This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Research Letter (5) Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Medicine (291) Digital Science, Open Science (87) Scientometrics, Infometrics, and Altmetrics (113)

Published on in Vol 14 (2025)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/70554, first published .
Impact Factor Trends of Top Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals During COVID-19

Impact Factor Trends of Top Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals During COVID-19

Impact Factor Trends of Top Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals During COVID-19

Authors of this article:

Minhazur Sarker1 Author Orcid Image ;   Emily Yang2 Author Orcid Image ;   Ukachi Emeruwa1 Author Orcid Image ;   Timothy Wen1, 3 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    1Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, 9300 Campus Point Dr, Mail Code 7433, San Diego, CA, United States

    2Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States

    3Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States

    Corresponding Author:

    Minhazur Sarker, MD


    Obstetrics and gynecology journal impact factor trends during the COVID-19 pandemic were similar to those seen among other medical specialties, and our findings further highlight the ongoing need to implement a metric of research impact that is not as easily manipulated by selective publication.

    Interact J Med Res 2025;14:e70554

    doi:10.2196/70554

    Keywords

    impact factor; COVID-19; research impact 


    The impact factor (IF), originally introduced as a metric to aid librarian purchasing decisions, has quickly become a marker for journal prestige [1]. Over the years, the concept of IFs has been highly criticized, as they are susceptible to manipulation and may be a disservice to science and their readers [1-4]. While temporal changes may provide insight into journal growth, IFs are also uniquely affected by publication trends. Studies have shown that the COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented surge of highly impactful publications increasing IFs [5-8]. Whether an IF uptrend was appreciated among obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) journals during COVID-19 and whether the changes reflect a COVID-19 “blockbuster” effect or genuine advancement in women’s health research remains unknown. We aimed to determine the IF trends of the top OBGYN journals and compare them to representative journals for other medical specialties (non-OBGYN).


    Using the SCImago Journal Rank database, we identified the top 30 broad scope women’s health journals (Multimedia Appendix 1). Non-OBGYN national societies were queried to highlight each subspecialty’s representative journal. Annual IFs were identified using a web-based searchable database, and temporal trends were assessed over three time periods: (1) prepandemic (2016‐2019), (2) COVID-19 pandemic (2019‐2021), and (3) postpandemic (2021‐2023) [9]. IF trends by individual journal and composite journal type were assessed using the National Cancer Institute’s Joinpoint Regression Program, with measures of association expressed with annual average percent changes (AAPCs) and 95% CIs [10]. The average IF percent changes between composite journal types were compared using Student t test. Institutional review board approval was not required for this study.


    IF data obtained from the top 30 OBGYN journals were compared to 19 non-OBGYN journals. From 2016 to 2023, the mean OBGYN journal IF increased from 3.4 to 4.1 (AAPC 4.1%, 95% CI 0.8%-4.1%) compared to 5.9 to 7.0 (AAPC 3.6%, 95% CI 0.4%-7.5%) for non-OBGYN journals with an average percent change of 18.8% compared to 16.3%, respectively (P=.91; Figures 1 and 2).

    ‎
    Figure 1. Impact factor trends among the top 30 OBGYN journals. The dotted black line represents the average impact factor among OBGYN journals, while the dotted gray line represents the average impact factor among non-OBGYN journals. OBGYN: obstetrics and gynecology.
    ‎
    Figure 2. Impact factor trends among 19 non-OBGYN medical specialty-specific journals. The dotted black line represents the average impact factor among OBGYN journals, while the dotted gray line represents the average IF among non-OBGYN journals. OBGYN: obstetrics and gynecology.

    In the prepandemic period, the mean OBGYN journal IF increased from 3.4 to 3.6 (AAPC 8.9%, 95% CI 4.7%-18.1%) compared to 5.9 to 6.4 (AAPC 8.8%, 95% CI 5.0%-17.8%) for non-OBGYN journals with an average percent change of 4.4% compared to 6.9%, respectively (P=.57). During the pandemic, the mean OBGYN journal IF increased from 3.6 to 5.0 (AAPC 8.9%, 95% CI –1.1% to 13.6%) compared to 6.4 to 9.0 (AAPC 8.8%, 95% CI –1.8% to 13.4%) for non-OBGYN journals with an average percent change of 42.7% compared to 47.6%, respectively (P=.63). Finally, in the postpandemic period, the mean OBGYN journal IF decreased from 5.0 to 4.1 (AAPC –7.2%, 95% CI –18.2% to 4.3%) compared to 9.0 to 7.0 (AAPC –8.3%, 95% CI –19.0% to 2.9%) for non-OBGYN journals with an average percent change of –18.3% compared to –25.7%, respectively (P=.16).


    Our findings indicated significant increases in overall IF trends from 2016 to 2023 among OBGYN journals, though not statistically different from non-OBGYN journals. When analyzing prepandemic, during the pandemic, and postpandemic periods, both OBGYN and non-OBGYN journals exhibited a similar pattern of small increases prepandemic, robust uptrends during the pandemic, then a steep but less pronounced decline post pandemic (Figures 1 and 2). Given these results, it is likely that IF uptrends were an artificial COVID-19–related “blockbuster” effect rather than genuine advancements in women’s health research.

    The COVID-19 trends shown here among OBGYN journals have similarly been seen among medicine, global health, and infectious disease journals during the pandemic [5,6,8]. On one hand, the rapid surge in publications shows how strongly we can mobilize and disseminate research early and effectively to quickly improve health outcomes. On the other hand, there was pressure among journals to publish COVID-19 literature given its highly impactful and citable nature. Beyond being used for an indication it was not intended for, the IF has now repeatedly been highly criticized by many studies yet remains the most mainstream metric to discuss journal importance or prestige.

    Our study has limitations. We are unable to comment on authors’ research funding changes or each journal’s editorial policies and shifts in publication practices during the pandemic. Additionally, our analysis was unable to adjust for journal size, scope, or publication frequency.

    Using IFs alone in their current capacity may lead to wrongly concluding genuine research advancement in OBGYN. Among the public, this misunderstanding of the IF has the potential to create further distrust of medical literature. Our study further highlights the ongoing need to implement a different metric of research impact such as a composite using the IF, the h-index, and altmetrics that are not as easily manipulated by selective publication.

    Acknowledgments

    MS’s time is supported by a National Institutes of Health T32 HD007203 grant. Funding bodies had no input in study design or interpretation. This study is not a clinical trial. This work has never been presented. Generative artificial intelligence was not used for any portion of this manuscript.

    Data Availability

    The data used for this study are publicly available as referenced in our text.

    Authors' Contributions

    Conceptualization: MS, TW

    Formal analysis: MS, TW

    Investigation: MS

    Methodology: MS, EY, UE, TW

    Writing – original draft: MS

    Writing – review and editing: MS, EY, UE, TW

    Supervision: TW

    Conflicts of Interest

    TW serves on the medical advisory board for Delfina Care, Inc and retains equity and a stipend as compensation. The work presented here is not related to his work with Delfina Care, Inc. No other disclosures have been reported by the authors.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    SCImago Journal Rank search strategy.

    DOCX File, 777 KB
    1. Jacobs K. The impact factor: the ubiquitous metric in evaluating scientific journals. Work. 2024;79(1):1-2. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Chew M, Villanueva EV, Van Der Weyden MB. Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994-2005) and their editors’ views. J R Soc Med. Mar 2007;100(3):142-150. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Falagas ME, Zouglakis GM, Papastamataki PA. Trends in the impact factor of scientific journals. Mayo Clin Proc. Oct 2006;81(10):1401-1402. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Brown H. How impact factors changed medical publishing--and science. BMJ. Mar 17, 2007;334(7593):561-564. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Delardas O, Giannos P. How COVID-19 affected the journal impact factor of high impact medical journals: bibliometric analysis. J Med Internet Res. Dec 21, 2022;24(12):e43089. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. He J, Liu X, Lu X, et al. The impact of COVID-19 on global health journals: an analysis of impact factor and publication trends. BMJ Glob Health. Apr 2023;8(4):e011514. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Uddin S, Khan A, Lu H. Impact of COVID-19 on journal impact factor. J Informetr. Nov 2023;17(4):101458. [CrossRef]
    8. Maillard A, Delory T. Blockbuster effect of COVID-19 on the impact factor of infectious disease journals. Clin Microbiol Infect. Dec 2022;28(12):1536-1538. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Bioxbio. URL: https://www.bioxbio.com/ [Accessed 2025-06-06]
    10. Joinpoint Trend Analysis Software. National Cancer Institute. URL: https://surveillance.cancer.gov/joinpoint/ [Accessed 2025-06-06]

    ‎
    AAPC: annual average percent change
    IF: impact factor
    OBGYN: obstetrics and gynecology

    Edited by Taiane de Azevedo Cardoso; submitted 24.12.24; peer-reviewed by Edem Gavor, Shahadat Uddin; final revised version received 12.05.25; accepted 14.05.25; published 17.06.25.

    Copyright

    © Minhazur Sarker, Emily Yang, Ukachi Emeruwa, Timothy Wen. Originally published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research (https://www.i-jmr.org/), 17.6.2025.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.i-jmr.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.