On 2014 Sep 25, William Cawthorn commented:

"impact factors remain the key measure of a journal’s prestige and, by inference, your own."

I've no doubt that impact factors are important to a journal's editors. But the idea that impact factors in any way reflect the quality or reliability of the science, or indeed the ability and creativity of an individual scientist, is very damaging.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982207015163

On 2014 Sep 25, William Cawthorn commented:

"impact factors remain the key measure of a journal’s prestige and, by inference, your own."

I've no doubt that impact factors are important to a journal's editors. But the idea that impact factors in any way reflect the quality or reliability of the science, or indeed the ability and creativity of an individual scientist, is very damaging.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982207015163