This question was raised by our past Co-Editor-in-Chief Prof. Rebecca Rogers in a previous editorial that addressed the 2021 International Urogynecology Journal (IUJ) impact factor [1]. And we believe that there are many and different answers for that…

By using quantitative metrics…

Scientometrics, “the study of quantitative features and characteristics of science, scientific research and scholarly communications” [2], allows us to objectively analyze the impact of publications, journals, research, researchers, universities, and institutions.

The Journal Impact Factor® (JIF) or the Impact Factor® (IF) of a journal is a scientometric index based on citation measures that helps in “ranking, evaluating, categorizing, and comparing journals” [3]. The idea that reference counting could measure impact was first developed by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in 1955 [4] to help librarians evaluate the quality of journals [5]. The term “impact factor” was only used later in 1961, when the concept was adapted for use as a facile method of selecting and indexing journals in the Science Citation Index (SCI) database. In 1975, the Journal Citation Reports® (JCR) was introduced, which published information by compiling data from the SCI and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) [4]. Thomson Scientific & Healthcare (Thomson Reuters) acquired ISI in 1992, and since 2018 the business has been handled by Clarivate Analytics. Any journal indexed by the Web of Science is assigned an IF®, which is published in the JCR on a yearly basis.

A journal impact factor reflects the publications in the previous 2 years, and it is calculated by dividing the number of citations in the current year to articles published in a journal during the previous 2 years by the total number of articles published by that journal during the previous 2 years [6]. The citation count (numerator) includes all the citations to the journal without discriminating among the types of articles. The number of items (denominator) includes only reviews, articles, and proceedings papers. The denominator does not include “editorials, minor editorial correspondence, general news items, small opinion essays, biographical items, interviews, letters, reprints, or minor non-scholarly works” [7].

Even though the various journal-level metrics are often criticized, most authors see relevance in having their paper published in a journal with a higher IF, which affords greater visibility to their papers and helps them promote their academic careers. In addition, IF is used by medical editors as a measure of the performance and a means of ranking their journals, which may help to attract quality papers. Funding agencies use IF to select researchers and institutions of higher merit [8].

The IUJ IF released in June 2021 was 1.932, which was a decrease compared to previous years. Clarivate adjusted the “cutoff” point for inclusion of content, from the issue date to the date of online first publication for content published from 2020, thereby affecting the number of citations and citable items considered in the IF 2021 calculation. With the inclusion of online publications, the total number of IUJ articles increased by 58% compared to previous years when only printed manuscripts accounted for the IF calculation.

It is the view of the new Co-EICs that efforts should be made to improve IUJ’s impact factor. This goal is shared by the Executive Board of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA). Some strategies will be adopted towards improving the quality of our publications. Quality here refers to clinical relevance and importance as well as scientific methods including adequate outcome measures.

Moreover, we might find a balance between number of manuscripts published per issue to favor the metrics, but without jeopardizing the interests of our readers and the authors, and the global representation of IUGA. IUJ will tend to be more rigorous regarding the use of reporting guidelines, prioritizing publications that contain complete data and/or follow-up, research that addresses gaps in the literature, contradictory topics, or unanswered scientific or clinical questions, and that contributes to overall medical education.

By using qualitative metrics…

Although there is a role and need for “objective” metrics, there are aspects of the “impact” of a journal that cannot be captured by statistics. The true impact of the IUJ cannot be counted.

Those metrics do not characterize the number of health professionals and students worldwide who use the IUJ for information and education. The impact of our journal is seen every time data on pelvic floor dysfunction and health care research are published that help to develop and consolidate training programs in low-income countries. Every time a woman is counseled about having a synthetic mesh or sling, or whether a birth trauma is preventable based on IUJ publications, this is a real impact. IUJ impacts health care policies every time it reports data that guide regulators and stakeholders in making decisions. The insights and advances published in IUJ have served as the basis for decision-making in national and international policies in women’s health care.

Finally, but no less importantly, scientometric indexes do not reflect the joy of having your research published in an international journal and disseminated to all parts of the globe. Objective metrics do not translate the rich collaboration among the authors, the generosity of our reviewers with their time and enthusiasm to help knowledge and science, or the rigor of our peer review process led by the hard-working editors.

Kaven and I will work to make IUJ even more impactful.