.

[12]  E. Garfield Fortnightly Review: How can impact factors be improved? , 1996 .

[13]  R. Coleman,et al.  Impact factors: Use and abuse in biomedical research , 1999, The Anatomical record.

[14]  Rex Dalton,et al.  Peers under pressure , 2001, Nature.

[15]  G D Lundberg,et al.  The order of authorship: who's on first? , 1990, JAMA.

[16]  Richard Smith Unscientific practice flourishes in science , 1998, BMJ.

[17]  R. Horton A fair reward , 1998, The Lancet.

[18]  M. Angell,et al.  Publish or perish: a proposal. , 1986, Annals of internal medicine.

[19]  Rigor of peer review and the standing of a journal. , 2002, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[20]  D. Chubin,et al.  Peerless Science: Peer Review and U. S. Science Policy , 1990 .

[21]  S. Ph Piecing Together Alzheimer's , 2000 .

[22]  B. Culliton Scientific “experts” and the law , 1997, Nature Medicine.

[23]  Peter Bacchetti,et al.  Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  Richard Saferstein,et al.  Criminalistics: An introduction to forensic science , 1977 .

[25]  E. Garfield The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. , 2006, JAMA.

[26]  David Adam,et al.  Citation analysis: The counting house , 2002, Nature.

[27]  Martin Frank,et al.  Impact factors: arbiter of excellence? , 2002, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[28]  T. Jefferson,et al.  Peer Review in Health Sciences , 1999 .

[29]  E. Garfield Use of Journal Citation Reports and Journal Performance Indicators in measuring short and long term journal impact. , 2000, Croatian medical journal.

[30]  Peter R. De Forest,et al.  Forensic Science: An Introduction to Criminalistics , 1983 .

[31]  Unmasking ghost writers , 2001, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[32]  M. Hojat,et al.  Impartial Judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process , 2003, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[33]  K S Joseph,et al.  CMAJ's impact factor: room for recalculation. , 1999, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[34]  A. Jones Some thoughts and reflections on authorship. , 1996, Alcohol and alcoholism.

[35]  R. Disney Fraudulent forensic scientists , 2002 .

[36]  D. Rennie,et al.  Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. , 1994, JAMA.

[37]  S. Sereika,et al.  Multiple authorship: issues and recommendations. , 1997, Journal of professional nursing : official journal of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing.

[38]  D. Rennie,et al.  The contributions of authors. , 2000, JAMA.

[39]  D. Altman,et al.  Statistical reviewing for medical journals. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[40]  F. Davidoff Masking, Blinding, and Peer Review: The Blind Leading the Blinded , 1998, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[41]  S. Bloch,et al.  Counting on citations: a flawed way to measure quality , 2003, The Medical journal of Australia.

[42]  G Williams,et al.  Misleading, unscientific, and unjust: the United Kingdom's research assessment exercise , 1998, BMJ.

[43]  J T King,et al.  How many neurosurgeons does it take to write a research article? Authorship proliferation in neurosurgical research. , 2000, Neurosurgery.

[44]  Jeffrey M. Perkel The future of citation analysis , 2005 .

[45]  A. Relman Responsibilities of authorship: where does the buck stop? , 1984, The New England journal of medicine.

[46]  A. Jones The impact of forensic science journals , 1993 .

[47]  C. Mulrow,et al.  Peer Review: Integral to Science and Indispensable to Annals , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[48]  D. Rennie,et al.  When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. , 1997, JAMA.

[49]  Charles Jennings,et al.  Citation Data: The Wrong Impact? * * Reprinted with permission from Nature Neuroscience, 1, December, 1998, 641-643. , 2001, Cortex.

[50]  Theodore Goldfarb Scientific misconduct - Bell Labs fires star physicist found guilty of forging data , 2002 .

[51]  D. Futuyma,et al.  Science On Trial , 1982 .

[52]  T. Opthof,et al.  Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. , 1997, Cardiovascular research.

[53]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Improving the accuracy of Institute for Scientific Information's journal impact factors , 1995 .

[54]  C. Wennerås,et al.  Nepotism and sexism in peer-review , 1997, Nature.

[55]  S. Tomlinson,et al.  The research assessment exercise and medical research , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[56]  A. Jones,et al.  Impact factors of forensic science and toxicology journals: what do the numbers really mean? , 2003, Forensic science international.

[57]  A. Jones CITATION TRENDS AND PRACTICES IN THE JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES AS DOCUMENTED BY ISI'S JOURNAL CITATION REPORT , 1998 .

[58]  O. Drummer,et al.  Forensic science in the dock , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[59]  D. Kronick Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. , 1990, JAMA.

[60]  G Walter,et al.  The Impact Factor: Time for Change , 2001, The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry.

[61]  Jim Giles Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process , 2006, Nature.

[62]  M. Zwarenstein Peer review of statistics in medical research , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[63]  Caroline White,et al.  Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[64]  E. Garfield Journal impact factor: a brief review. , 1999, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[65]  P. Cowen,et al.  Do authors know who refereed their paper? A questionnaire survey , 1996, BMJ.

[66]  R. Dalton Misconduct: The stars who fell to Earth , 2002, Nature.

[67]  A A Sandberg,et al.  The journal "impact factor": a misnamed, misleading, misused measure. , 1998, Cancer genetics and cytogenetics.

[68]  E. Garfield Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. , 1972, Science.

[69]  Andrew P Kurmis,et al.  Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor. , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[70]  J Hoey,et al.  Who wrote this paper anyway?The new Vancouver Group statement refines the definition of authorship. , 2000, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[71]  J P Kassirer,et al.  On authorship and acknowledgments. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[72]  R Smith,et al.  Opening up BMJ peer review , 1999, BMJ.

[73]  E. Garfield When to Cite , 1996, The Library Quarterly.

[74]  Where do our reviewers come from? , 2000, Cardiovascular research.

[75]  Robert D. Simoni,et al.  The Most Highly Cited Paper in Publishing History: Protein Determination by Oliver H. Lowry , 2005 .

[76]  S. Conley,et al.  "Who's on First?" , 1989 .

[77]  H. H. Kaufman,et al.  The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done? , 2001, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[78]  Richard Horton,et al.  21st-century biomedical journals: failures and futures , 2003, The Lancet.

[79]  Richard Smith,et al.  Four futures for scientific and medical publishing , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[80]  M J Campbell,et al.  Use of check lists in assessing the statistical content of medical studies. , 1986, British medical journal.

[81]  Kenneth R. Foster,et al.  Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts , 1997 .

[82]  E. Hey Suspected child abuse: the potential for justice to miscarry , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[83]  D. Rennie,et al.  Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators. , 1998, JAMA.

[84]  Stuart S Kind,et al.  The scientific investigation of crime , 1987 .

[85]  A W Jones,et al.  Which articles and which topics in the forensic sciences are most highly cited? , 2005, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[86]  E. Snyder,et al.  Beyond fraud--stem-cell research continues. , 2006, New England Journal of Medicine.

[87]  Fytton Rowland,et al.  The peer‐review process , 2002, Learn. Publ..

[88]  B. Madea,et al.  Textbooks on legal medicine in the German-speaking countries. , 2004, Forensic science international.

[89]  C. Lee Giles,et al.  Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing , 2004, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[90]  Smith,et al.  The Expert Witness , 1992 .

[91]  Mildred K. Cho,et al.  Lessons of the Stem Cell Scandal , 2006, Science.

[92]  Raed N. Fahmy,et al.  The Order of Authorship , 1991 .

[93]  P. Seglen,et al.  Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. , 1998, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[94]  W. Wayt Gibbs,et al.  Lost Science in the Third World , 1995 .

[95]  J. Brady Journal referees: Gatekeepers of science , 1985, Biological Psychiatry.

[96]  R. Chambers,et al.  The A to Z of authorship: analysis of influence of initial letter of surname on order of authorship , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[97]  E. Marris Doctor admits Lancet study is fiction , 2006, Nature.

[98]  P. Seglen,et al.  Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality , 1997, Allergy.

[99]  Marti Frank Access to the scientific literature--a difficult balance. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[100]  E. Garfield Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. 1955. , 1955, International journal of epidemiology.

[101]  P. S. Tamber,et al.  Open access to peer-reviewed research: making it happen , 2003, The Lancet.