Comment ▼ Making an impact im . pact \’im-pakt\ n 2: the force of impression or operation of one thing on another: EFFECT suppose that the classic story about making an impact is Frank Capra’s 1946 movie It’s a Wonderful Life, in which Clarence the Angel shows George Bailey what life in Bedford Falls would have been like without him. Like George Bailey, we all would like to believe that we are making a difference, whether it is in our personal or professional lives. But publishers (and academics) have taken the idea to a whole new level, trying to quantify the impact of everybody’s research on everyone else. We do this, among other means, by counting citations and publishing impact factors. Journal impact factors are essentially the average number of citations of each article per year, but it is based on a window of only the first two years after publication. If you haven’t already done so, you can discover the citations of your own articles, your neighbors’ articles, and even your enemy’s articles simply by going online to http://isiknowledge.com. The Institute for Scientific Information, Inc., tracks individual article usage by author, subject, and journal. At ACS, we have the means to recover those data and much more. In 2002, there was no doubt which article in ES&T had the most impact: Dana W. Kolpin, Edward T. Furlong, Michael T. Meyer, E. Michael Thurman, Steven D. Zaugg, Larry B. Barber, and Herbert T. Buxton, “Pharmaceuticals, Hormones and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999–2000: A National Reconnaissance” (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 1202–1211). Kolpin et al. describe the results of a two-year reconnaissance campaign by the U.S. Geological Survey to measure pharmaceuticals and other emerging contaminants in streams and rivers. There had been earlier surveys in Europe, but this was the first comprehensive survey in the United States, and people were extremely interested. Undoubtedly, it will be a highly cited article (it is already), and it will cause more researchers to investigate waters and wastewaters for such chemicals. Whether it will result in changes in medicine, agriculture, and chemical usage is not clear. Nonetheless, it is truly a remarkable article. It may prove to be the most cited paper in the history of ES&T. In the first two weeks following publication (Web release date: March 13, 2002), the article had more than 4000 downloads from ES&T ’s website and was reported by
I
© 2003 American Chemical Society
media throughout the world. During the three months from July to September 2002, it still “had legs”, with 728 downloads. In addition, it spawned several Comments and Response to Comments in ES&T, all with considerable public interest. This represents the success for which journals, publishers, and scientists all strive. Now, I recognize the many limitations to a quantitative approach regarding citations and impact factors. There is always the possibility of being widely cited and completely wrong (e.g., the 20th-century Russian biologist T. D. Lysenko). Sometimes, feature articles, literature reviews, or newsworthy items are the most frequently cited, regardless of whether they really change the “paradigm” of our science/engineering. Thomas Kuhn, in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, makes the point that there are really very few structural changes in science, that is, discoveries that shake the foundation of the discipline and blaze a new trail. Most of us are content to just plug along and add incremental details to the laws and principles previously discovered. Don’t despair. John Muir, noted naturalist and founder of the Sierra Club, said it best: “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it is hitched to everything else in the universe.” This applies to keystone species, George Bailey, and environmental scientists—everyone plays an important role. Still, we must concede that some people make a difference more than others. Increasingly, fame and fortune come to those who are judged to be making an impact. We can quibble about the details and motivations, but clearly this is fascinating stuff. Citations may or may not indicate that a real difference has been made or a paradigm shifted. Only time will tell. But in the meantime, I will report to you about our most highly cited articles and ES&T’s impact. At the April Editorial Advisory Board meeting, I will ask the board members and our associate editors how we can bring more attention to your highimpact articles, perhaps by featuring ES&T “Stories of the Year”, the “High Impact Paper of the Year”, and/or “Breakthrough Environmental Achievement of the Year Awards”. You make the impact, and we will help to make it known.
Jerald L. Schnoor
[email protected] MARCH 1, 2003 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 79 A
