The concept of ‘impact factor’ has long being considered as a significant metric in academic publishing, particularly in the field of medical literature. Developed by Eugene Garfield in the 1960s,1 the impact factor is a measure that reflects the yearly average number of citations that articles published in a particular journal receive. Its role in shaping research, guiding journal selection for authors, and influencing the direction of funding and academic careers cannot be overstated, although it is not without its controversies and limitations.

At its core, the impact factor serves as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field.2 High-impact journals are often perceived as more prestigious, attracting a higher quality of research submissions. For medical researchers and clinicians, publishing in such journals is not just a matter of academic accomplishment; it is also a means of ensuring their work achieves maximum visibility and influence among their peers. This visibility is crucial in the medical field, where the dissemination of research findings can directly impact clinical practices and patient outcomes.

The concept of the ‘human impact factor’ in healthcare, although less quantifiable than bibliometric indices like the journal impact factor, plays a crucial role in shaping patient outcomes, healthcare delivery, and the overall effectiveness of medical interventions. Unlike traditional metrics that focus on citation counts and publication prestige, the human impact factor revolves around the qualitative aspects of healthcare, including patient-centered care, empathy, communication, and the human elements inherent in the healthcare profession. The human impact factor in underserved areas, …