When the Royal Society launched Open Biology in 2011, the goal was ambitious: create a fast, open-access journal focused on molecular and cellular biology.
Over the next decade, the journal’s impact factor trajectory became a fascinating case study in modern scientific publishing. It rose quickly, peaked dramatically during the pandemic era, and then fell back to a more modest level.
The story is not just about one journal—it reflects structural forces reshaping the entire biology publishing ecosystem.
The Impact Factor Trajectory
Below is the approximate trajectory of the journal’s impact factor.
| Year | Impact Factor |
|---|---|
| 2012 | 3.63 |
| 2013 | 4.56 |
| 2014 | 5.78 |
| 2015 | 4.82 |
| 2016 | 3.48 |
| 2017 | 3.29 |
| 2018 | 3.89 |
| 2019 | 4.93 |
| 2020 | 6.41 |
| 2021 | 7.12 (peak) |
| 2022 | 5.8 |
| 2023 | 4.5 |
| 2024 | 3.6 |
The journal peaked in 2021 with an impact factor above 7, before falling to about 3.6 in 2024.
Understanding this curve requires looking at the journal’s life cycle and the broader publishing environment.
Phase 1: Early Growth (2012–2014)
The first years showed rapid growth.
The impact factor rose from 3.6 to nearly 5.8 in just two years.
This is common for new journals because:
-
Early papers often receive disproportionate attention.
-
Editors commission high-profile articles to establish reputation.
-
Open-access availability increases visibility.
At this stage, Open Biology appeared poised to become a major open-access biology journal.
Phase 2: Stabilization (2015–2018)
The next phase saw a decline and stabilization around 3–4.
Typical impact factors during this period:
-
2016 → ~3.5
-
2017 → ~3.3
-
2018 → ~3.9
This reflects what bibliometricians call post-launch normalization.
Once the novelty effect disappears, journals often settle into their long-term citation equilibrium.
Phase 3: The Pandemic Spike (2019–2021)
The journal then experienced its largest surge ever.
Impact factor rose:
-
2019 → 4.9
-
2020 → 6.4
-
2021 → 7.1
Several forces likely contributed.
1. Pandemic-era citation inflation
Biomedical research output and citation rates surged during 2020–2021.
Many journals saw temporary impact-factor inflation during this period.
2. Highly cited review articles
Review papers accumulate citations far faster than research articles.
A few highly cited reviews can significantly influence the metric because impact factor only counts citations within a two-year window.
3. Editorial strategy
Some journals increase the number of commissioned reviews or perspectives, which tend to generate large citation counts.
Phase 4: The Post-Pandemic Decline (2022–2024)
After 2021, the impact factor fell sharply:
-
2022 → 5.8
-
2023 → 4.5
-
2024 → 3.6
This drop looks dramatic, but it is actually a return to the journal’s long-term baseline.
Two main forces drove the decline:
-
Highly cited papers aged out of the two-year citation window
-
Citation rates across biology normalized after the pandemic
In other words, the spike was temporary.
A Comparison With Other Biology Journals
The pattern seen in Open Biology is not unique. Many biology journals experienced similar spikes around 2020–2021.
Below are a few examples.
BMC Biology
BMC Biology
| Year | Impact Factor |
|---|---|
| 2019 | 6.8 |
| 2020 | 7.4 |
| 2021 | 7.36 |
| 2022 | 5.4 |
| 2024 | 4.5 |
Even a strong flagship open-access journal like BMC Biology saw its impact factor drop significantly after the pandemic spike.
Biology Direct
Biology Direct
| Year | Impact Factor |
|---|---|
| 2019 | 2.2 |
| 2021 | 7.17 |
| 2023 | 5.7 |
| 2024 | 4.9 |
Here the spike is even more dramatic: the journal tripled its impact factor before returning closer to baseline.
Biological Research
Biological Research
| Year | Impact Factor |
|---|---|
| 2019 | 3.1 |
| 2021 | 7.63 |
| 2022 | 6.7 |
| 2024 | 4.6 |
Again, we see a clear pandemic-era citation spike followed by decline.
What These Comparisons Reveal
Across multiple biology journals, the pattern is remarkably similar:
normal IF level
↓
pandemic citation surge
↓
temporary peak
↓
return to baseline
This suggests the spike was not unique to Open Biology but part of a system-wide bibliometric event.
The Deeper Issue: Impact Factor Volatility
The story illustrates a fundamental property of the impact factor.
The metric is sensitive to:
-
a two-year citation window
-
skewed citation distributions
-
a small number of highly cited papers
Bibliometric studies show that citation distributions are highly unequal, meaning a minority of papers generate most citations.
This makes journal metrics inherently volatile.
The Real Position of Open Biology
Looking at the entire history rather than the peak, a clear pattern emerges.
The journal’s true long-term impact factor range appears to be about 3–4.
That places it as a solid mid-tier molecular and cell biology journal, comparable to many society journals.
Its temporary peak around 2021 should be viewed as an exceptional moment rather than a permanent shift in influence.
The Bigger Lesson for Scientists
The trajectory of Open Biology reveals something important about modern academic publishing:
Journal metrics can fluctuate dramatically even when scientific quality remains stable.
Impact factors are influenced by:
-
editorial policy
-
review articles
-
citation culture
-
global research trends
In other words, they measure citation dynamics as much as scientific impact.
✅ In the end, the story of Open Biology is not about decline—it is about normalization.
After a decade of growth and a pandemic-era spike, the journal has simply returned to the citation level typical of a well-established society journal.
No comments:
Post a Comment