Measuring the impact of a journal

Abstract

The Ecological Management & Restoration (EMR) journal's long journey to become listed on the Web of Science (previously referred to as ISI listing) – and thus be included in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) – has now been rewarded. In short, EMR now has an Impact Factor. In the 2016 Journal Citation Report, EMR received a score of 1.139 – which places the journal 115/153 in the Ecology category. Papers from EMR are now being cited widely. For example, the Scopus 2016 database listed 130 EMR papers that were cited in nearly 90 different SCIE journals and publications. This is not bad for a newcomer and is a clear baseline from which the journal can build.

There are several issues with the listing process that explain the long time this has taken. One of the main reasons is that a journal needs a minimum qualifying level of citations in papers published in already listed journals to get to the bottom rung of the ladder. This is hard enough for any new journal but is doubly hard for an intentionally applied science journal with a largely management-oriented readership – given that most of the journals already in SCIE are primarily directed to a research readership and may be less likely to cite applied science papers.

It is significant, then, that this Impact Factor was attained despite ESA's decision to retain the journal's current scope and format, only making very minimal concessions to improve EMR’s conformity to a science journal format. That is, EMR is, and will remain, primarily a management-oriented journal linking science and practice. But having an Impact Factor means that EMR may now be a more attractive first-choice publication outlet for researchers working in universities – while also retaining a strong representation from management authors and a strong management readership. It is this readership, after all, that is one of the reasons many established researchers send particular (applied) papers to EMR as their first-choice publication outlet.

In his interview in this issue, Andrew Bennett – who has been a dedicated executive member of the EMR board since its inception in the year 2000 – reflects on the importance of communicating science to end-users. He is not alone in his view that the motivation behind the work of many scientists working in the nature conservation area is to make the world a better place, requiring researchers to communicate their work not only to other researchers but also to managers. Bennett raises more novel ways being considered by the Australian Research Council (which funds research) to measure the degree a project engages with industry partners and others who may use the research findings. The interview is a good read also because it provides us with some insights into the author's own career, his background, his drive to consider questions at larger and larger scales and his hopes for the future of biodiversity conservation research and practice in Australia.

Bennett speaks of the importance of not only spatial scale but also temporal scale. We need longer-term efforts and longer-term research and practice. This is echoed by David Lamb's comment piece in this issue which eloquently challenges both science and practice institutions to take stronger steps to protect long-term data- or old data that can act as a baseline for building upon in the future. Linda Broadhurst and colleagues also take a big picture temporal view in their article on designing protocols for revegetation that can double as experimentation into genetic adaptation in the context of changing climates.

The remaining offerings of long and short technical and research reports in this issue epitomize the management relevance of EMR papers. Each of these grapples with measuring the effects of solution-based restoration or management. Of the longer articles, this includes Ben Carr and colleagues’ review of the use of Conservation Action Planning to improve, in particular, the management of private conservation reserves in Australia including on Indigenous lands; Peter Kyne and Pierre Feutry focus on mitigating recreational overfishing; Joseph Stapleton and colleagues focus on trialling the introduction of coarse woody debris to reduce mammalian browsing in revegetation; Chris Gillies and colleagues focus on oyster reef restoration, and Konrad Uebel and colleagues and Steve Sinclair and colleagues focus on the observations of natural recovery of vegetation communities after a range of interventions.

Indeed, it is the quality of the applied science papers that will retain and build EMR's Impact Factor, although our applied focus will always limit citations in pure research publications. We know that EMR counts in terms of end-user impact and recommend that it be continued to be considered as such by researchers and the bodies who fund them, rather than now judging EMR by its SCIE Impact Factor alone.