Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nature, Science, and PNAS: disciplinary profiles and impact

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nature, Science, and PNAS are the three most prestigious general-science journals, and Nature and Science are among the most influential journals overall, based on the journal Impact Factor (IF). In this paper we perform automatic classification of ~ 50,000 articles in these journals (published in the period 2005–2015) into 14 broad areas, to explore disciplinary profiles of these journals and to determine their field-specific IFs. We find that in all three journals the articles from Bioscience, Astronomy, and Geosciences are over-represented, with other areas being under-represented, some of them severely. Discipline-specific IFs in these journals vary greatly, for example, between 18 and 46 for Nature. We find that the areas that have the highest disciplinary IFs are not the ones that contribute the most articles. We also find that publishing articles in these three journals brings the prestige for articles in all areas, but at different levels, the least being for Astronomy. Comparing field-specific IFs of Nature, Science and PNAS to other top journals in six largest areas (Bioscience, Medicine, Geosciences, Physics, Astronomy, and Chemistry) these three journals are always among the top seven journals, with Nature being at the very top for all fields except in Medicine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerson, L. G., & Chapman, K. (2003). Identifying the role of multidisciplinary journals in scientific research. College & Research Libraries,64(6), 468–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, É., & Larivière, V. (2009). History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences. Scientometrics,79(3), 635–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Rankings of Information and Library Science journals by JIF and by h-type indices. Journal of Informetrics,4(2), 141–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2012). Journal report card. Scientometrics,92(2), 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Werner, M., Gasparyan, A. Y., & Kitas, G. D. (2012). Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics. Rheumatology International,32(7), 1861–1867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calcagno, V., Demoinet, E., Gollner, K., Guidi, L., Ruths, D., & de Mazancourt, C. (2012). Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science,338(6110), 1065–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csiszar, A. (2018). The scientific journal: Authorship and the politics of knowledge in the nineteenth century. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Rijcke, S., Wouters, P., Rushforth, A., Franssen, T., & Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—A literature review. Research Evaluation,25(2), 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, J., Ahlgren, P., Yang, L., & Yue, T. (2018). Disciplinary structures in Nature, Science and PNAS: Journal and country levels. Scientometrics,116(3), 1817–1852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DORA. (2012). San Francisco declaration of research assessment. Retrieved November 21, 2019 from http://www.ascb.org/files/SFDeclarationFINAL.pdf.

  • Fang, H. (2015). Classifying research articles in multidisciplinary science journals into subject categories. Knowledge Organization,42(3), 139–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortunato, S., Bergstrom, C. T., Börner, K., Evans, J. A., Helbing, D., Milojević, S., et al. (2018). Science of science. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science,178, 471–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA,295(1), 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics,56(3), 357–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., & Czerwon, H. J. (1999a). An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in multidisciplinary and general journals using reference analysis. Scientometrics,44(3), 427–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., Schoepflin, U., & Czerwon, H. J. (1999b). An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in journals covered by the SSCI database using reference analysis. Scientometrics,46(3), 431–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, M. D. (1984). How authors select journals: A test of the reward maximization model of submission behavior. Social Studies of Science,14, 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, S. (2012). Multidimensional journal evaluation: Analyzing scientific periodicals beyond the impact factor. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. M., & Katz, J. S. (1996). Where is science going? Science, Technology and Human Values,21(4), 379–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. (2006). Concentration of the most-cited papers in the scientific literature: Analysis of journal ecosystems. PLoS ONE,1(1), e5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Javitz, H., Grimes, T., Hill, D., Rapoport, A., Bell, R., Fecso, R., & Lehming, R. (2010). U.S. Academic Scientific Publishing. Working paper SRS 11-201. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics.

  • Johns, A. (1998). The nature of the book: Print and knowledge in the making. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kaneiwa, K., Adachi, J., Aoki, M., Masuda, T., Midorikawa, A., Tanimura, A., et al. (1988). A comparison between the journals Nature and Science. Scientometrics,13(3–4), 125–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1995). The classification of interdisciplinary journals: A new approach. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the fifth international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics, Rosary College, River Forest, IL.

  • Larivière, V., Kiermer, V., MacCallum, C., McNutt, M., Patterson, M., Pulverer, B., et al. (2016). A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions. Biorxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/062109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Illescas, C., Noyons, E. C., Visser, M. S., De Moya-Anegón, F., & Moed, H. F. (2009). Expansion of scientific journal categories using reference analysis: How can it be done and does it make a difference? Scientometrics,79(3), 473–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, A. J. (1998). Communicating research. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milojević, S., Radicchi, F., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017). Citation success index—An intuitive pair-wise journal comparison metric. Journal of Informetrics,11(1), 223–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milojević, S. (2020). Practical method to reclassify Web of Science articles into unique subject categories and broad disciplines. Quantitative Science Studies. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., & Van Leeuwen, T. N. (1996). Impact factors can mislead. Nature, 381(6579), 186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, C. L. (1996). Information work at the boundaries of science: Linking library services to research practices. Library Trends,45(2), 165–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. de Solla. (1961). Science since Babylon. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  • Price, D. J. de Solla. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Price, D. J. de Solla. (1974). Society’s needs in scientific and technical information. Ciência da Informação,3(2), 97–103.

  • Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. PNAS,105, 17268–17272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz, J. R. (1971). Scientific knowledge and its social problems. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reedijk, J., & Moed, H. F. (2008). Is the impact of journal impact factors decreasing? Journal of Documentation,64(2), 183–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R. (2002). Journal evaluation: Technical and practical issues. Library Trends,50(3), 418–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, S., & Rousseau, R. (2012). Interactions between journal attributes and authors’ willingness to wait for editorial decisions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(6), 1213–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushforth, A., & De Rijcke, S. (2015). Accounting for impact? The Journal Impact Factor and the making of biomedical research in the Netherlands. Minerva,53(2), 117–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,43(9), 628–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ: British Medical Journal,314(7079), 498–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekara, V., Deville, P., Ahnert, S. E., Barabási, A. L., Sinatra, R., & Lehmann, S. (2018). The chaperone effect in scientific publishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,115(50), 12603–12607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stringer, M., Sales-Pardo, M., & Amaral, L. A. (2008). Effectiveness of journal ranking schemes as a tool for locating information. PLoS ONE,3(2), e1683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2012). Journal impact evaluation: A webometric perspective. Scientometrics,92(2), 429–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verma, I. M. (2015). Impact, not impact factor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS),112(26), 7875–7876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2012). A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(12), 2378–2392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (1969). Information, communication, knowledge. Nature,224, 318–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva,9(1), 66–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work uses Web of Science data by Clarivate Analytics provided by the Indiana University Network Science Institute and the Cyberinfrastructure for Network Science Center at Indiana University. This material is based upon work supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under award number FA9550-19-1-0391. I dedicate this paper to the memory of my dear friend and colleague Judit Bar-Ilan. I think she would have been interested in this topic and I wish we had an opportunity to work on it together.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research, The Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA

    Staša Milojević

Authors
  1. Staša Milojević
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Staša Milojević.

Additional information

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Judit Bar-Ilan (1958–2019), an outstanding scholar and an inimitable friend and colleague.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Milojević, S. Nature, Science, and PNAS: disciplinary profiles and impact. Scientometrics 123, 1301–1315 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03441-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03441-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation