There has been a lot of focus on impact factors for journals, and there are some interesting issues with how publishers can try to game the system. I wonder, however, if it would be useful to publish some alternative rankings of journals based on other criteria.
Specifically, I’d love to see a ranking of journals based on the usability of their papers for biocuration. Do they have strong editorial practices to get authors to include
- Accessions to data deposition
- Metadata for topic classification
- Use of nonstandard nomenclature
Of course, this is a rating I would only take credit for if I never wanted to publish in journals that might come out low in the rankings. In my fantasy world, a virtuous cycle would cause the journals with biocurator-friendly practices to rise in impact factor.