Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-nwzlb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-19T05:53:03.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Practical impact?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Prakash S. Gangdev*
Affiliation:
Mood Disorders Program, Regional Mental Health Care – London, London, Ontario, Canada. Email: prakash.gangdev@sjhc.london.on.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2008 

Tyrer, in ‘From the Editor's Desk’, Reference Tyrer1 despite recognising the mundaneness of journal editors' preoccupation with impact factors, sings of the improved citation factor and high citation half-life of The British Journal of Psychiatry. While this is certainly praiseworthy and no doubt a result of the tireless efforts of Tyrer and a number of other people, it also raises the question of what the impact factor means to a clinician with a busy and well-habituated practice. The impact factor for them is an artificial statistic that may have no impact on their practice. It would be helpful to know whether there is a measure of the impact of a journal article on clinicians' practice and how journals perform on that measure. Citation statistics can be inflated by basic science or hypothesis-based or epidemiology-based articles (to name a few), and none of these may have any impact whatsoever on our day-to-day practice, whereas the much more lowly weighted case reports (remember Freud) can have a significant impact. Yet case reports may not be highly cited. If such a measure is indeed developed, the romantic song will then be even sweeter; and not at all mundane. Robert Burns would probably forgive then.

Footnotes

Edited by Kiriakos Xenitidis and Colin Campbell

References

1 Tyrer, P. From the Editor's Desk. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 191: 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.